F-8 katcheri attack: ‘It was a cover up to kill the judge’

Slain ADSJ’s brother claims killing was in connection with dismissal of Lal Masjid petition.

ISLAMABAD: A terrorist attack was planned to cover up the murder of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Malik Rafaqat Awan, his brother Safdar Hussain told the Islamabad High Court on Wednesday.

Heading the bench, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui issued notices to the Margalla SHO and the state counsel for June 15 while hearing a petition calling for the registration of a second FIR in the judge’s murder, who along with several others was killed in the bomb-and- gun attack at the district courts in 2014.

In the petition, retired colonel Hussain, through his counsel Sajid Awan, claimed the attack was conceived after the ‘judge dismissed an application of Lal Masjid leader Abdul Rasheed Ghazi’s son demanding a case against Gen (retd) Musharraf’ which hurt the sentiments of the suspects – Babar Hussain, Anees Ahmed and Khalid Noon. All three worked at the court as a gunman, naib qasid and reader respectively.

“I (Babar) and Noon resolved to put an end to the life of the judge, hence we made a plan to eliminate him as he hurt our sentiments,” Hussain quoted Babar as saying while narrating the shooting incident on March 3, 2014.

The former colonel claimed he was approached by Babar while attending a trial at the Anti-Terrorism Court in May this year. Babar said he could arrange Rs10 million with Noon’s help to compensate for the killing if they could reach a compromise, shared Hussain.

The counsel claimed in the petition that Babar, Noon and Ahmed planned the assassination in a way that it could not trace back to them.

A week before the attack, the suspects discussed that ‘some terrorists will be deployed to give cover by inflicting and firing more bullets on the judge’s body’ and would explode themselves in case they were apprehended.

But on the day of the incident, the attackers failed to reach the courtroom. In order to merge the assassination with an act of terrorism, the suspects fired shots from their revolver on the cupboard and wall of the chamber, and also shot dead the judge, he added.

The petitioner took the case to court after the Margalla SHO did not register a case on his application and his separate petition was also disposed of and adjourned for indefinite period by additional sessions judge Khurram Ali Khan. On Feb 13, Justice Siddiqui set aside the order of the sessions court.

“The petitioner cannot be penalised or deprived of the opportunity to prove his case on the basis of evidence which has never been a part and parcel of the earlier investigation,” the petitioner maintained.

Hussain said he was pursuing a national cause – fight against terrorism – and instead of being discouraged he should be provided all the facilities to pursue the matter with full force.

Citing differences, he said the earlier FIR stated the judge was killed by terrorists whereas his petition categorically points to a target killing with a motive.

The petitioner’s version was neither recorded in the FIR nor has it been investigated, he said. Moreover, the Joint Investigation Team’s report into the incident also stated the weapons carried by the terrorists were not used in the court room or the judge’s chamber.

The counsel has prayed that a criminal case against the suspects be registered on the application of the petitioner.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 4^th, 2015.