Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Dawn e-paper
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather

FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Irfan Hussain Jawed Naqvi Mahir Ali Kamran Shafi The Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

February 02, 2008 Saturday Muharram 23, 1429





KARACHI: SHC moved for Karsaz Tribunal dissolution



By Our Staff Reporter


KARACHI, Feb 1: The Pakistan People’s Party has moved the high court for dissolution of the tribunal probing the October 18, 2007, bomb explosions here at former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s welcome rally.

Filed by Sindh PPP President Qaim Ali Shah through Advocate Farooq H. Naek, the petition says that the late chairperson had lodged an FIR and demanded a UN inquiry into the incident but the complaint was not registered nor a UN probe sought.

Instead, a tribunal was set up by the provincial government under the West Pakistan Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969. It has no power to convict or sentence an accused and its report has no sanctity under the code of criminal procedure. It is ‘merely an eye-wash meant to protect the real culprits’, the petition alleged.

It also alleged that retired Justice Dr Ghous Mohammad, who constitutes the one-man tribunal, was ‘biased and prejudiced’ against the PPP. As an accountability judge, he had convicted PPP leaders Pir Mazharul Haq and Mir Munawar Ali Talpur, brother-in-law of Ms Bhutto. As chairman of the review board set up under the National Reconciliation Ordinance, he went of out of his way to ‘give benefits to the PML-Q members’. The PPP objected to the proceedings, particularly coercive summoning of its members, but the objections were summarily rejected by the tribunal as ‘ill-advised’ and misconceived’.

Besides seeking urgent hearing, the petitioner sought exemption from immediate production of documents relied upon. When Mr Naek’s associate approached the tribunal’s registrar for copies of documents, the petitioner claimed, he was told to file a wakalatnama or power of attorney on Mr Naek’s behalf so that his plea could be entertained and considered. Pending hearing, the petition requests the court to stay the proceedings of the tribunal and restrain it from taking coercive action to enforce the presence of PPP members.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2008