ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday dismissed a petition seeking trial of former prime minister Imran Khan and others over the disclosure of a ‘threatening’ diplomatic cable.

IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah also imposed a fine of Rs100,000 on the petitioner, Molvi Iqbal Haider, for filing the frivolous petition.

Mr Haider is known as a habitual litigant and in the past had been barred from filing petitions in the Supreme Court.

Through the petition in the IHC, he had sought directions to the federal government for probing the contents of the cable sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the ambassador of Pakistan to the United States of America (USA).

IHC says assertions made in memorandum of petition not supported by credible material; imposes Rs100,000 fine on petitioner

The petitioner had also sought a direction for initiating proceedings under the High Treason (Punishment) Act 1973 against Imran Khan, former minister Fawad Chaudhry and the ambassador.

In addition, he prayed that their names be placed on the Exit Control List (ECL).

The petitioner claimed that the treason case against retired Gen Pervez Musharraf had been initiated pursuant to acceptance of his petition in the apex court.

The court noted that as per the settled law, matters relating to foreign affairs of the country were extremely sensitive and, therefore, not justiciable while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Justice Minallah observed that assertions made in the memorandum of the petition were vague and not supported by any credible material so as to justify making of a diplomatic cable as the subject of the litigation in hand.

The court wondered that the petitioner appeared to be unaware of the importance, sanctity and sensitive nature of a diplomatic cable sent by any Pakistani diplomat from abroad.

Explaining the significance of diplomatic cables, Justice Minallah noted that these were of immense importance and had limited access. They are classified because they enable the diplomats to write assessments and analysis without any hindrances. The diplomats have the assurance that their reporting and assessments would be fully protected and shall not be sensationalised nor politicised.

The court stated that it was a fundamental duty of every diplomat across the globe to share their assessments, analysis and conclusions with their respective countries that they represent. Such assessments and analysis are invariably based on informal conversations with officials of the host governments, adding every diplomat of Pakistan was expected to faithfully and honestly convey what they may hear or see.

Keeping in view the nature of the diplomatic cables and the need to keep them confidential, it is definitely not in public interest nor in the interest of the integrity of the state to make them a subject of political controversies or litigation.

This is likely to have profound consequences for the functioning of the foreign office because it would discourage diplomats from candid, faithful and honest reporting besides undermining the integrity of the communication systems available to them as tools for performing their onerous functions, the court observed.

Justice Minallah warned that by making diplomatic cables the subject of political debate or litigation definitely impacts the credibility, reliability and effectiveness of the working of the foreign office. Bringing sensitive and informal diplomatic conversations into public domain is likely to harm the image of Pakistan and its foreign policy.

He termed making such diplomatic cables controversial against national interest.

Referring to the ‘threatening’ cable, the court order said it was sent by a diplomat who was known for his outstanding professionalism and competence. It was placed before the National Security Committee. It appears that the committee was satisfied that no probe was required.

Such sensitive and complex matters ought to be dealt with by the foreign office rather making them controversial through litigation, added the chief justice.

He said it was an irony that an advocate was alleging treason against a former elected prime minister and seeking a direction for initiation of proceedings against him. The rhetoric of treason is deprecated. No citizen can claim to be more patriotic than the other.

Likewise, no citizen has the right to declare others as having committed treason. Every citizen is presumed to be patriotic and loyal to the state unless otherwise declared by a competent court of law.

“The allegations and assertions made against a former elected prime minister in the memorandum of the petition are deprecated. Moreover, making the cable sent by a diplomat of Pakistan controversial and subject of litigation is against public interest and the interests of the state,” the court observed.

It warned that dragging diplomats and their classified reporting and assessments into political controversies could undermine Pakistan’s national interests, its diplomacy and external relations.

Justice Minallah declared the petition as “frivolous”, saying the petitioner had unjustifiably attempted to make the cable controversial, and imposed a cost of Rs100,000 on the petitioner.

Published in Dawn, April 12th, 2022