Human rights defenders and activists attended a condolence reference held for slain lawyer Rashid Rehman and passed a resolution demanding his suspected killers be nominated in the case. The event was held at the South Asian Free Media Association (Safma) office on Wednesday.
The participants passed a unanimous resolution, which states, “We demand that the three persons named by Rashid Rehman, Zulfiqar Sidhu, Sajjad Chawwan and Ayub Mughal in a letter to Multan capital police officer, Multan District Bar president and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan for threatening him during trial on April 9 must be included in the First Information Report.”
Participants expressed concern that a federal secretary closely related to Chawwan was impeding the police investigation, which was mentioned in the resolution. “He must be removed from office. It is also demanded that the state must provide protection to the family of Rashid Rehman.”
Rights activist Sarwar Bari alluded to the mindset fostered by the state that was perpetuating violations of human rights. We should adopt an aggressive stance against human rights violators, he stated.
Akram Khurram, a lawyer from Khanewal, said Rehman was threatened during a jail trial of a blasphemy accused, Junaid Hafeez. No First Information Report has been registered against the three men Rehman had explicitly mentioned in an email, he added.
“I’ve lost a brave friend and colleague,” said rights activist Tahira Abdullah. She asked if human rights defenders were vanishing to the point of extinction in the country. Of about of 7,000 lawyers currently practising in Multan city, none is willing to fight Rehman’s case, she added.
Peace and Development Executive Director for Minority Rights Romana Bashir said, “Very few people are speaking up for human rights. “Rashid was a courageous activist, who had risen above distinctions of religion and ethnicity.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 29th, 2014.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ