Baldia factory fire: Special public prosecutor resigns as police refuse to help

Shazia Hanjrah was assisting the court in the case for more than two years.


Naeem Sahoutara February 16, 2015
The Baldia factory fire erupted on September 11, 2012, and claimed the lives of more than 250 factory workers. PHOTO: AYESHA MIR/Express

KARACHI:


The Baldia factory fire case suffered another setback when the special public prosecutor assisting the court in the fire case resigned citing lack of cooperation from the police investigator.


In 2012, Shazia Hanjrah, a practicing high court lawyer who works with the law firm owned by Pakistan Peoples Party's Farooq H Naek, was appointed by the provincial law department as a special public prosecutor to assist the trial court in a case against the owners of Ali Enterprises.

"I have sent my resignation to the provincial law and home departments, the prosecutor general and Sindh IG," said Hanjrah while talking to The Express Tribune on Monday.

Around 259 men and women died in the fire at Ali Enterprises on September 11, 2012 located in the Baldia industrial neighbourhood. A case was lodged against the factory owners, Abdul Aziz Bhailla and his sons, Arshad and Shahid, and their employees.

Hanjrah had been associated with the case for two years and blamed her resignation on lack of cooperation from the police investigator in the high-profile case, which is still pending trial. "For a successful trial in any criminal case, there needs to be complete cooperation between the prosecutor and investigating officer. It is a must," she said. "The police official investigating the case was not sharing any material regarding the investigation with me from day one." She added that the official had not even given her copies of the witness statements which were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code but were providing them to the lawyer defending the accused.

The JIT report

On February 10, the Rangers submitted a joint investigation team (JIT) report to the Sindh High Court (SHC) blaming the Muttahida Qaumi Movement's leaders for starting the Baldia factory fire.

Later, the SHC bench clarified that the JIT was based on the interrogation of a suspect identified as Rizwan Qureshi and was not connected to the Baldia case. The judges ordered that the JIT report may be placed before a competent forum to determine its authenticity and relevance to the Baldia factory fire case. The high court also directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a year.

Several days later, the investigating officer filed a list to the trial court, stating that there were 950 witnesses in the case.

Hanjrah said the investigating officer had bypassed her and submitted a list of the witnesses to the court. As per the law, any material that is submitted to the court in the case has to be scrutinised by the prosecutor first.

"This is how I came to now that the number of the witnesses in the case had suddenly jumped from 870 to 950," she said claiming that no such list was filed by the officer at the time when supplementary charge-sheet against the suspects was filed. "In view of all these reasons it is not possible to extend fair and just assistance to the court."

The factory owners, Arshad and Shahid Bhailla, were granted bail on February 11, 2013 by the SHC after the police had recommended dropping the charges of premeditated murder against them.

Earlier, a judicial commission constituted by the last PPP-led provincial government, headed by the retired SHC judge, Zahid Kurban Alvi, had declared that an electric short-circuit had caused the fire.

Hanjrah said that she had nothing to do with the JIT issue. She added the prosecution and the investigation were both separate departments. "The issue of JIT is not my job, my responsibility is to assist the court during the trial," she said. "It is none of my business."

Published in The Express Tribune, February 17th, 2015.

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