'Gul Plaza had no fire alarms or safety measures'

KARACHI:

A shopkeeper on Thursday alleged that Gul Plaza had no fire safety arrangements or alarm system, telling a judicial magistrate that the circumstances surrounding the deadly blaze raised suspicions of a conspiracy.

The witness, Shahid Paniwala, made the allegations while recording his statement before a judicial magistrate (South) hearing the Gul Plaza fire case. Defence counsel Javed Mir completed his cross-examination of the witness during the proceedings.

The witness alleged that negligence by the market administration had left shopkeepers and customers trapped for hours, adding that no effective measures were taken to save lives despite opportunities to do so.

He maintained that since the fire had originated inside the market, responsibility rested with its administration. The intensity and spread of the blaze, he said, had raised suspicions that it was deliberately set. The incident resulted in loss of lives and substantial financial damage, he added.

The witness told the court that he had sent a letter on January 22 to the deputy inspector general, SSP South and SHO Nabi Bakhsh, seeking registration of a case. When no action was taken, he approached the sessions court. Following court notices, a report was submitted on January 31 stating that the case had already been registered on the evening of January 23.

He also referred to a judicial commission report which, according to him, stated that only two to four of Gul Plaza's 16 entrances were open. The magistrate, however, directed him to focus on his own statement rather than referring to the report.

The witness claimed that the market had neither fire safety arrangements nor fire alarms and that the Gul Plaza traders' union was not registered. He also offered to provide videos to support his allegations, but the court observed that such material was not required for the recording of a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

He requested that the traders should not be labelled a conspiratorial group unless their testimony was proved false.

During cross-examination, the defence questioned the witness about his mineral water supply business, operated under the name "It's Pure", and the financial losses he claimed to have suffered in the fire.

The witness said his business generated an income of Rs400,000 to Rs500,000 a month, but acknowledged that it was not registered with any department and that he had not submitted laboratory reports to the market administration. He said the administration had never asked him to provide such reports.