SC dismisses pleas against shifting of trial venue: Daniel Pearl case
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, May 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed appeals of Ahmed Omar Saeed Shaikh, the principal accused in the Daniel Pearl case, and three others, seeking reversal of order of shifting the venue of trial from Karachi to Hyderabad.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmed, Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal and Justice Nawaz Abbasi, dismissed the appeals after Advocate-General of Sindh Raja Qureshi submitted reports of sensitive agencies about the security situation in Karachi and its possible effect on the trial.
Raja Qureshi appeared on behalf of the Sindh government, while K.M. Samdani advocate represented Ahmed Omar Seed Shaikh. Rai Bashir advocate appeared on behalf of co-accused Fahad Naseem, Adil Shaikh and Salman Saqib.
Raja Qureshi pleaded that the Sindh High Court was justified in withholding the information from the petitioners about the reports of different intelligence agencies and government departments.
The division bench of the Sindh High Court had valid concern in view of the reports of threats to the court and the prison staff, investigating agency, prosecution team and witnesses, he said.
In his written statement filed before the court, Raja Qureshi stated that the SHC was justified in shifting the case for trial to a court outside the metropolitan city of Karachi, keeping in view the sensitivity and seriousness of the matter being of a degree, which warranted immediate shifting of the venue for the protection of the prosecution team, prosecution witnesses and the investigators of the case.
Referring to the recent blasts in Karachi, Raja Qureshi said that there had been a conscious application of judicial mind by the SHC in the light of the constitutional obligations of providing safety and security to those engaged in the trial by the state.
He submitted that the trial of the petitioners was being conducted by the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Supreme Court may take into consideration that only four petitioners were being tried, whereas seven co-accused were absconders against whom the same charge could have been framed. Since they have not yet been apprehended, the division bench was lawfully justified in observing that Karachi being a big city would facilitate associates of the accused to put into effect their plans of terrorism to achieve the desired results.
K.M. Samdani, counsel for Omar Shaikh, referred to the allegations that the accused was threatening the members of prosecution team and investigation officers and Advocate-General was receiving abusive and threatening calls at his residence not to pursue the case and stop its proceedings. Moreover, the government too gave the reason for shifting the case to Hyderabad that Karachi Prison was not a safe place. He wondered that whose responsibility was to provide security.
