Protecting witnesses
It is obvious we need a robust witness protection programme
We have moved a big step away from bringing to justice those who were involved in the murder of social activist Sabeen Mahmud, who was shot dead in Karachi in April soon after hosting a controversial seminar on the troubled province of Balochistan at her cafe, The 2nd Floor. Ms Mahmud’s driver, who was with her in her car as she was gunned down, was killed on September 7 near his home in the Ibrahim Hyderi area of Karachi. Ghulam Abbas, also an employee of the anti-corruption department, was considered the key witness in the case and had identified the person involved in the Safoora Chowk massacre of Ismailis as among those who killed Ms Mahmud. The suspect had later admitted to involvement in the murder.
The police have described the elimination of Mr Abbas as a major setback in a sensitive investigation. He is reported to have already provided key evidence — but will now not be able to present it in court. There are few witnesses in the case. Ms Mahmud’s mother, also present in the car, was herself hit by bullets. The motives behind Mr Abbas’s killing are being investigated with the possibility of a personal enmity also raised. But the fact remains the same: a key witness in a murder case that shook the country has been prevented from telling his story. As a result, it will become harder to learn quite why a young woman, willing to stand up for the rights of others, was shot down in this fashion. The same pattern of killing key witnesses has been seen in other cases before this. The absence of witnesses, of course, makes convictions far harder, perhaps even impossible. It has become quite the norm to criticise the judiciary when criminals are acquitted, but it is not right to ignore that courts and judges can only go by what evidence is produced before them, and in any hearing, the testimony of witnesses is critical. It is obvious we need a robust witness protection programme. The absence of such a programme has allowed too many criminals to walk away free, further weakening a criminal justice system which already struggles to deliver justice. When key witnesses are removed in this fashion it becomes virtually impossible for us to determine the truth. We need to alter this state of affairs by offering witnesses safety.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 10th, 2015.
The police have described the elimination of Mr Abbas as a major setback in a sensitive investigation. He is reported to have already provided key evidence — but will now not be able to present it in court. There are few witnesses in the case. Ms Mahmud’s mother, also present in the car, was herself hit by bullets. The motives behind Mr Abbas’s killing are being investigated with the possibility of a personal enmity also raised. But the fact remains the same: a key witness in a murder case that shook the country has been prevented from telling his story. As a result, it will become harder to learn quite why a young woman, willing to stand up for the rights of others, was shot down in this fashion. The same pattern of killing key witnesses has been seen in other cases before this. The absence of witnesses, of course, makes convictions far harder, perhaps even impossible. It has become quite the norm to criticise the judiciary when criminals are acquitted, but it is not right to ignore that courts and judges can only go by what evidence is produced before them, and in any hearing, the testimony of witnesses is critical. It is obvious we need a robust witness protection programme. The absence of such a programme has allowed too many criminals to walk away free, further weakening a criminal justice system which already struggles to deliver justice. When key witnesses are removed in this fashion it becomes virtually impossible for us to determine the truth. We need to alter this state of affairs by offering witnesses safety.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 10th, 2015.