İçeriğe atla
Stories
AF
Closed

Eski Afgan Subay ve Ajanın Sınır Dışı İtirazına Peşaver Mahkemesinden Ret

Summary · AI generated

Peşaver Yüksek Mahkemesi, eski Afgan Ulusal Ordusu'ndan bir general ile bir özel ajanın tutuklanma ve sınır dışı edilmelerine karşı yaptıkları itirazları reddetti. Dilekçe sahipleri, Afganistan'a gönderilmeleri halinde Taliban'ın zulmüne uğramaktan korktuklarını öne sürdü. Mahkeme ise gözaltı ve sınır dışı edilme korkusunun geçerli bir dava nedeni oluşturmadığına ve göçmenlik, vize ve ikamet konularının yürütmenin yetki alanına girdiğine hükmetti. Bu karar, Taliban'ın Afganistan'da iktidarı ele geçirmesinin ardından Pakistan'a sığınan eski Afgan yetkililerin karşı karşıya kaldığı belirsizliği gözler önüne seriyor. Yargının, yürütmenin sınır dışı tasarruflarına müdahil olmaması benzer durumdaki kişiler için emsal teşkil ediyor. Pakistan'ın milyonlarca Afgan mülteciye ev sahipliği yaptığı düşünüldüğünde, mahkemenin tutumu bölgedeki insani krizin yönetimi açısından da kritik bir önem taşıyor. Uluslararası kuruluşlar, Taliban'ın hedef alabileceği kişilerin geri gönderilmesinin ciddi riskler doğurabileceği uyarısını yapıyor.

This summary is currently in Turkish; automated English translation is coming soon.

Started 07 Aug, 02:59 3 events Updated 10 Aug
Afghanistan country file →
Paylaş
Bağlam · AI üretimi

Bağlam, hikayenin etrafındaki ülke + lider + komşu hikaye ağına dayanılarak AI tarafından üretildi. Olgu içerikleri için her zaman üstteki kaynak linklerine başvurun.

Bu gündemi takip et

Afganistan gelişmelerini kaçırma — ücretsiz kaydol, günlük brifinginde gör.

React to this story:

Timeline

latest: 10 Aug
  1. Political07 Aug, 02:59

    Ex-Afghan general, agent’s pleas against arrest, deportation rejected

    Afghanistan

    • Petitioners cite fear of Taliban persecution if sent back to Afghanistan • Peshawar High Court notes fears of detention and removal don’t constitute valid cause of action • Rules immigration, visa and residency matters fall within executive’s domain PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has rejected petitions filed by a former general of the erstwhile Afghan National Army and a special agent of the former Afghan Presidential Protective Service (PPS), along with their families, seeking protection against their imminent arrest and deportation by law enforcement agencies. A bench comprising Justices Wiqar Ahmad and Kamran Hayat Miankhel dismissed two almost identical petitions filed by former general Baryalai Sharifi and former PPS special agent Abdul Mujeeb Ghairat and their family members. They had approached the court fearing persecution by the Taliban government in Afghanistan if deported. The counsel for Mr Sharifi submitted that his clients were Afghan nationals who had entered Pakistan on valid visas. He claimed that Mr Sharifi had served as a general in the former Afghan National Army (Milli Urdu) and that he and his family had received threats from the present Afghan regime. He added that Mr Sharifi’s wife had served as an assistant doctor in the PPS of the former Afghan government, while his son claimed to have worked as a training camp guard in the same service. The counsel further stated that Mr Sharifi had approached the Society for Human Rights and Prisoners’ Aid (SHARP) for pre-screening in connection with an international protection and resettlement process, and apprehended that the petitioners might be arrested or deported from Pakistan. ‘Mere apprehension’ “The petitioners have not challenged any specific order, notification or action of the respondents adversely affecting their legal or fundamental rights,” the bench observed in its four-page written order. “The entire case rests upon a mere apprehension that they may, in future, be subjected to arrest, detention or deportation. Such speculative apprehension, without any concrete cause of action or demonstrated violation of law, does not furnish a valid ground for invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution,” it added. The court observed that “matters relating to the stay of foreign nationals in Pakistan, grant, extension or cancellation of visas, and their immigration status are governed by the relevant statutory framework and fall within the exclusive domain of the competent executive authorities”. “Any request for international protection, refugee processing or resettlement through SHARP, UNHCR or any third country does not, by itself, create an enforceable legal right against the respondents capable of being enforced through a constitutional petition,” it held. Similarly, in the case of Mr Ghairat, counsel submitted that the petitioner and his family were residing in Pakistan on valid visas and had applied online for their renewal. He stated that Mr Ghairat had served as a special agent in the former PPS, an elite US-trained security unit responsible for the close protection of the then Afghan president. The counsel argued that owing to his previous service under the former Afghan government, Mr Ghairat and his family would face danger if returned to Afghanistan. He contended that in view of the ongoing action against certain Afghan nationals, the petitioners feared arrest and deportation despite their claimed lawful stay in Pakistan. “The questions relating to the petitioners’ right to remain in Pakistan, renewal or extension of visas, or their immigration status fall within the exclusive domain of the competent executive authorities under the relevant immigration and foreigner laws,” the bench observed. “In the absence of any unlawful action, refusal of a statutory request, or infringement of a vested legal right, no writ can be issued directing the respondents to grant protection or confer a legal status upon the petitioners.” Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2026

    Dawn – Pakistan
  2. Political08 Aug, 00:23

    PHC rejects pleas of former Afghan judge, two others against arrest, deportation

    Afghanistan

    PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has rejected the pleas of a former judge of Afghanistan’s Supreme Court, a female social activist and an official of former Afghan intelligence directorate as well as their family members for protection against their arrest and deportation by Pakistani law-enforcement agencies. A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel rejected petitions field by former judge Abdullah Muhammadi, former employee of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) Abdul Qayyum Omerzai and female Afghan social activist Fahima Safi, who requested that they and their family members be allowed to stay in Pakistan due to threats from the present Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Abdullah Muhammdi’s counsel said that the petitioner was a former judge of the Afghan Supreme Court and a member of the Afghan Judges’ Association. He added that he and his family members had entered Pakistan on a valid visa. The counsel claimed that on account of his judicial service, the petitioner had received threats from the Taliban, placing the lives of the petitioner and his family members at risk if they returned to Afghanistan. Petitioners fear persecution on return to Afghanistan He submitted that the petitioner had approached the Society for Human Rights and Prisoners’ Aid (SHARP) for refugee processing and that his pre-screening interview before UNHCR was still pending. The lawyer contended that despite their lawful stay and pending refugee processing, the petitioners were under constant apprehension of arrest and deportation in view of the ongoing measures concerning Afghan nationals. He sought directives of the court for the respondents including the federal government that no coercive action be taken against them until their refugee claim was considered by authorities. “The petitioners have failed to place on record any document conferring a lawful or permanent status in Pakistan, any refugee status recognised under the domestic legal framework, or any enforceable legal right entitling them to remain in the country,” the bench declared. It added that the controversy in the present petition related to the petitioner’s claim for protection against deportation on the basis of an alleged pending UNHCR resettlement process. “Mere registration as an asylum seeker or pendency of proceedings before the UNHCR, however, does not, by itself, create any vested or enforceable right to continue residing in Pakistan in absence of recognition by the competent authorities under the applicable municipal law.” The bench pointed out that the petitioners had neither produced any recommendation by the UNHCR for third-country resettlement nor placed on record any communication from a foreign embassy or other competent authority demonstrating that their resettlement process had reached a stage warranting such protection. “Likewise, no credible material has been produced to establish the existence of a present, real, and imminent threat to their life or liberty in Afghanistan so as to attract the principle of non-refoulement. Consequently, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for issuance of a constitutional writ,” it ruled. Fahima Safi’s lawyer said that his client and her family members were Afghan nationals who entered Pakistan on valid visas and had also applied online for extension/renewal of their Pakistani visas. He said that petitioners had applied for resettlement in the United States of America under the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in the year 2023 and that their applications had still been pending. The counsel said that Ms Safi was employed with the Child Fund Afghanistan, a global child protection agency, and was recommended for an Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV). He relied upon an email purportedly issued by Congresswoman Kat Cammack indicating that the petitioners’ refugee case was nearing completion. The bench ruled that mere pendency of an application for resettlement, refugee admission or Special Immigrant Visa before the authorities of a foreign State didn’t confer upon a foreign national any enforceable legal right to remain in Pakistan indefinitely, nor did it create a legal embargo against the competent authorities from regulating the stay of foreigners in accordance with the laws of Pakistan. “Likewise, the employment of the petitioners with organisations operating in Afghanistan, the recommendation for the Special Immigrant Visa, the correspondence from foreign authorities or elected representatives, and the alleged threats claimed by the petitioners do not, by themselves, create any statutory or constitutional right enforceable through the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.” The court added that the petitioners had not pointed out any statutory provision, notification or binding policy under which they had acquired a vested legal right to continue residing in Pakistan merely because their resettlement application was pending before the authorities of the United States. Meanwhile, Abdul Qayyum Omerzai’s counsel contended that his client had served in the NDS and on account of such service, he apprehended persecution if returned to Afghanistan. He said that the petitioner had applied for asylum before the Embassy of Switzerland, but his application was declined through a letter on Sept 9, 2024. While rejecting his plea, the bench ruled that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioners possess any legal right under the laws of Pakistan entitling them to remain in the country or restraining the competent authorities from taking action in accordance with law. “The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the constitution cannot be invoked merely on the basis of an apprehension of deportation in the absence of any enforceable legal or statutory right,” it declared. Published in Dawn, August 8th, 2026

    Dawn – Pakistan
  3. Political10 Aug, 04:54

    PHC stops arrest, deportation of two Afghan journalists, their families

    Afghanistan

    PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has stopped law enforcement agencies from arresting or deporting two Afghan journalists and their families awaiting resettlement in a third country and referred their cases to the federal government for granting them permission of temporary stay or asylum here. A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel disposed of two almost identical petitions filed by the two journalists, Syed Munir Ahmad Hadaf and Syed Enamullah Salehi, who apprehend inhuman treatment if they were deported to Afghanistan. The bench referred their cases to the federal government for deciding their pleas for temporary stay, asylum, etc on principle of non-refoulment. “It is case of petitioners before this court in the instant writ petition that their cases have already been pending for third country resettlement and Embassy of France has already given an endorsement in this respect,” the bench observed in both the petitions. Refers their cases to govt for deciding on principle of non-refoulment “Petitioners are apprehending cruel and inhuman treatment on their immediate deportation to Afghanistan and they are pressing the principle against non-refoulment in the instant writ petition,” the bench observed in its five-page judgment in both the cases. “Since this court has already referred similar nature cases to the Federal Government for decision and restrained the respondents from deporting them for 60 days or till decision of the Federal Government therefore case of the petitioners cannot be treated differently,” the bench ruled. It directed the federal government to consider case of the petitioners and determine whether the essential ingredients for grant of asylum, sojourn or temporary stay existed in their favour on the principle of non-refoulment. “If the Federal Government is satisfied that the necessary requirements for making such an order exist in favour of petitioners it shall grant asylum, sojourn and temporary stay to the petitioners for such period as may be determined by the Federal Government. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 02 months,” the bench ordered. It further directed: “In case the Federal Government is unable to render its decision within the aforesaid period of 60 days then the worthy Secretary Ministry of Interior Government of Pakistan shall issue temporary permits to the petitioners authorizing them to remain in Pakistan for such further period as may be required by the Federal Government for rendering its final decision in the matter.” “During the aforesaid period of 60 days or any extended period so permitted, the law enforcing agencies of the Federal Government or Provincial Government shall neither arrest nor deport the petitioners merely on account of their stay in Pakistan,” the bench directed. Advocate Syed Shafqat Ali Shah appeared for both the journalists and stated that Mr Munir Hadaf had served as provincial coordinator in the Afghanistan National Journalist Union and also worked with Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF). Submitting copies of his employment contract and relevant supporting documents, he stated that he had applied for a French visa for himself and his family, and that the Embassy of France had confirmed the validity of the relevant communication. He claimed that the petitioner had received threats from the Taliban on account of his professional activities as a journalist. Similarly, about Mr Enamullah, the counsel stated that the petitioner was residing in Pakistan lawfully on a valid visa. He stated that the petitioner and his family had applied for resettlement in France in 2026 and their applications were presently pending consideration. He stated that the petitioner had previously served as an investigative journalist with Salam Afghanistan Media Organisation (SAMO). He also produced his service card in support of his contentions. In both the petitions, the counsel contended that despite their lawful stay in Pakistan, the petitioners were living under constant fear of arrest, detention and deportation in view of the prevailing measures concerning Afghan nationals. He argued that such circumstances had restricted their free movement, including access to hospitals and medical facilities, compelling them to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. He sought protection for the petitioners against arrest, detention, harassment and deportation during the validity of their visas and in accordance with law. He requested the court to direct the respondents to determine their status strictly in accordance with law and that they be permitted to avail emergency medical treatment on the strength of their passports, visas, etc. Published in Dawn, August 10th, 2026

    Dawn – Pakistan

Okumaya devam et

ilgili gelişmeler