The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued notices to the interior minister, the Attorney General of Pakistan, and other parties in the missing persons case and sought reports from all relevant institutions.
In October 2023, former senator and senior lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan filed a constitutional petition in the SC to “challenge the illegal and unlawful practice of enforced disappearances”.
A month later, the SC returned the petition for being an “individual grievance” and “not raising any question of public importance”.
In January, the SC directed the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances to submit a “comprehensive report” on missing persons, along with the details of all production orders issued.
A six-member Constitutional Bench headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the case on Tuesday. Advocates Latif Khosa and Faisal Siddiqui appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Ahsan.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that the issue should be resolved by calling a general or joint session of parliament.
“The court has recognised parliament as supreme, parliament should prove itself to be supreme,” he said. “In my opinion, the missing persons issue is an extremely important one.”
He continued: “Missing persons cases are being heard in the high courts and SC, people’s lives are at stake, thousands are missing, [and] senior senators like Latif Khosa and Aitzaz Ahsan are standing here. Parliament needs to find a solution to this.”
Deputy Attorney General Javed Iqbal Younis informed the court that the missing persons case was discussed in the cabinet a day before.
“The cabinet has formed a sub-committee, which will present its recommendations to the cabinet. The government wants to finally solve the missing persons issue,” he said.
Justice Mandokhel remarked that the issue of missing persons would not be solved through rhetoric alone.
Meanwhile, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned how many recoveries the Enforced Disappearances Commission had made till now. On the other hand, Justice Hassan Rizvi inquired if the commission had information on who enforceably disappeared the people.
“The missing people who have returned, what have they said? Who picked them up and took them away?” Justice Rizvi inquired.
To this, Justice Mandokhel remarked: “Missing persons who return don’t say
anything, they say that they went for a vacation to the northern areas.”
Advocate Khosa commented that the country had become a deep state, upon which Justice Mandokhel stopped him from speaking and told him to refrain from speaking about politics in court.
“Call a general or joint session of parliament to solve this issue.”
Advocate Khosa then asked whether the missing persons issue should be resolved like the 26th Constitutional Amendment, to which Justice Mandokhel replied that the 26th Amendment would be seen in due course.
Khosa said that most of the missing persons cases were from Balochistan, to which Justice Mandokhel replied that the people and court were looking towards parliamentarians to resolve the issue.
Upon this, Ahsan chimed in to say that parliament “does not have judicial powers.”
Justice Musarrat Hilali then addressed Advocate Khosa and inquired whether PTI workers had enforceably disappeared, which he affirmed. She asked whether they disclosed who picked them up, to which Khosa replied that their children would also be taken away.
Advocate Siddiqui noted that people’s loved ones have been missing for 10, to 20 years. “At the previous hearing, the court gave an order related to missing persons, today the bench cannot find that order.”
“The missing persons order has also gone missing,” Justice Rizvi quipped.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan narrated an incident in which 25 lawyers appeared in a case of missing persons in Balochistan. Missing persons returned home on the orders of the Balochistan High Court, which also ordered the returned individuals to appear in court.
“After returning, those people never appeared in any judicial forum to record their statement. One of the purposes of recording their statement was that if the army is involved, then [General Headquarters] should be written to for a court martial.
“If other institutions are involved, then action should be ordered against those involved. If any case of missing persons is to be made an example, then someone from among the returned individuals should have the courage to stand up.
“Some missing persons cases also ruin and defame missing persons and the state,” Justice Afghan said, adding that a war of independence is being done in the name of missing persons. “No one in the system is ready to stand up.”
Here, Advocate Siddiqui said that after the attorney general’s assurances, 350 people went missing. “The state is obeying previous official court orders.”
Petitioner Ahsan chimed in to say that the attorney general had given assurances that no citizen would be enforceably disappeared.
“We want to move towards a solution in the missing persons case,” Justice Khan said.
Justice Mandokhel then said: “The solution to the missing persons issue is that stakeholders sit together and consider why the issue of missing persons arises.
“The court considers parliament supreme, parliament should also consider the same.”
Ahsan said that those who have returned should be called to court, which Justice Khan agreed to.
The court adjourned the missing persons case to next week.
