Dr Aafia Siddiqui Case: IHC questions US prisoner transfer
Listen to article
Islamabad High Court (IHC) has raised concerns over the transfer of detainees to the United States without a formal prisoner exchange agreement, as it heard a plea seeking the repatriation of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui.
During the hearing, the federal government submitted an application requesting the immediate disposal of the plea for Siddiqui's release. The court issued a notice on the government's application and sought a response.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan questioned why Pakistan had handed over Daesh commander Sharifullah to the US despite having no formal prisoner exchange treaty.
Addressing the Additional Attorney General (AAG), he remarked, "You claim there is no agreement, yet a detainee was handed over without one."
The court also referred to the Dr. Shakil Afridi case, stating that the government had been given an opportunity for in-camera proceedings regarding his possible transfer to the US, but its response had been unsatisfactory.
Justice Khan further observed that the government seemed eager to dispose of Aafia Siddiqui's case, adding that such actions would be noticed internationally.
"The prime minister wrote a letter, visas were issued—everything that could be done has been done. Does this mean the government wants to wash its hands of the case?" he asked.
The hearing was attended by petitioner's lawyer Imran Shafiq Advocate, AAG Munawar Iqbal Duggal, Dr. Fouzia Siddiqui, and US attorney Clive Stafford Smith, who appeared via video link.
The court adjourned the hearing until next Friday while issuing a notice on the government's application.
How did Dr. Aafia Siddiqui end up in Texas?
Dr. Aafia Siddiqui's case began in 2003 after the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Al-Qaeda's 9/11 mastermind. Siddiqui, reportedly married to KSM's nephew, disappeared with her children in Karachi, later earning the title 'Lady Al-Qaeda' due to alleged links with Al-Qaeda.
In 2008, she was arrested in Afghanistan, allegedly carrying sodium cyanide and plans for attacks on US targets. During interrogation, Siddiqui reportedly wrestled hold of a US soldier's rifle and attempted to shoot US agents, shouting 'Death to America.' She was wounded in the process and later showed signs of severe mistreatment.
Siddiqui's son was released in Afghanistan, while her other two children's whereabouts remain unknown. In 2010, she was convicted of attempted murder in the US and sentenced to 86 years, though she was never charged with direct ties to terrorism.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
World Order — exceptionalism, aggression, brazen hypocrisy
The writer heads the independent Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad. He is currently a visiting Research Fellow at Fudan University, Shanghai Listen to article Israel's ongoing reaction to the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, and the current ungrounded aggression against Iran only reinforced a bitter reality of the world today — the post-9/11 order rests on brazen aggression and high-handedness of the mighty ones who have arrogated to themselves the right to define conflict, self-defense, evil, terrorism and victimhood. The world order today knows no values, no morality. Nor any consideration for national or international law. Notions such as rule of law and democracy have meanwhile been reduced to fiction. We still hear a lot of western pontification on extremism and terrorism but it's pretty ironic that they don't apply the same yardstick to Israeli actions against women and children in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. On the contrary, all leaders defended this as "Israel's right to self-defence". Donald Trump — as it turns out — simply lied when he vowed to "end wars" and uttered his contempt for the deep state. He had vowed to reform the justice department which he described as "department of injustice" immediately after his reelection. Bit by bit, the G-7 nations have scornfully pulled down the very values they championed for decades by inventing a self-serving exceptionalism in their own favour (read in Israel's favour). Today, they condemn attacks on Israel as criminal but hail the killing of nearly 60,000 Palestinians as self-defence. All G-7 leaders dub Iran as the source of instability but are literally blind to — in fact complicit with - the Israeli actions of first killing Palestinians and now recklessly bombarding Iran to neutralise their nuclear weapons, although a US report, according to CNN, says Iran is far away from making a nuclear bomb. But all that seems just an excuse for crippling Iran and brining about a regime change. On the sidelines of the recent G-7 summit in Alberta, Canada, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz spelt out this backhanded approach by the Israel apologists - a virtual endorsement of Israeli actions to date. "This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us — this mullah regime [in Iran] has brought death and destruction to the world," Merz said in an interview with the ZDF broadcaster. In a separate interview with Welt TV, Merz also suggested Israel's attacks on Iran could lead to the demise of the Islamic republic's leadership. "To be honest, I can hardly imagine the mullah regime returning to its old functions," he added, in a glaring display of hypocrisy born off cold-blooded geopolitics. The G-7 essentially endorsed the Israel position on Iran. This way they themselves undercut the very themes they touted for decades as the West's unique selling point (USP) i.e. democracy, rule of law and human rights with the United Nations watching on as a silent, literally irrelevant spectator. Its predecessor — the League of Nations — had ceased to exist on April 20, 1946, largely due to its inability to prevent major global conflicts, particularly World War II. Will the United Nations meet the same fate and drown in irrelevance? For all practical reasons, the UN has been reduced to a debating club of the elite that thrives off the funding from member countries. Israel today is doing what Rudolf Hitler did first against neighbouring European countries and then against Russia. Hitler's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 triggered reaction from America, Russia, Britain and France, with the last two mentioned countries declaring war on Germany on September 3, and so began the World War II. Will the murder of nearly 60,000 Palestinians and hundreds of Iranians as well as the potential Chinese and Russian reaction lead to the undoing of the United Nations that has been irrelevant at least since October 2023? Blind exceptionalism — basically another synonym for hypocrisy — is causing a major shift in global politics. Battle lines have further deepened with willful demonisation of Iran and its major supporters thus far i.e. China and Russia. This exceptionalism is stinkingly obnoxious, evident also from a recent article in The Wall Street Journal. "The US, Israel and India blundered by allowing Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons. Repeating the blunder with Iran would be far worse," says an oped by Sadanand Dhume in the Journal's June 18, 2025 issue. Once again, this extremely self-serving argument — as if it were the benevolence of these countries and not relentless efforts of Pakistani scientists and engineers — exposes the exceptionalism being peddled in western official corridors and media houses. Nobody speaks of how Israelis and Indians got hold of nuclear weapons. Neither of them has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but continues to demonise Pakistan's nuclear capability like a crime committed. For the G-7 nations crimes, it seems, against hapless Palestinian women and relentless attacks on Iran are self-defence, while Pakistan's nuclear capability and Iran's nuclear pursuits are an unacceptable offence.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Govt continues to score legal victories
After the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the government has got another major victory on Thursday as the constitutional bench endorsed the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The government's legal team must be jubilant that in view of the majority order, Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar will continue as acting chief justice of the IHC, which is seen as crucial for the executive authority. The majority order will further frustrate the five IHC judges, who have been facing a tough time since writing a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding interference of agencies in the judicial functions, particularly on matters related to the PTI. A senior government functionary admits that the 26th amendment is the outcome of the six IHC judges' letter. Constitutional Bench (CB) was created through the 26th constitutional amendment. The real purpose of the amendment was to control the superior judiciary for the stability of the current political set-up. The present government doesn't want that courts should give any substantive relief to the incarcerated former prime minister as he is perceived as a threat to the system. Since November last year, legal circles were keenly watching the outcome of three cases that they considered would determine how far the judiciary could go to assert its independence. The constitutional bench did not disappoint the government as two of the cases had been decided in its favour. Firstly, trial of civilians in the military courts have been endorsed by the CB. Now, the government initiative regarding the transfer of three judges to the IHC has also been endorsed by the constitutional bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. It is interesting to note that the CB is not taking up petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment. If things stand the way as they are, it is no surprise that the government may get another victory in the reserved seats case soon. The chance that the July 12 order regarding the allocation of reserved seats will survive is very low. If the CB sets aside the decision, then the government will get a two-thirds majority in parliament. Moreover, in view of the "satisfactory performance", the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) by a majority vote extended the tenure of present CB judges until November 30. Unlike the past practice, CJP Yahya Afridi also voted in favour of giving an extension to the CB judges' tenure. Earlier, he was advocating that all SC judges should be included in the CB. The government has also been successful in appointing like-minded judges in the superior judiciary. Now, it would easily manage to appoint like-minded' chief justices in the high courts on July 1. Legal opinion Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate says that the short order in the judges transfer case is disappointing. The majority has focused on the process of transfer itself being acceptable without dilating upon the particular transfer to Islamabad that was effected, how it was effected and what it aimed to achieve. Jaferii states that the order completely ignores the transfer of judges being expressly temporary in nature by the very language of the Constitution. It proceeds to validate such transfers on the premise of them being safeguarded by needing input from within the judiciary. "It then allows the president to redo the transfer and make clear the period of transfer and the seniority of the judges themselves, effectively opposing the very basis on which the transfers were validated: that this process was within the judiciary and insulated." He states that it is a bizzare reading of a plain constitutional premise. It ignores completely the scheme of appointment envisaged in Article 175A. And if one were to count the peculiar circumstances leading to this petition, completely ignored in the majority order but expressly considered by the minority, its reasoning becomes obvious. The minority opinion, other than the roundabout poetry at the end; is constitutionally sound", he adds. A former law officer says that the majority has taken a literal view. "It is premised on good faith and institution oriented bona fide exercise within the judiciary by three chief justices. If all three CJs act independently and in the interest of the institution, there should be no problem. Perhaps this was the reason Article 200 was inserted and it is working well in India. But if they don't act independently, this will become an instrument of coercion and silencing some judges, as in the present case. The majority has looked purely on law but not considered ground realities and facts." He says that as in many recent important constitutional cases, emotional advocacy and rhetoric continues instead of calm and cogent arguments. It is showing results every day more so when independent minded judges have already been sidelined and disarmed. At least the majority has left the question of temporary or permanent appointment. There is some contradiction as one the one hand the whole exercise is within the judiciary yet the matter has been sent to President alone. The whole exercise should be ordered to be conducted again but now the then CJ, IHC has gone. Who will give input on temporary or permanent status these judges, he adds. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar advocate has stated that the majority decision is constitutionally valid, well-founded, and aligned with the spirit and intent of the constitution. He emphasised that the 3-2 majority judgment rightly affirms that under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, such transfers are permissible with the concurrence of the President, Chief Justices of the concerned high courts, and consent of the transferee judges. The court held that these conditions were conditionally met and found no mala fide on the part of the President. He noted that the president had issued a notification on February 1, 2024, under Article 200(1), transferring Justice Dogar, Justice Sumro, and Justice Muhammad Asif to the Islamabad High Court. Their inter-se seniority was later determined by then Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on 11th February 2025. However, this seniority order was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 184(3). Explaining further, he said Article 194 makes no requirement for a second oath when a judge is transferred between High Courts, as the oath is to the Constitution itself — not to any specific court or jurisdiction. This is a principle recognized across other constitutional systems as well. Hafiz Ahsaan added that Article 200(1) does not specify whether a transfer must be temporary or permanent. Following the judgment, it now falls to the President to determine the nature of the transfers. If deemed temporary, no further seniority determination is needed; if permanent, the President must determine seniority based solely on the judges' original appointment dates. He stressed that under Article 200(3), the service terms of a judge cannot be adversely altered upon transfer, thereby preserving their rank, privileges, and entitlements. He further observed that the President, as directed by the Court, must independently determine seniority without relying on advice from the federal government. If the President declares the transfers permanent, and seniority is accordingly based on initial appointment, Justice Dogar may emerge as the senior-most among the three — qualifying him for consideration as Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court under Article 175A through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. Contrasting with India's centralized seniority list, he noted that Pakistan's Constitution entrusts each High Court to determine seniority based on initial appointment — a practice also followed in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. Hafiz Ahsaan while concluding said the 3-2 judgment is constitutionally sustainable and reinforces the legal structure under articles 200, 194, and 175A. The president's forthcoming decision will help shape a lasting constitutional precedent on judicial seniority and the limits of presidential authority in such matters.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court looks at seniority under Article 200
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned until Thursday (today) the hearing of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge transfer case. A five-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, presided over the hearing. During proceedings, the Advocate General for Punjab advanced his arguments, stating that West Pakistan was made a single unit in 1955 through the Pakistan Governor General Order. As a result, all high court-level courts were consolidated into one, and a seniority list was compiled based on the judges' appointment dates. However, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the situation in the present case was different, as no judicial formation or dissolution had taken place in connection with the transfer of judges to the IHC. In response, the advocate general clarified that his point was only to illustrate that judges' prior service and transfers had historically been accepted. Justice Afghan observed that the central question in the case is whether the judge's transfer is to be considered permanent or temporary under Article 200 of the Constitution. He further inquired why a judge ranked 15th on the seniority list was transferred while 14 judges senior to him were overlooked.
