Conviction under anti-terror Laws: Court may reject compromise deal, say legal experts

KARACHI:

As Shahzeb Khan’s family finally opts for an out-of-court settlement in the high-profile murder case, many legal experts argue that the chances of the court accepting a compromise, in cases adjudicated under the anti-terrorism law, is unlikely.

The debate over pardoning convicted murderers has gained recent traction after two cases of compromise emerged in two equally high profile cases during the past five months. Both Sarfaraz Shah’s murder by Rangers personnel and Shahzeb Khan’s death at the hands of feudal influentials, have once again fuelled the debate on out-of-court settlements.

Shahrukh Jatoi, Nawab Siraj Talpur were handed down the death penalty, while Nawab Sajjad Talpur and their cook Ghulam Murtaza Lashari were given life imprisonment after an anti terrorism court convicted the accused in the murder of 20-year-old Shahzeb Khan.

In the final charge-sheet submitted to the anti-terrorism court, the police investigator had charged the main accused and co-accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and under Section 7 of the anti-terrorism act (ATA) 1997.

Given that the conviction came under the anti-terrorism act, questions about the applicability of the surprise pardon extended to the convicts by Shahzeb Khan’s family have now arisen.

Mahmood Alam Rizvi, a senior lawyer representing the convicts, has said that the appellate high court will interpret the law in this matter. Sounding a positive note, the lawyer said that he was of the view that all acts in which physical harm is caused are a bailable offence, as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code. He added that compromise in a murder case is also “supported by Islamic law.”

However, many others disagree.

Farooq Ahmed, a lawyer specialising in criminal trials, feels that convictions under section 7 of the ATA are unlikely to have a compromise settlement. “Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code is compoundable, but the Section 7 anti-terrorism act is non-compoundable. It means an offence punishable under the Section 302 of the PPC can be compromised, but that falling within the ambit of the Section 7 of the ATA cannot be compromised,” said Ahmed.

In 1997, the government had enacted the special anti-terror law with a view to deal with acts of terrorism by awarding stricter sentences to the accused, without a possibility of compromise.

Ahmed’s stance is supported by many others.

Former prosecutor general, Naimat Ali Randhawa, says the anti-terrorism act is a special enactment in which there is no provision of compromise. “Only criminals involved in heinous crimes like terrorism, kidnapping for ransom, murder, etc, are tried by the anti-terrorism courts, thus there is no question of their being acquitted through compromise,” he added.

Karachi’s anti-terrorism court had sentenced the murderers of Shahzeb Khan following lengthy proceedings, which started in the first week of January, and the verdict was pronounced in June.

“Once a case is made under the anti-terror law, and the sentences are awarded following trial, it means the offence alleged on the defendants has been proven. In the post-sentence procedure, the sentences can be challenged, but there is no room for compromise, even by the victim’s legal heirs,” Randhawa explained.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 10^th, 2013.