Terrorism on trial
Decision eventually reached in Lakhvi's case could have far-reaching repercussions given the sensitivity of the case
It is imperative that justice not only be done but also be seen as having been done, so that correct message can be sent out by courts PHOTO: AFP
The complications in trying terrorists and bringing them to justice are many. This has been illustrated by the order issued by a two-member Supreme Court bench on January 9 overturning the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision to free one of the most prominent men held on terrorism charges, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, on bail of Rs1 million from Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi, where he has been held since 2009. Lakhvi is alleged to have been the key figure behind the planning of the Mumbai attacks of 2008, which killed scores of people and left Pakistan-India relations in shambles, so much so that India still views Pakistan through the prism of the Mumbai attacks.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that decisions should not be taken in haste and both sides needed to be given sufficient time to present their case. Speaking for the government, the Attorney General of Pakistan had said that while the prosecution had been able to put up more than 50 witnesses despite the dangers faced by them and the series of threats made, it needed more time to solidify the case. This request had been denied by an anti-terrorism court on December 18, after which Lakhvi was detained under the broad Maintenance of Public Order law. The IHC had overturned this detention.
The Supreme Court ruling seems to make good sense. It is obviously important, for the sake of a fair trial, that time be given for all the facts to be put on record. This appears not to have happened in the Lakhvi case. The matter will now revert to the IHC which will resume hearing the case on January 12. The decision eventually reached in the matter could have far-reaching repercussions given the sensitivity of the case and the fact that New Delhi is also obviously very interested in the fate of those accused in the Mumbai attack and will be closely following developments at a time when tensions between the two nations are high. It is, therefore, imperative that justice be done, and also be seen as having been done, so that the correct message can be sent out by the courts at a time when they are under tight scrutiny.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 9th, 2015.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that decisions should not be taken in haste and both sides needed to be given sufficient time to present their case. Speaking for the government, the Attorney General of Pakistan had said that while the prosecution had been able to put up more than 50 witnesses despite the dangers faced by them and the series of threats made, it needed more time to solidify the case. This request had been denied by an anti-terrorism court on December 18, after which Lakhvi was detained under the broad Maintenance of Public Order law. The IHC had overturned this detention.
The Supreme Court ruling seems to make good sense. It is obviously important, for the sake of a fair trial, that time be given for all the facts to be put on record. This appears not to have happened in the Lakhvi case. The matter will now revert to the IHC which will resume hearing the case on January 12. The decision eventually reached in the matter could have far-reaching repercussions given the sensitivity of the case and the fact that New Delhi is also obviously very interested in the fate of those accused in the Mumbai attack and will be closely following developments at a time when tensions between the two nations are high. It is, therefore, imperative that justice be done, and also be seen as having been done, so that the correct message can be sent out by the courts at a time when they are under tight scrutiny.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 9th, 2015.