ISLAMABAD: The federal government has decided not to become a party or extend legal assistance in the high-profile case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui currently imprisoned in the United States, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) was informed on Monday.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan presided over the hearing of a petition concerning Dr Siddiqui’s health condition and potential repatriation from a US prison. The hearing was attended by petitioner’s counsel Imran Shafiq, the Additional Attorney General (AAG), and other relevant officials.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist, has been incarcerated in the US for over 14 years. She is currently serving an 86-year sentence at the Federal Medical Center (FMC) Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, following her 2010 conviction on charges of attempting to murder US military personnel in Afghanistan.
At the outset of the hearing, the AAG informed the court that the federal government had chosen not to become involved in Dr Siddiqui’s legal proceedings in the US.
Justice Ejaz, expressing disapproval, questioned the rationale behind the government’s stance. However, the AAG failed to provide a clear explanation, stating only that it was the government’s current position.
“This is a constitutional court. Decisions must be accompanied by reasons. A government or the attorney general cannot simply submit a stance without justification,” Justice Ejaz observed.
The court directed the AAG to submit a detailed justification for the decision at the next hearing, which was subsequently adjourned to July 4.
Earlier this year, Dr Aafia Siddiqui submitted a clemency petition to then-US President Joe Biden, describing her sentence as a “blatant miscarriage of justice.” However, her plea was rejected by the White House just before the transition of presidential power.
The case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui continues to evoke strong emotions in Pakistan, where various civil society groups and political leaders have repeatedly demanded her repatriation. The government’s decision not to pursue legal intervention may trigger fresh criticism from advocacy circles and human rights organizations.
