Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday sought comments from the attorney general of Pakistan on the appeals of five convicts who have challenged their death sentences handed down in Safoora Goth carnage case. A division bench headed by Justice Ahmed Ali M Sheikh issued notices to the federal law officer, directing him to file the response to the appeals by January 26, 2017.
Saad Aziz, Tahir Hussain, Asad-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Azhar and Nasir were sentenced to death by the military court in May 2016 after they were found guilty of killing 45 members of the Ismaili community in May 2015. The court; however acquitted Naeem Sajid, Sultan Qamar Siddiqui and Hassan Umar Siddiqui.
In the identical appeals, they submitted that they were tried by the military court, set-up at the Malir cantonment and handed down death sentence. Subsequently, they were shifted to the Karachi central prison, where they were given the appeal format to file the same before the registrar, court of appeals of Judge Advocate-General of the General Headquarters of Army.
Their counsel said that later in August they were informed that their appeals had been turned down on July 25, 2016, and capital punishment upheld. They challenged the decision before the Lahore High Court, but their appeals were rejected for not being maintainable with regard to jurisdiction since the offence was committed and trial was conducted within the jurisdictions of SHC.
The lawyer added that the military court's decision condemning appellants to death was not maintainable in the eyes of the law since they were tried under the Protection of Pakistan Act, 2014, which has expired now. Moreover, the counsel said that the petitioners were not associated with any terrorist organization, nor were they terrorist group using the name of religion or any sect or waged war against Pakistan as held by the joint investigation team.
The appellants were illegally tried in the absence of counsel in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution, as they were also kept in communicator during their trial and investigation. This is their right to fair trial under Article 10-A has also been violated, the counsel of the appellants maintained.