'Saud Aziz being victimised in BB assassination case'

Former CPO's lawyer says a media trial of his client is being held while the allegations against him remain unproven.


Express December 29, 2010

RAWALPINDI: The legal counsel of former City Police Officer (CPO) Rawalpindi Saud Aziz, Waheed Anjum, claimed that his client is being victimized by his portrayal as the killer of Benazir Bhutto as the allegations against him are yet to be proven.

Aziz’s lawyer, while addressing a press conference in Rawalpindi on Wednesday, said that the allegations leveled against the former CPO were baseless. He said that both the accused were public servants and did not have links with any political factions.

The lawyer said that while two other police officers were not being made a part of the investigation by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), a media trial of his client and Superintendent Police (SP) Khurram Shahzad was being held.

He asked why a probe was not being launched to trace Ms Bhutto's mobile phone and why only his client was being held responsible while the likes of Ashfaq Anwar, the police official responsible for overseeing Ms Bhutto’s security, had been allowed to go on a three year leave out of the country.

Anjum reiterated Saud Aziz’s claims of innocence saying that his client had not ordered Ashfaq Anwar to leave Ms Bhutto’s procession.

The lawyer, quoting from the joint investigation team's (JIT) report showed that the security advisors of Benazir Bhutto had been warned against her coming out of her vehicle's roof-top and were assured that it would not happen again. He further said that the crime scene was washed only after the collection of evidence, adding that the order for not having an autopsy of the body was given by her husband, President Asif Ali Zardari, and not his client.

Court denies physical remand of police officers

An Anti Terrorism Court (ATC) in Rawalpindi on Wednesday refused to extend the physical remand of former CPO Saud Aziz and Superintendent Police (SP) Khurram Shahzad in the Benazir Bhutto murder case.

FIA officials had requested that the court extend the physical remand of Aziz and Shahzad for nine more days. The ATC turned down the request and sent the accused to jail on a judicial remand, the court has also ordered the FIA to present the two accused in court on January 12.

COMMENTS (5)

Ameena Khan | 13 years ago | Reply It is evident from the evidence provided by the defence lawyers in this case that the charges have no merit. This is just political show trial being coordinated by the PPP leadership so that they can tag someone in a position of responsibility with the charges and appease their voters. The only crime these two officers have commited is that they are the very few truly honest police officers without any political connections or corrupt money. Both officers and the rest of the Rawalpinding police staff performed admirabily to first provide the appropriate protection to Bibi at the rally as agreed with her security team and then also identify and arrest the only individuals who have been directly conected to the murder. Over three years since the murder all material progress in the investigation of bibi’s murder has been made by the teams led by Saud Aziz – in fact the quality of their work was lauded by Scotland Yard. Meanwhile the so called Joint Investigation Team (JIT) have got no where with their half hearted attempts because they are just motivated by their political pay masters.
Javed+Afridi | 13 years ago | Reply The nation would certainly want Saud Aziz to reveal the name(s), who made him do what he did. He might well have become a tool in the hands of conspirators after the incident, but until he spells out those name, he is the prime suspect. I have no doubt in my mind, that even a constable, present at the blast site, knew what it meant cleaning the place in such a haste, why should one give a senior cop like him, the benefit of the doubt.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ