Stay against executions: LHC takes up govt’s review plea today

Notices issued to five convicts; military ordered to provide proceeding details to convicts


Our Correspondent December 24, 2014

RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench has issued notices to the counsel for five men condemned to death who were granted stays of execution on Monday, to argue the case today (Wednesday).

The court had stayed the scheduled executions of five death-row prisoners – convicted by a military court for a 2012 attack on an army camp in Gujrat that killed seven military officials. The convicts – Ehsan Azeem, Asif Idrees, Amir Yousaf, Kamran Aslam, and Umar Nadeem – were scheduled to be sent to the gallows in Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat jail on Monday.

Immediately after the order, the federal government filed a review appeal against the decision.



On Tuesday, the court issued notices to the attorneys of the convicts to argue the instant application on Wednesday. Justice Arshad Mahmood Tabassum of the LHC had also directed the military authorities on Monday to provide the convicts with copies of the military court’s proceedings and judgment by Wednesday.

The court will resume hearings today.

Meanwhile, a hearing on an acquittal application filed by former federal health minister Makhdoom Shahabuddin regarding the ephedrine quota case was deferred after a member of the division bench requested recusal from the bench as he had been a trial judge in the same case at a lower court.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 24th, 2014.

COMMENTS (7)

concern1 | 9 years ago | Reply

@Parvez: forget EU its the present cunning, coward PML(N) goverment which does not want hanging for they fear for their lives

Parvez | 9 years ago | Reply

The EU has pressurized the government to stay the executions......and the government is wiggling this-way-and-that in order to get out of this.....classic PML-N method.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
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