2008 Mumbai attacks: India’s refusal to allow cross-examination challenged

Accused says denying Pak lawyers to question witnesses is a violation of international laws.

Mudassir Raja April 29, 2012


The alleged mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks on Saturday challenged India’s refusal to allow Pakistani lawyers to cross-examine Indian witnesses in the case.

An eight-member commission comprising defence lawyers, prosecutors and a court official was allowed to travel to India on March 15 to gather evidences for the prosecution of seven suspects linked to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. However, the defence lawyers were barred from cross-examining the four prosecution witnesses in the case. The counsel for the commander of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, who is also accused in the case, Khawaja Haris Ahmed told the Anti-Terrorism Court - 1 (ATC-I).

ATC-I Special Judge Shahid Rafique adjourned the case hearing till May 5.

Lakhvi’s counsel argued that under international laws they have the right to question witnesses in the case, which include Chief Investigation Officer Mumbai Ramash Mahale; Rama Vijay Sawanth, the magistrate who recorded the confessional statement of Ajmal Kasab (the only attacker captured alive by the police); and Dr Shaliesh Mohiti and Dr Ganash Dhondiraj, who conducted post-mortems of 166 people killed in the attack.

However, Ahmed maintained that the Indian Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, who was deputed to facilitate the Pakistani judicial commission, stopped the defence lawyers from questioning the witnesses. Nikam had claimed that both the governments had already agreed in November 2010 that no cross-examination of witnesses will be carried out by Pakistani lawyers, said Ahmed.

“In the eye of law, the proceedings and recording of the statements of the Indian prosecution witnesses without examination by Pakistani lawyers had no legal bearing in Pakistan’s trial court,” Lakhvi’s counsel argued. He said that both Indian and Pakistani prosecution had not submitted any such agreement, adding that if such an agreement existed it holds no legal value, as the defence counsel cannot be deprived from the right to cross-examination.

The defence counsel urged on the court not to admit the statements of the Indian witnesses review records.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 29th, 2012.


Most Read


Akash | 9 years ago | Reply

@Lala Gee, We pity Pakistan and citizens like you, who are dragging the country into mess.

As I said on numerous times in my comments that Indian are different species with whom fact, logic, and reasoning doesn’t work.

Well our fact logic and reasoning works with world, except for Pakistan. So its you guys who behave like aliens.

Regarding evidence, your govt itself admitted that Pakistanis were involved. your TV channels admitted. Your defense is they were non state actors(as always).

Ok there may not be a smoking gun against Hafeez Saeed but he has been named by Kasab and David Headley. Why not further investigate

The issue is that the conspiracy was hatched in Pakistan, voice samples are there... it is is a matter of doing honest investigation.Any other country would have done so. But we know it is difficult to go after your own assets.

Live in denial, at the end of the day it is only harming Pakistan.

Raj - USA | 9 years ago | Reply

@jerseybb: With the exception of Ajmal kasab who has been convicted guilty, all others are citizens of India. Pakistan did not accept Kasab as its citizen for a long time, even claiming that Kasab cannot be a Pakistani name. Kasab's father himself admitted to the media that it was his son but still Pakistan continued on with its lies. Kasb asked for legal representation from Pakistan. He appealed openly on the video and also sent written appeals to Pakistan Embassy and Pakistan Government. Pakistan stuck to its earlier lies and did not provide him legal representation. Had Pakistan owned him up earlier and provided legal assistance, they could have not only cross examined Kasab but all other witnesses as well. Pakistan could have also called their own witnesses and examined all evidences.

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