The brother of non-functional Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) chief minister Sohail Afridi on Tuesday moved the Peshawar High Court seeking his immediate recovery, arguing that his alleged abduction and continued detention violated his fundamental rights and demanding an independent judicial inquiry into his disappearance. The petition was filed amid uncertainty over Afridi’s whereabouts following the imposition of emergency and governor’s rule in K-P on October 11, which brought the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-led provincial government to an end and transferred its powers to Governor Faisal Karim Kundi. Muhammad Aamir, through his counsel Bashir Khan Wazir, alleged that Afridi had been taken away by armed and masked individuals and was being held illegally. The petition asked the court to establish where the former chief minister was being held, who had custody of him, and under what legal authority he was being detained. “The petitioner and the family members of the abductee are seriously concerned about his safety, physical integrity and continued liberty,” the petition stated, seeking the court’s intervention “to prevent any further harm”. The federal government said Afridi and some members of his cabinet had been placed in preventive custody, while Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry clarified that Afridi was being held under protective custody and had not been arrested. {{pdf}} In its petition, Aamir’s counsel argued that Afridi’s public office did not diminish his fundamental rights, stating, “His public office does not diminish his fundamental rights; rather, the circumstances of the present incident call for immediate and effective action by the competent authorities to ascertain his whereabouts and ensure his safety.” The petitioner asked the court to direct the police authorities to trace Afridi and, if he was found in custody within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, produce him before the court so that the legality of his detention could be examined. According to the petition, Afridi was detained at the Chief Minister’s House in Peshawar at about 2pm on October 11 before being taken away by “certain unknown armed and masked individuals” in the presence of Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) Peshawar. “The precise sequence of events, the identities of the persons involved and the circumstances in which the abductee was taken away require immediate verification through the relevant official record, eyewitness accounts and other available evidence,” it stated. “The circumstances in which the abductee was taken away from such a sensitive public institution, despite the reported presence of a senior police officer, raise grave and legitimate concerns regarding the security arrangements, the response of the concerned authorities and the safety and liberty of the abductee,” it said. The petitioner also expressed concern that Afridi may have been taken to an "undisclosed location" and "may be kept against his will", adding that his whereabouts and present condition needed to be “immediately ascertained through lawful means”. It called for an investigation into the identities of those allegedly involved, the vehicles used to remove Afridi, if any, and the route taken after he was taken away. The petition said police authorities could obtain relevant information from security personnel, access-control records, CCTV cameras, official duty rosters and other sources. Read: 'Afridi, some of his cabinet members have been taken into preventive custody,' confirms Talal It also sought a detailed report from the CCPO on the circumstances of the alleged incident, the people present at the time, the security arrangements in place and the steps taken immediately afterwards. An objective inquiry into these matters was necessary, the petitioner said, adding that he did not seek “any finding of culpability against any respondent without due investigation and supporting evidence”. The petition further asked the court to order the preservation of CCTV footage from the relevant entrances and exits, adjoining roads and routes, along with security logs, entry and exit registers, vehicle access records, duty rosters and official communications. “Any delay in securing such material may prejudice the investigation and frustrate the process of identifying the persons involved,” it said. The petitioner also sought an independent judicial inquiry and asked the court to direct the police to register a first information report if one had not already been registered, and the facts legally warranted it. The petition argued that the alleged detention raised questions about the constitutional protections afforded to Afridi, including the right to be dealt with in accordance with law, the right to life and liberty, safeguards against unlawful arrest and detention, and the protection of human dignity. It cited Articles 4, 9, 10 and 14 of the Constitution and invoked Article 199, under which the High Court can order the production of a person in custody in circumstances covered by the provision. It also referred to Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which provides for directions of the nature of habeas corpus within its scope. “The impugned detention and disappearance of the abductee is wholly illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” the petition stated, arguing that the authorities had not disclosed any lawful basis for holding him. Read more: PTI rejects emergency, governor's rule in K-P as unconstitutional, vows to continue struggle “Its immediate purpose is to ascertain the whereabouts and safety of the abductee, secure his production before this Hon’ble Court if he is found in custody, examine the legality of such custody and ensure that his fundamental rights are protected in accordance with law,” it stated. The petitioner warned that the matter "cannot safely be left to indefinite delay or uncertainty" and that directions for his production and a prompt report were necessary in the interests of justice. The court was also asked to direct the authorities to submit periodic progress reports until Afridi’s whereabouts and safety had been established. In its request for interim relief, the petition sought a preliminary report within a time fixed by the court, the production of Afridi if he was found in the custody or control of any person or authority, and immediate steps for his safe recovery if he was being unlawfully detained. The petition asked the High Court to direct the authorities to identify those involved and take action against anyone found responsible in accordance with the law, while ensuring due process. It also sought any other relief the court considered appropriate in the circumstances. The petition followed the federal government’s decision to impose emergency and governor’s rule in K-P on October 11 under Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution. The government cited the deteriorating law and order situation and what it called a lack of support from the provincial administration in the fight against terrorism. Reports of Afridi’s detention emerged shortly after the announcement, with provincial Information Minister Shafi Jan saying the non-functional chief minister had been arrested and urging people to gather in Peshawar. However, there was initially no confirmation from the federal government. On October 12, the minister of state for Interior confirmed that Afridi and some members of his cabinet had been taken into preventive custody. “Yes, I can confirm that the chief minister and some of his cabinet members have been taken into preventive custody,” he told Reuters, adding that those facing cases would be charged and tried, while the others would be released. A senior police official also confirmed that eight people, including Afridi, PTI MNA Junaid Akbar, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Speaker Babar Saleem Swati, had been detained