‘You can’t prosecute a Rangers man if he was on duty’
Sarfraz Shah’s killing was a mishap, not act of terrorism, pleads main accused.
KARACHI:
The killing of Sarfraz Shah was "a mishap and not an act of terrorism" by any yardstick of the law and should therefore not be heard in an anti-terrorism court. Also, there are laws that state that you cannot prosecute a member of the Rangers for something they did while on duty.
This is the argument made in a criminal revision application that filed on Wednesday before the Sindh High Court (SHC) by Muhammad Afzal, a sepoy of the Abdullah Shah Ghazi Rangers, who is facing trial in the case.
His lawyer Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi has challenged the Anti-Terrorism Court's (ATC I) decision to reject pleas to transfer the trial from the ATC to an ordinary court. He maintained that Afzal had only been doing his duty to ensure public security, maintain law and order and prevent terrorism. He (as in the Rangers) was authorised to do this by the Sindh government in a notification based on Section 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 on April 20, 2011. In fact, it extended these duties for the Rangers for three months when it issued the orders.
Rizvi maintained that there was an indemnity clause on prosecuting any person if (they had acted) in good faith or intended (this) under the Act as laid down in Section 39 of the ATA. In layman's terms, these laws and that of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance 1959 bar anyone from prosecuting a Rangers officer if he was on duty.
Terming the FIR as well as the charge sheet as defective, Rizvi submitted that no one had been terrorised and that no signs or feelings of terrorism were stated by the complainant or other witnesses and hence this case was not triable by an ATC.
The revision application is fixed for hearing on Thursday.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2011.
The killing of Sarfraz Shah was "a mishap and not an act of terrorism" by any yardstick of the law and should therefore not be heard in an anti-terrorism court. Also, there are laws that state that you cannot prosecute a member of the Rangers for something they did while on duty.
This is the argument made in a criminal revision application that filed on Wednesday before the Sindh High Court (SHC) by Muhammad Afzal, a sepoy of the Abdullah Shah Ghazi Rangers, who is facing trial in the case.
His lawyer Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi has challenged the Anti-Terrorism Court's (ATC I) decision to reject pleas to transfer the trial from the ATC to an ordinary court. He maintained that Afzal had only been doing his duty to ensure public security, maintain law and order and prevent terrorism. He (as in the Rangers) was authorised to do this by the Sindh government in a notification based on Section 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 on April 20, 2011. In fact, it extended these duties for the Rangers for three months when it issued the orders.
Rizvi maintained that there was an indemnity clause on prosecuting any person if (they had acted) in good faith or intended (this) under the Act as laid down in Section 39 of the ATA. In layman's terms, these laws and that of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance 1959 bar anyone from prosecuting a Rangers officer if he was on duty.
Terming the FIR as well as the charge sheet as defective, Rizvi submitted that no one had been terrorised and that no signs or feelings of terrorism were stated by the complainant or other witnesses and hence this case was not triable by an ATC.
The revision application is fixed for hearing on Thursday.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2011.