Asghar Khan’s family repudiates FIA recommendation to close 2012 case

Later air marshal's heirs urge SC to continue case; say generals involved have confessed their crimes


Hasnaat Malik January 10, 2019
Air Marshal (R) Asghar Khan. PHOTO: FILE PHOTO

 ISLAMABAD  : The legal heirs of the late Air Marshal Asghar Khan have rejected the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) recommendations and requested the Supreme Court to continue with the proceedings.

The top court had issued a notice to the heirs of the late Asghar Khan after FIA suggested that the case relating to the implementation of the 2012 verdict be closed.

In 1996, Asghar Khan had filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court to probe into allegations that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had secretly funded several politicians in the 1990 election by dishing out 140 million rupees.

In their written reply to the court, widow of the late Air Marshal Amina Asghar Khan, son Ali Asghar Khan and daughters Nasreen Ahmed Khattak and Shireen Awan opposed FIA's suggestion and maintained that the authorities had not put in efforts to achieve the results.

The family members also implored the court to continue the case against former military dictators, arguing that they had confessed to their crime. They urged the top court to place the result of the trial before the people of Pakistan.

FIA recommends closure of Asghar Khan case to SC

"The late air marshal Asghar Khan endeavored to cleanse the democratic process from unlawful interference by any person, military or civilian, no matter highly placed. This endeavor has not yet achieved fruition and a just end. Consequently, the family of late air marshal Asghar Khan seeks to continue his endeavor and opposes the closure of the inquiry sought by the FIA," said the written reply.

The reply further said “unless those involved in the matter were taken to task the corrupt practices shall remain a threat to the democratic process in Pakistan”.

On December 31, the apex court issued notices to Khan’s heirs after the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) recommended closure of the inquiry for initiating action against politicians who allegedly received money from the country’s premier intelligence agency ahead of the 1990 general elections.

Furthermore, the family members expressed their concerns that "more than six years after the final judgement of the apex court, proceedings against none of the military personnel involved in the matter, including retd Gen Aslam Baig and retd Gen Asad Durrani who had confessed their wrongdoing against the Constitution and the law, have been concluded".

SC issues notices to heirs after FIA recommends closing Asghar Khan case

Lamenting FIA's progress in the case, the reply mentioned "no attempt has been made by the FIA to approach for evidence the central figure retired Brig Hamid Saeed Akhtar, who had confessed before the court his personal role in carrying out the unlawful operation regarding disbursement of funds" to various politicians and institutions before the general election of 1990.

The reply said that the Ministry of Defence did not support the FIA in implementing the court orders. "In these circumstances, the request to close the inquiry and the case is unwarranted," it added.

The reply maintained that a vague justification for its failure was provided by the FIA. The Ministry of Defence was asked to provide the current whereabouts/contact information of the officers but it failed to furnish the required facts and “informed FIA that action is being initiated against the army personnel involved and justice would be done in accordance with law.”

On December 29, 2018, the FIA had suggested that the Supreme Court close the case relating to the implementation of the Asghar Khan verdict for want of solid evidence.

A report furnished before the court by the FIA stated that the authorities did not have enough evidence to launch a criminal prosecution against the accused.

 

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