Gul Plaza shop owners give Sindh govt 7-day ultimatum for relief, reconstruction

Eight months after the Gul Plaza tragedy, the affected shop owners say the building’s debris remains uncleared, and reconstruction has yet to begin, prompting them to give the Sindh government a seven-day deadline to address their grievances.

Gul Plaza Owners Association General Secretary Arif Qadri said on Wednesday that around 850 shop owners, including more than 100 women, had lost their businesses in the deadly blaze, leaving some 1,200 families facing an uncertain economic future.

Addressing a protest camp set up by the association at the site of the demolished plaza, Qadri said nearly 800 affected shop owners had received neither relief nor compensation. “The government has compensated tenants, but the actual shop owners have received nothing,” he said.

Read More: Challan holds Gul Plaza administration responsible for fire, exonerates govt bodies

Qadri demanded the immediate removal of the debris and the announcement of a reconstruction plan, along with financial assistance for the affected traders. He warned that if the government failed to respond within seven days, the traders would stage a sit-in on MA Jinnah Road. “Stop forgetting us. Do not force us to cross the line,” he said.

Business leader Abdul Rauf Ibrahim also warned of a prolonged protest and possible closure of MA Jinnah Road. He urged Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah to personally hear the grievances of the affected traders. Ibrahim also called for an audit of the compensation distributed among the victims.

Former FPCCI vice president Asif Sakhi claimed that the Sindh government had distributed Rs4.5 billion in compensation following the tragedy, but said the shop owners had received no share of the funds. He alleged that the compensation was distributed through the “main accused” in the tragedy and said the matter would have to be taken up at the federal level.

The affected traders reiterated their demand for immediate reconstruction of Gul Plaza and compensation for shop owners, warning that failure to meet their demands would trigger a prolonged sit-in on MA Jinnah Road.

Defence puts govt institutions in the dock

A judicial magistrate hearing the Gul Plaza fire case rejected a defence plea seeking the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT), observing that such teams were generally constituted in terrorism cases.

The court will decide at the next hearing whether to approve the charge sheet and whether government institutions should also be nominated as accused in the case.

Tanveer Pasta, president of the Gul Plaza Traders Association, and others appeared before the judicial magistrate (South) as the prosecution and defence exchanged arguments over alleged negligence in the deadly fire that claimed more than 70 lives.

Prosecutor Hassan Bhatti told the court that Pasta was guilty of the “highest degree of negligence”, alleging that he failed to call the fire brigade after the blaze broke out.

Defence counsel Javed Mir, however, disputed the allegations and accused the new investigation officer (IO) of attempting to protect government institutions.

Read More: Gul Plaza owners cry foul

He said the court had previously ordered that government departments be included in the investigation, but the latest charge sheet had given a clean chit to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC), Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA), Fire Brigade and other institutions.

“Tanveer Pasta is neither the builder nor the owner, while the SBCA took no action against the builder,” the lawyer argued.

Mir said the fire had started on the ground floor, where no deaths were reported, and claimed that more than 5,000 people had been present and were evacuated. “These people did not die because of the fire but due to suffocation caused by the negligence and incompetence of government institutions,” he added.

The lawyer further argued that the fire brigade had no water available and that people had continued screaming for help for around one-and-a-half hours.

He questioned why the IO had failed to record the statement of the deputy commissioner (South), who, according to him, had reached the site within five minutes of the incident.

Mir also questioned the nomination of a child and his father as accused, saying the child’s elder brother had also been present at the site but was not included in the case.

IO DSP Aamir Warik informed the court that there were 16 doors on the ground floor, which was why no one had died there. He said iron windows had been installed at the premises.

The defence counsel rejected the IO’s explanation, saying people had been “burnt to ashes” and that the investigation failed to properly establish responsibility for the deaths.

The court also asked whether the Civil Defence Department had been included in the investigation. The IO replied that statements of two Civil Defence officials had been recorded.

He further said government institutions had broken windows and doors during rescue operations. The defence, however, maintained that the doors had been broken only on the second day.

Also Read: Gul Plaza fire probe leaves blame unresolved

Mir alleged that the IO had ignored the seven points identified by the court when it ordered a fresh investigation.

Pasta also addressed the court and said people had remained alive for two to two-and-a-half hours after the fire broke out. “Five of my colleagues were martyred, but there is no mention of them in the charge sheet,” he said.

He claimed that a snorkel had malfunctioned and that several lives could have been saved had it continued working. “I was saved by people; otherwise, I too would have died. Our people died, and we have been made accused,” Pasta said while breaking down in tears.

He also claimed that more than Rs7 billion had been distributed among the victims on his recommendation.

The court rejected the defence plea for formation of a JIT and adjourned the hearing until September 18, when it will decide on approval of the charge sheet and the question of whether government institutions should be made accused in the case.