The Islamabad High Court (IHC) noted that the changed stance of the government in Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was surprising as it was quite contrary to its previous positions taken before this court in this case. As per details, a single bench of IHC of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan heard the constitutional petition filed by Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui.
Advocate Imran Shafique and Muhammad Zahid, advocates for the petitioner appeared before the court. Petitioner Dr. Fowzia Siddiqui appeared in person via video link. Clive A. Stafford Smith also appeared via video link. Zainab Janjua, Amicus Barrister Munawwar Iqbal Duggal, Additional Attorney General, Yasir Arfat Abbasi, AAG Fayyaz ul Haq, Joint Secretary and Humail Koreja, Section Officer, Ministry of Interior Maryam Aftab, Additional Secretary (America) MoFA Muhammad Hamza, Assistant Director-US, MoFA Asad Barki, Legal Advisor, MoFA also appeared before the court.
The court in its order said: CM no.607/2025 prays to bring on record Mr. Smith’s declaration dated 20.02.2025 is allowed. The declaration is brought on record. This declaration was filed when the reply to the previous declarations had not been received by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith has; therefore, followed up with another declaration, also dated the 20th of February, which is also brought on record. MoFA is directed to file its replies to these two declarations taking them together. In the declaration, Mr. Smith has requested for his associates Maria Kari and Tania Siddiqui to be allowed rights of audience before this Court online and has also filed the requisite forms. The request is allowed. They may participate in all the hearings going forward.
The court order reads: The Federation has filed its replies in relation to the first declaration dated 20th February, wherein they have taken certain positions that are quite contradictory to those taken before this Court in several hearings and recorded in the various orders passed by this Court pertaining to the filing of the amicus briefs.
The stance taken by the learned Additional Attorney General of a flat refusal is extremely shocking for this Court, for it appears this stance was taken without much application of mind and legal acumen to the question as to how the amicus briefs with reservations in relation to certain paragraphs of the motion, with the rest of the motion being supported including the final outcome prayed for therein, prejudices the Federation. No answer comes forth in this regard.
The Government is reminded again that the motion is being filed for the petitioner before the US Court and will go ahead with or without the Government’s support. I wonder if the Government wishes to go down in history as withdrawing its support for the motion altogether and whether it is prepared to face the public embarrassment on this score. The submissions at the bar do not appear to show that these aspects have been considered properly by the Federation, for it must be known, and it cannot but have been known by them, that Dr. Aafia Movement has now acquired global traction wherein each step of the Government and other actors in her release is being watched by millions of people all around the world.
The court order said: Again the Court is quite surprised why the common practice of partial disagreement with some factual aspects of the pleadings while supporting the uncontested parts and the final prayer could not have been followed by the Government in this case instead of a flat refusal, for their flat refusal would not prevent the so-called “objectionable material” being placed before the US Court anyway. All that would result from the rather irrational intransigence of the Federation will be seen around the world as the Government walking away from the strenuous efforts for the release of Dr. Aafia.
The learned Additional Attorney General seeks time to obtain further instructions in this matter and others raised in the declarations. The hearing of the case was adjourned to 28.02.2025.
