KARACHI: An antiterrorism court on Thursday deferred the concluding arguments in renowned social activist Perween Rahman’s murder trial following a restraining order issued by the Sindh High Court.

Ms Rahman, head of the Orangi Pilot Project, who devoted her life to the development of impoverished neighbourhoods, was gunned down near her office in Orangi Town on March 13, 2013.

Five detained accused — Abdul Raheem Swati, his son Mohammad Imran Swati along three co-accused Ayaz Shamzai, alias Swati, Amjad Hussain Khan and Ahmed Khan, alias Ahmed Ali, alias Pappu Kashmiri — have been charged with her murder.

On Thursday, the matter came up for hearing before the ATC-XIII judge, who is conducting the trial in the judicial complex inside the central prison.

At the outset, the complainant’s counsel Advocate Salahuddin submitted that his client had moved a review application against the trial court’s order of dismissing her application to halt its proceedings till the fate of her application for examining the members of three joint investigation teams (JITs) constituted to probe the murder case, was decided by the Supreme Court.

On Dec 22, the SHC issued an interim order, restraining the trial court from pronouncing judgment in the present case till Feb 12; the counsel informed and requested the judge to defer further the proceedings till then. He also produced a copy of the SHC’s restraining order.

Allowing the request, the judge deferred the concluding arguments being advanced by both sides in the case till Feb 14 and adjourned the hearing.

Earlier, the complainant had requested the trial court to record testimonies of the JITs’ members observing that at the very initial stage the police high-ups had disclosed in the press conference that the real culprits had been killed in a police encounter upon which the sister of the slain activist had petitioned the Supreme Court to constitute a commission to probe the matter.

The counsel had argued that the apex court constituted the commission and JIT to probe the matter, therefore the members of the JIT were material witnesses in the present case. The state prosecutor had also given his consent to allow the application.

While dismissing the plea, the judge had questioned that if the evidence of members of the JIT was so necessary then why did the prosecution fail to associate them as witnesses in the calendar of the witnesses in the case?

The judge had further observed that the law does not permit the court to fill up the lacunas in the prosecution case and noted that the Sindh High Court had issued clear directives to the trial court to finalise the matter within two months and the stipulated time was about to end.

Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2019