PIC incident not result of sudden provocations

Police had ample time to make necessary arrangements to thwart the attack


Muhammad Shahzad December 14, 2019
PHOTO: FILE

LAHORE: Lawyers attack on the Punjab Institute of Cardiology (PIC) was not a result of sudden provocations, the departmental correspondence of police revealed on Friday.

The official correspondence also mentioned that the mob of lawyers, while setting out for the PIC, was carrying batons.

Police had also received an ample amount of time to make necessary arrangements to thwart the attack on the PIC, it added.

The reports said that lawyers started moving towards the PIC at 11:20am and reached outside the emergency gate at around 12:29pm ie more than one hour.

Lawyers call for inquiry into PIC attack

To deal with such a mob that was carrying batons and was moving towards a hospital to take revenge, police had deployed only five reserves (about 100 police officials) as the security arrangements despite having more than one hour in hand.

No water cannons, a prime effective tool used to disperse protestors especially in the winter season, had also not been deployed during the time period. The report written by Deputy Inspector General of Police Operations (DIG) Rai Babar Saeed has written to his senior command that on December 11, 2019, at about 10:50am, a “mob of 300-400 lawyers” assembled at the bar room Aiwan-e-Adal Lahore where they alleged that sitting cabinet of Lahore Bar has reconciled with doctors on a disputed matter and also chanted slogans against cabinet.

Lahore Bar Association President Asim Cheema tried to convince them that the sitting cabinet of the Lahore Bar did not reconcile with the doctors. On which a few of them insisted to march towards the PIC to take revenge in response to a video made viral by doctors. At around 11:20am, a mob of lawyers carrying baton sticks started moving towards the hospital.

At around 12:29pm, (after over one hour) lawyers reached the hospital and started chanting slogans against doctors and forcibly entered the premises of the PIC after breaking the emergency gate. Police tried to stop them but they did not. The official correspondence further added that lawyers damaged walk through gates, CCTV cameras, mirrors, medical equipment and glasses of many vehicles. Lawyers also burnt a police vehicle. Punjab Minister Fayazul Hasan Chohan was also attacked. After incurring of all these losses, police resorted to baton charge and tear gas shelling to disperse the lawyers.

The official correspondence had mentioned the death of only one woman as a result of the conflict. However, two FIRs quoted in the correspondence had pointed out three deaths. On Friday, few more arrests were made regarding PIC attack. Till December 12, at least 68 lawyers had been arrested. On Friday, the number of arrests reached 81. Eight reportedly were arrested by Mozang police, three by Nawan Kot, one by Shalimar, nine by Mangamandi, 30 from Hadiara, five from North Cant, five from South Cant, eight from Kahna, four from Gulberg, one from Model Town, five from Faisal Town and one from Naseerabad.

Lawyers in the dock: 250 booked on terrorism in PIC attack

Raid for the arrest of the son of Imran Khan nephew was also made by the investigations wing on Friday. However, the police failed as he was not at home at the time of the raid.

Two lawyers who were recorded resorting to firing during the time of the incident have been identified as Malik Haseeb and Azam Mayo.

Police said that they have formed special police teams to arrest the suspects. It also added that police were not under any form of pressure regarding the arrests. On Thursday during media talk outside the PIC, CCPO Zulfiqar Hameed had also said they will proceed further according to law. He had added that the process to identify the suspects from CCTV footage was in process.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2019.

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