Civilian convicted of offence against state cannot claim fundamental rights, LHC told in Hassaan Niazi case

Why This Matters

Key context: <p>LAHORE: The Punjab government on Monday told the Lahore High Court (LHC) that a civilian who commits an offence against the state and is convicted cannot claim the protection of fundamental rights, while seeking the dismissal of a petition filed by Barrister Hassaan Khan Niazi, nephew of PTI founder Imran Khan, challenging his handover to the army and subsequent trial in a case related to the May 9 riots.</p> <p>In a report submitted after almost a year on behalf of the provincial government through the home secretary and the inspector general of police, the deputy inspector general of police (legal) said every citizen’s first duty was loyalty to the state, citing a 2005 LHC judgment (PLD 2005 LAH 721).</p> <p>The report described Niazi as a convicted prisoner, arguing that his release through a second round of litigation, other than by way of appeal, was not permissible.</p> <p>It said no judicial order was required for his handover because Niazi was neither in judicial custody nor on remand.</p> <p>The report further stated that he was an absconder, unlike the 16 co-accused whose transfer had been sought from an anti-terrorism court while they were in jail.</p> <p>The Sarwar Road station house officer neither handed over Niazi’s custody nor received a letter from the commanding officer, the report added.</p> <p>“That was done by the investigation in-charge of the Sarwar Road police station, who is not a party to the petition,” the report claimed.</p> <p>It stated that the Supreme Court’s May 7, 2025, ruling on the intra-court appeals upheld military trials while granting the accused the right to appeal, but not the right to file constitutional petitions.</p> <p>It said Niazi had already filed an appeal under Section 133-B of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.</p> <p>“It is a well-established principle that the same question of law cannot be challenged in two different forums simultaneously; therefore, this petition lacks maintainability in the eyes of the law,” the report maintained.</p> <p>It further argued that Niazi had misread the Supreme Court’s short order, which applied only to petitions pending or filed against anti-terrorism court orders.</p> <p>It accused him of concealing facts about his appeal, his father Hafeezullah Khan Niazi’s earlier proceedings, including a petition before the apex court and a contempt petition, as well as the anti-terrorism court’s May 25, 2023, order.</p> <p>The report said Niazi had not annexed the military court’s order, an objection upheld by the high court in two other petitions.</p> <p>It prayed the court to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was devoid of merit and not maintainable.</p> <p>According to the report, Niazi was a proclaimed offender in FIR No. 96/2023, registered on May 10, 2023, at the Sarwar Road police station in Lahore Cantonment in connection with an attack on Jinnah House, which was also the residence of the Lahore Corps commander.</p> <p>Police<a href="https://www.dawn.com/news/1770678/?utm_source=newskit_ai"> arrested</a> Niazi in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on Aug 16, 2023. The next day, the commanding officer of the 54 Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Battalion, Lahore, asked for his custody, saying his alleged offences fell under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and were triable by court-martial.</p> <p>Police handed him over under Section 76 of the Army Act, read with Section 549(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p> <p>He was later sentenced to ten years’ <a href="https://www.dawn.com/news/1940978">imprisonment</a> in December 2024.</p> This development from dawn.com highlights ongoing changes in the sector.