Police hid info on who gave order to shoot

Report suggests police attempted to cover up own misdeeds, Sanaullah's stand led to initial trial

KARACHI: The Model Town inquiry tribunal report, made public after three years, squares blame particularly on Law Minister Rana Sanaullah as well as the Punjab Police for the 2014 incident in which 14 supporters of Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) were killed.

The inquiry tribunal, headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi of the Lahore High Court, had submitted the 132-page report in the same year, but the Punjab government did not make it public.

The main question deliberated in the report is how the order to use force to disperse the protesters came about, and whether Punjab CM Shehbaz Sharif gave orders for the police to disengage and why these were not communicated to those on the ground.

The report also notes that no legal opinion was sought from the Punjab AG before the operation was launched, and the manner in which the Punjab Police appeared to be withholding testimony or concealing evidence in an apparent attempt to build a case that they were only following orders when they went on the offensive.



Specifically, the report said that the “motif of betrayal of law by the police aimed to bury the truth speaks volumes of their highhandedness”.

In his affidavit submitted to the tribunal, Sharif said that he found out about the incident at 9:30am on June 17, and had given the order to “disengage forthwith”.

Dr Tauqir Hussian Shah, Sharif’s then-secretary, in his affidavit said that the order to disengage was conveyed to the law minister and the home secretary, and that he was informed by them that the situation would be normalised.

However, neither Sanaullah nor the Punjab home secretary mentioned the disengagement order in their written statements.

“During the period, I also received a call from the secretary to the CM who conveyed the CM’s concern regarding the ongoing stand-off and said that the matter should be resolved peacefully,” the report quoted the home secretary as saying.

“While putting all the facts and circumstances in juxtaposition, it has become crystal clear that the order of disengagement was not passed at all, rather, the position taken by the Punjab CM appears to be an afterthought defence…”, says the report.



The report says that Sanaullah chaired a high-level meeting on June 16 in which the decision to use force to remove encroachments and barriers set up by PAT supporters outside their Minhaj-ul-Quran office in the Model Town area of Lahore. Dr Shah consented on his behalf, according to the report.

On the night of June 16, government officials and police started the operation, but they were met with resistance from PAT sympathisers. In retaliation, the police opened fire, resulting in 14 casualties as well as injuries to many others.

“Admittedly, such a level of offensive by police by any stretch of imagination did not commensurate with the level of resistance by unarmed PAT workers,” the report says of the police action.

The report also criticised members of the Punjab police for their complicity in the incident.

“…no police official from top to bottom, whether actively participating in the operation or not, would utter a single word about the person under whose command the police resorted to firing upon the PAT workers. Understandably, all were in unison on withholding information from this tribunal.”

It also raised questions regarding the decision to replace the Inspector General of Police in Punjab Khan Baig and the District Commission Officer (DCO) Lahore just before the incident.



In court

Earlier in the day, a full bench of Lahore High Court headed by Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh rejected the Punjab Government’s appeal against a single bench's order to release the Model Town judicial inquiry report within 30 days prepared by Justice Ali Baqar Najfi into the killings of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek  (PAT)'s workers.

The bench, headed by Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and comprising Justice Shahbaz Ali Rizvi and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin announced its verdict in a 101-page judgment. The judgment was reserved on November 24.

The full bench held that “to ensure fair trial and administration of justice, the disclosure of this inquiry report of tribunal shall not impact the outcome of the trial in progress in contravention of law applicable thereto”.

The full bench, in its judgment, also expressed its dismay over the use of inappropriate language against the single bench, holding that “We have noted with concern that some of the language used in memorandum of this appeal regarding the learned single judge is not appropriate.

The Punjab government had filed an appeal challenging the September 21 decision of a single bench comprising Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi in which the provincial government had been ordered to make the report public and immediately hand it over to the victims.

The judgment further states that when an inquiry had been conducted to determine the facts behind and causes of the incident in the public interest, “we are at loss to understand that how public interest is served and unrest in the general public satisfied unless the inquiry report is made available to the general public”.

Petitioner’s lawyers advocate Azhar Siddique and Khawaja Ahmed Tariq Raheem had contended the court that the judicial inquiry of the Model Town incident is a public document and every citizen has the right of information under law. They implored the model town inquiry was conducted on the direction of the Punjab government which meant to bring to book to the actual responsible of the incident as well as to dispense justice to the heirs of the injured and martyred people. They implored the court that the legal heirs of the deceased as well as the injured do not know who was responsible for the massacre. They further argued that the Punjab government first ordered the judicial inquiry of incident and then started smearing Justice Ali Baqar Najfi through various remarks. They prayed to dismiss the Punjab government’s intra-court appeal and for the judicial inquiry into the Model Town incident to be made public.



The Punjab government’s lawyer Khawaja Haris had argued that the Model Town report has no judicial significance. He also said that the trial of the Model Town incident is still pending in court and publicising the report will definitely affect the trial. He also contended that the version of the government was not heard by the single bench.

The full bench’s judgment says that the language used in the government’s appeal was not only inappropriate but may also amount to contempt of court.  The bench expressed dismay, observing that “the appeal was drafted by a “government pleader” who, as a legal officer, is expected to be well versed with the norms of administration of justice and language to be used in pleadings.”

The Punjab government’s lawyer Haris expressed remorse on the language used in the appeal but told the judges that the words were used only to emphasise the grounds of the appeal. In his main arguments, Haris had argued that procedural impropriety and mannerism the impugned the judgment, and that there were also merits and questions of law involved.

Barrister Ali Zafar and Azhar Siddique, representing the victims, argued that after the Model Town incident on June16 and 17, 2014, there was huge public outcry, and the Punjab government, in accordance with its international commitments and the principles of law, was forced to request that the Lahore High Court chief justice appoint an inquiry commission. Zafar further argued that the government was wrongly to claim that the release of the Najafi’s report would prejudice the trial of any person or hinder the administration of justice.

On the government counsel’s objection that no notice was issued to the advocate general by the single bench, therefore impugning the single-bench judgment, the verdict says that “we [the judges] have gone through order sheet and found that notices were issued to the AG. Therefore, it could not be said that requirement of notice under the relevant law was not adhered to.”