ISLAMABAD, Dec 18: On December 12, an Islamabad High Court (IHC) division bench, comprising Chief Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi took up a case involving those accused of the Marriott Hotel blast only to be told that Deputy Attorney General Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri was busy at the Supreme Court.

Malik Ishtiaq, the standing counsel for the federation, not only informed the court of Jahangiri’s absence but also asked for an adjournment that was granted.

This was the fifth adjournment over a year-and-a-half due to which the case seems to have come to a halt thanks to the government that asked for each of those adjournments.

It seems as if the government’s lawyers are avoiding appearing in court to argue the appeal filed by the federal government against the acquittal of four suspects of the case since June 2010.

The government filed an appeal against the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) on May 5, 2010 that acquitted Dr Mohammad Usman, Mohammad Hameed Afzal, Tehseenullah Jan and Rana Ilyas Ahmed who were accused of being involved in the suicide bombing at Marriott Hotel that killed 53 people and injured more than 266.

The law ministry on June 28 directed the deputy attorney general (DAG) Abid Hussain Saqi to file an appeal in the Lahore High Court (LHC).

The appeal claimed that sufficient material was available with the prosecution to connect the accused with the commissioning of the offence.

The federation’s counsel did not pursue the case after filing it. This is why on September 28, 2010, the court took up the petition and highlighted the government’s attitude. The two-member division bench, comprising Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Justice Sheikh Ahmed Farooq, observed: “The DAG (Abid Hussain Saqi) filed instant appeal against acquittal. A notice shall be issued to him to appear in this court on next date otherwise it (the case) will be dismissed for non-prosecution.”

Advocate Saqi, when contacted, told Dawn that the appeals against the acquittal normally took time.

He added that since he had relinquished the charge of the office of the deputy attorney general it was not appropriate for him to comment on the matter.

On October 11, 2010, DAG Shaista Qaiser appeared before the same bench and asked for an adjournment saying she was not prepared to argue.

The case was again fixed in the LHC on November 11but this hearing also did not lead to any progress.

After the revival of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on January 3, 2011, the case was transferred to it.

Nearly a year after its last hearing, the appeal was fixed before Chief Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Justice Riaz Ahmed Khan on November 11. But once again DAG Qazi Rafiuddin Babar sought an adjournment. The next hearing on December 12 proved to be no different.

When asked, Jahangiri told Dawn that on December 12 he was in the Supreme Court because the court was hearing the presidential reference on the trial of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

“I will examine the case and will request the official concerned to fix the matter for the next week,” he added.

However, it is hard to believe that the government will now proceed more diligently. This is also what some lawyers associated with the government claim.

A federation counsel on the condition of anonymity told Dawn that the federation lacked the evidence to convict the suspects.

He added that this was the reason that the law officers were reluctant to associate themselves with this case.

According to him, the flaws in the prosecution’s case were cited in the acquittal order of the trial court.

ATC Judge Akram Awan in his judgment had said out of the 84 witnesses produced by the prosecution only 15 were relevant.

The other witnesses had nothing to do with the involvement of the accused in the attack. Judge Awan added that the prosecution had failed to connect any of the accused with the event.

The judgment did not come as a surprise as most experts agree that suspected militants or those accused of terrorist attacks are usually freed because of weak prosecution case.

Advocate colonel (retired) Inamur Rahim, who acted as the defence counsel in the GHQ attack case, said the ministry of law went into such litigation because of the pressure of intelligence agencies.

He added that the government lawyers were aware of the fate of such petitions which is why they kept delaying the case.

Senior lawyer Hashmat Habib, who too has defended some of those accused of terrorism, said the government filed these appeals only to prove to the world that it was committed to fighting terrorism. He suggested that the courts should not allow cases to get delayed for such a long duration.