Peshawar – (Staff Reporter/Web Desk) – The Peshawar High Court Afghan asylum case has ended in disappointment for two former Afghan military officials. Judges turned down their plea for shelter in Pakistan this week.
The court said the men could not show that their basic rights had been broken under the law. Because of this, their request did not meet the bar needed for judicial relief.
The two petitioners were named as Abdul Mujeeb Ghairat and Baryalai Sharifi. Both men once held senior posts within Afghanistan’s former government forces.
Ghairat had worked as a special agent guarding the past Afghan president. Sharifi had served as a general in the former Afghan National Army before the political shift in Kabul.
In their petition, the men asked for several things. They wanted a temporary stay in Pakistan. They also asked for their visas to be renewed and sought safety from arrest or removal from the country.
Their main worry centered on returning home. Both men told the court they feared for their lives if sent back to Afghanistan.
The judges, however, were not convinced that this fear alone was enough. The bench noted that such concerns are speculative in nature. This means they are based on possible danger, not proven harm.
Under Article 199 of Pakistan’s Constitution, courts can only step in when a clear rights violation is shown. The judges ruled that this case did not meet that standard.
Along with their asylum request, the men gave the court their Afghan passports. They also submitted other supporting papers.
These documents were meant to support several requests. This included urgent medical care, a short-term stay permit, and protection from being detained.
Ghairat also told the court something important. He said he had already filed an online request to extend his visa through the proper channel.
Despite this, the bench held firm. The judges explained that visa matters are not something courts usually decide.
Instead, these issues fall under a different branch of government. Decisions on visas, extensions, and immigration status rest fully with the country’s executive authorities.
This means agencies working under Pakistan’s immigration laws, not the judiciary, are meant to handle such requests. The court said it does not have the power to override that system.
This ruling reflects a larger pattern seen in Pakistan’s legal system. Courts have generally avoided stepping into immigration matters unless there is strong evidence of injustice.
For thousands of Afghan nationals now living in Pakistan, this case may serve as a signal. Legal protection through the courts is not guaranteed simply due to political change back home.
Many Afghans who once worked with the former government now face uncertain futures. Their status in Pakistan often depends on visa rules rather than fear-based claims.
As tensions continue over Afghan refugee policy in the region, this decision adds more clarity. Courts appear ready to defer immigration control fully to government departments.
For now, both Ghairat and Sharifi remain in a legal gray area. Their next steps will likely depend on Pakistan’s immigration authorities, not the courtroom.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.