KARACHI, May 7: Deputy Speaker of the Sindh Assembly Shehla Raza has said that the Pakistan People’s Party does not want to see the judiciary fall victim to the infamous ‘doctrine of necessity’ and claimed that her party has given the most sacrifices for the independence of the judiciary.

She was speaking to the media on Wednesday at a press conference held at the Karachi Press Club.

She said that all decisions, specifically with reference to the judiciary, would be taken after consultations. Ms Raza said that the solutions to people’s problems lay with political parties and asked the media to support democratic forces.

“You know who is responsible for the events of April 9. You must become a strong opposition,” she told the media-persons.

She added that “we are going to deal with militants of any party accordingly; however, we want to talk to democratic forces.”

When a questioner asked why there was no progress in the Mazar-i-Quaid rape case, Ms Raza claimed that the matter was now in court and it was a major development that three suspects had been positively identified through DNA profiling, as she claimed previously, such matters would either be hushed up or the victim would be quietly sent abroad.

“Political parties should raise these issues. I thank the media for highlighting the case. All of society should condemn these acts. A lot of people were behind this crime. It was not just the five suspects (working alone). This crime didn’t happen all of a sudden. These types of activities were going on for quite a while. We need to unmask the people behind this,” she said.

The deputy speaker added that she was sheltering the victim, who wanted to go home.

An 18-year-old woman was raped on the grounds of the Mazar-i-Quaid by unknown persons on the night of March 15 and was found in a precarious condition at the gate of the mausoleum in the early hours of March 17.

Two suspects were arrested on April 24 after they were positively identified through DNA profiling, while a third was arrested on March 20 after he was positively identified in court by the victim. A subsequent DNA test also proved his involvement.