The Islamabad High Court Tuesday reserved its judgment on a petition of Moazzam Ali, an accused of MQM leader Dr Imran Farooq murder, seeking his trial in an open court instead of jail premises. A division bench of IHC comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb conducted hearing of the petition and reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments.
The accused Moazzam Ali moved the petition through his counsel Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif and cited the secretary interior, chief commissioner Islamabad, director general Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the judge of the anti-terrorism court as respondents. It was stated in the petition that the chief commissioner Islamabad issued a notification on February 2, 2016, for the in-camera jail trial of the accused. The petitioner adopted that the notification was issued without any specific request and there was no security risk in relation to either the trial court or the three suspects - Khalid Shamim, Mohsin Ali and Moazzam Ali.
Moazzam's counsel contended that the jail trial would deprive the family of the suspects of observing the trial and it was against Article 10-A of the Constitution and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, of which Pakistan is a signatory. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned notification issued by the Islamabad commissioner to hold the trial in jail on February 3, 2016, be declared null and void, illegal, unlawful and infringement of the rights of the accused.
Barrister Saif argued that his client was not produced in the court for months and his miserable condition was hidden from the public scrutiny. He stated that Moazzam was suffering from serious ophthalmologic complications and jail authorities have been refusing to provide him with the required medical treatment.
He said that the FIA is delaying the trial on one or the other pretext. For several months, no special prosecutor was appointed by the FIA for conducting the trial, the counsel said. He said the Islamabad commissioner issued the impugned notification to hold the trial in jail despite the fact that neither the ATC made any specific request nor there was any security issue and the accused also did not ask for holding the trial in jail.
The counsel said that the case has a political dimension and the federal government was using it on political grounds and also as a propaganda tool to gain political mileage against a political party. He adopted that the impugned notification was passed without any cause or reason. "There is nothing on the record to show that the ATC has ever requested for a jail trial. No inquiry whatsoever has ever been conducted to ascertain the need for a jail trial," the counsel maintained.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the protection afforded in Article 10-A cannot be restricted or curtailed on grounds of surmises, conjectures and wishes and whims of the authorities. He said the order of the trial in jail has been passed in a hasty and biased manner, without any justification, and to ensure the exclusion of the public.
Comments
Comments are closed.