Hajj corruption case: Former religious minister’s conviction challenged

Judge says putting pilgrims in trouble was ‘a sensitive issue’

ISLAMABAD: A counsel for former federal minister for religious affairs has argued before a court that his client was convicted by a trial court on “suppositions and a consequence of misreading or non-reading of the facts”.

When Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Anwar Khan Kasi took up the petition filed by Kazmi challenging his six-year-imprisonment sentence on two counts in the Hajj corruption case, his counsel Latif Khosa argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have insinuated him with any malfeasance and his conviction was based on “fanciful, arbitrary, capricious and absolutely conjectural hypothesis”.



On June 3, Special Court Central Judge Malik Nazir Ahmad awarded six years imprisonment each on two counts to Kazmi, the then DG Hajj Rao Shakeel, and a former joint secretary ministry of religious affairs, Raja Aftabul Islam, and imposed a fine of approximately Rs147. 4 million each.

The judge barred Khosa from using the term “religious scholar” for Kazmi remarking “religious scholars appear on television channel in abundance these days”.

Khosa said that Kazmi was a religious scholar and he was wrongly indicted and convicted in the Hajj corruption case.

To this, Justice Kasi remarked that one should not take the cover of being a religious scholar and instead one should remain humble.

Khosa argued that according to the prosecution’s own version, Kazmi being minister had supervisory role and nothing to do with the hiring
of buildings and making payments of rents to the building owners, yet
the trial court held him guilty.

The appellant’s counsel said that rent payment of the under-construction building was contingent upon completion and rent amount was retrieved through checks and no embezzlement of funds took place.



The role of hiring buildings for pilgrims was to be performed by a seven-member committee and the petitioner had no role whatsoever.

Petitioner’s name was not in the FIR but he was implicated due to political rivalry, he argued.

Justice Kasi remarked that the matter of putting pilgrims in trouble was a sensitive one and a decision will be passed after hearing arguments from Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in the case.

The FIA prosecutor will present arguments on June 29th.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 28^th, 2016.