‘It Will Adversely Affect Morale Of Armed Forces’: ISI Challenges Faizabad Sit-In Verdict
The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has challenged Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan’s verdict in the Faizabad sit-in case saying that it will ‘adversely affect the morale of Pakistan’s armed forces’.
The ISI, through Attorney General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan, contended that verdict creates an impression that Pakistan’s top intelligence agency and the armed forces are ‘involved in unconstitutional acts’, reported Express Tribune.
It was further said that the verdict “displaces the image of the armed forces defending the country against the menace of terrorism with the image of a force mired in politics, manipulating elections, subverting free speech, muzzling the press and funding extremists”.
The ISI contended that observations that the armed forces were involved in politics were vague and there was no evidence to back such claims. “Likewise, there was no evidence to suggest that the ISI was involved with either sit-in/dharna or particular outcome of the 2018 general elections or the abridgment of free speech or intimidation of or censorship of the press.”
The intelligence agency said that ‘baseless allegations’ were leveled against them. It also contended that the court mentioned intelligence agencies of other countries as examples but did not mention that the threats and challenges faced by the ISI were different.
The ISI stated that such remarks will be exploited by external foes in their propaganda war against the armed forces of Pakistan.
Faizabad Sit-In Verdict – SC Directs Intelligence Agencies Not To Exceed Constitutional Mandate
The verdict, authored by SC judge Qazi Faez Isa, had directed the intelligence agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Military Intelligence (MI), and the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), not to exceed their constitutional mandates.
Intelligence agencies were taken to task for ‘overstepping their mandate and going beyond what is required by law’. The Court took dim view of the shroud of secrecy and cited examples from other Intelligence Agencies from around the world which are under government by law and open to public scrutiny.