Shehryar Afridi and Shandana Gulzar’s petitions against their protracted detentions under the maintenance of public order ordinance were heard by the Islamabad High Court on Wednesday, according to Dawn. The court then granted their release. Irfan Nawaz Memon, a senior superintendent of police, and the city deputy commissioner were charged with contempt of court by the court.
In relation to the violence on May 9, they were both detained.
Officials were asked to provide written arguments as to why they should not face sanctions for obstructing justice.
The IHC issued display notices to DC Memon, Inspector General Dr. AKbar Nasir Khan, the City Chief Commissioner, and other police officials a day prior to the ruling. “criminal contempt of court for abuse of authority to obstruct dispensation of justice and cause diversion to the course of justice”.
According to Dawn, Afridi was initially detained on May 16 outside his home in Islamabad, and then on May 30, not long after his release from custody, he was once again detained.
Afridi was released from Adiala prison on bail on August 3 by the Rawalpindi bench of the Lahore High Court, but was later arrested by the Rawalpindi police.
His attorney then submitted a petition to the IHC asking for Afridi’s release and the revocation of the MPO order.
On August 9, the Islamabad police “allegedly” kidnapped Gulzar. Later, her mother petitioned the IHC, alleging that the police had wrongfully detained her daughter and had done so in violation of the Constitution’s Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 14, and demanding that they bring the girl into court.
Justice Babar Sattar of the IHC asked the various officials who were called in today’s session for their comments in accordance with the court decision from yesterday. DC IG Khan and the chief commissioner were also in attendance as Memon appeared in court today to defend the district magistrate. In addition, the PTI leaders and their attorney Sher Afzal Marwat were presented in court, according to Dawn.
Justice Sattar found the DC’s and the SSP’s explanations “unsatisfactory” and decided to charge both parties with contempt of court at the following session.
