Islamabad High Court Questions Government’s Refusal to Join Aafia Siddiqui Case in U.S. Court
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has directed the federal government of Pakistan to provide a detailed explanation for its refusal to become a party in the ongoing U.S. legal proceedings related to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist imprisoned in the United States since 2008.
During the hearing on Monday, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s ambiguous position and asked the Additional Attorney General to submit a written response justifying the decision. The court has scheduled the next hearing for July 4, 2025, and expects the federal authorities to provide concrete reasons for opting out of direct legal participation in the matter.
Background of the Case
Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani citizen educated in the U.S., was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 and later convicted by a U.S. federal court for attempting to kill American soldiers. She was sentenced to 86 years in prison and is currently serving her sentence at FMC Carswell, a federal medical center in Texas.
Her arrest, trial, and imprisonment have been a matter of deep concern and controversy in Pakistan. Over the years, civil society groups, human rights organizations, and several political leaders have called her detention unjust and demanded her repatriation.
Multiple governments have pledged efforts for her release, but no concrete diplomatic or legal breakthrough has been achieved. Recently, new developments in the U.S. legal system opened up an avenue where the Pakistani government could have entered the proceedings as a party or amicus curiae (a friend of the court)—potentially strengthening the case for her humanitarian or diplomatic release.
Government Declines to Participate
However, during the IHC hearing on Monday, the Additional Attorney General informed the court that the federal government had opted not to become a party in the U.S. legal process. No detailed justification was presented for this decision.
Justice Sardar Ejaz, presiding over the case, was visibly dissatisfied with the government’s stance. He remarked,
“A constitutional court cannot accept vague justifications or silent withdrawals from critical human rights cases. The people of Pakistan deserve transparency.”
The judge further questioned whether any legal or constitutional grounds were considered before the government reached its decision, noting that even symbolic legal support in a foreign court can sometimes carry diplomatic weight.
Court Seeks Detailed Explanation
The court has now ordered the government to submit a clear, reasoned explanation in writing. This explanation must outline
Why the Pakistani state chose not to support the U.S. petition,
Whether any diplomatic channels were consulted,
And what alternative efforts—if any—are being pursued for Dr. Siddiqui’s repatriation?
This is not the first time the government has faced criticism for its passive approach. Earlier this year, the government also refused to consider a prisoner exchange proposal involving Dr. Shakil Afridi—the Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA locate Osama bin Laden—in return for Dr. Siddiqui. That option, reportedly discussed in international backchannels, was rejected without any public debate or parliamentary oversight.
Civil Society Reaction
The IHC’s directive has been welcomed by many human rights advocates and legal observers in Pakistan. Groups that have long campaigned for Aafia Siddiqui’s return see this as a rare moment of judicial pressure on the executive to act transparently and accountably.
Dr. Fouzia Siddiqui, Aafia’s sister, who has been tirelessly campaigning for her release, told the press:
“We are grateful that the court is finally demanding answers. The government must stop hiding behind vague diplomacy. Aafia is a daughter of this nation and deserves state support.”
Many legal analysts argue that Pakistan, even if powerless to change U.S. court outcomes directly, has a moral obligation to exhaust all diplomatic and legal avenues. Becoming a party to the U.S. case would not only signal moral support for Dr. Siddiqui but could also pave the way for her early repatriation on humanitarian grounds.
What’s Next?
The Islamabad High Court will resume proceedings on July 4, by which time the government must submit its detailed reply. Depending on the response, the court could either accept the government’s position or direct further diplomatic engagement.
This case now stands as a test of Pakistan’s legal commitment to the protection of its citizens abroad—especially in politically sensitive and human rights-laden cases like that of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui.