KARACHI: Judge declines remand for want of jurisdiction : Daniel Pearl case
By Our Reporter
KARACHI, Feb 11: Differing interpretations of the recent amendment to the Anti-terrorism Act of 1997, regarding reconstitution of the ATCs, stood in the way of the Karachi police in obtaining physical remand from Justice Shabbir Ahmed of the Sindh High Court on Monday of the three suspects in the kidnapping case of Daniel Pearl.
Foreign electronic media had swarmed the High Court since morning in the hope that police would bring the three suspects, Salman Saqib, Fahd and Adil Shaikh, to obtain their remand in the high-profile kidnapping case of the Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl from Justice Ahmed who, before the amendment, also functioned as administrative judge of the ATCs.
The three accused were arrested in Gulistan-i-Jauhar for their alleged involvement in sending e-mail messages containing the abducted journalist’s pictures in captivity, allegedly on the instruction of the prime suspect, Shaikh Omar Saeed.
Amid long wait and see on Monday, around 4pm the SSP Police Investigation- II, Manzoor Ahmed Mughal, along with Advocate-General Sindh Raja Qureshi, appeared before Justice Ahmed in his chambers for obtaining remand of the three accused.
The accused were, nevertheless, not produced in the court. Khwaja Naveed Ahmed, counsel for one of the accused, Fahd, was also asked to appear in the chamber.
If the government is able to convince Justice Ahmed on jurisdiction point, then the accused are expected to be produced before him for remand on Tuesday.
According to Khawaja Naveed, Justice Ahmed asked the AG Sindh to satisfy him on the jurisdiction point in view of the amendment. Justice Ahmed wanted to be satisfied by the AG whether he was still administrative judge for the ATCs in Karachi, after the amendment.
The AG submitted various law points and contended that he could grant remand as new ATCs had not been constituted yet, and till their constitution he would work as administrative judge.
Justice Ahmed asked the AG to come on Tuesday with a copy of the notification.
In the notification of the amendment, which became effective “at once,” according to clause 5 of the amendment, “on the reconstitution of the Anti- Terrorism Courts under this section, the Anti-Terrorism Courts existing immediately before the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance 2002, shall stand abolished and all cases pending before such courts shall stand transferred and assigned to reconstituted courts having territorial jurisdiction under the direction and supervision of Chief Justices of High Court concerned.”
In the amended order there is no mention of the administrative judge, which had caused the question of jurisdiction.
Khwaja Naveed later told newsmen that since Justice Ahmed did not assume jurisdiction, he could not present his client’s case. He said he held the view that Justice Ahmed had no jurisdiction in the matter.
He told reporters that, according to law, police were responsible to produce any accused in a court of law within 24 hours after arrest, but this had not been done in the case of the three accused. “We don’t know the detail of the FIR and under what sections they have been held,” he said.
Daniel Pearl has been missing since Jan 23 and police believe some persons illegally detained him when he went to meet them. His wife had lodged a report at Artillery Maidan police station.
The amendment to the ATA has become controversial following the government’s decision to induct serving military officer into the restructured anti- terrorism courts.
Through the amendment to the ATA Ordinance of 2002 the government has provided for three-member anti-terrorism courts in country.
The legal fraternity has held that the ordinance is also in direct conflict with the judgments of the apex court in the case of Shaikh Liaquat Husain and Mehram Ali and certainly in excess of the extra-constitutional departure condoned by the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah case.
