KARACHI: A prosecution witness testified before an antiterrorism court on Saturday that none of the leaders of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement took part in the infamous Aug 22, 2016 violent protest, arson attack and ransacking of media houses following an incendiary speech of London-based party founder Altaf Hussain.
Senior MQM leaders Dr Farooq Sattar, Khalid Maqbool Siddiqui, Dr Amir Liaquat Hussain, Amir Khan, Rashid Godil, Haider Abbas Rizvi, Salman Mujahid, Khushbakht Shujaat along with many others have been charged with facilitating the speech of Mr Hussain outside the Karachi Press Club that triggered the violent episode.
On Saturday, the ATC-II judge record the statement of DSP Qamar Asif, an eyewitness, produced by Rangers prosecutor Mushtaq Jahangiri.
MQM leaders and activists also appeared before the court.
The witness deposed that he was posted in the Saddar area since 2015 and assigned the duty of security in the neighbourhood.
He deposed that on Aug 19, 2016 he was assigned the task of maintaining security in the area of the KPC, where the MQM had set up a hunger strike camp to demand recovery of its “missing” activists.
The witness mentioned that on the day of the incident the MQM founder delivered a provocative speech from London through telephone after which stick-wielding party activists marched towards offices of two media houses in the afternoon.
He said that he along with other police officials reached the office of ARY News to stop charged protesters, who clashed with policemen and pelted stone and attacked the television channel’s office.
The DSP further testified that he himself got hurt after being hit by a stone hurled by protesters while another policeman was also injured.
During the cross-examination by the defence, the DSP denied having lodged any complaint with regard to the speeches delivered by the MQM chief to the participants at the hunger strike camp.
He also deposed that none of the MQM leaders took part in the violent protest or acts of arson and ransacking of the media houses, adding that he did not identify any of the protesters among the mob during an identification parade conducted by a judicial magistrate.
After recording his statement, the judge summoned the complainant of case on the next date and fixed the matter for Sept 14.
Two identical cases were registered on behalf of the state at the Artillery Maidan police station.
The cases were registered under Sections 109 (abetment), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed), 123-A (condemnation of the creation of the State, and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty), 124-A (sedition), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 302 (premeditated murder), 324 (attempted murder), 337 (Shajjah), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 395 (punishment for dacoity), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred rupees or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc), 506-B (criminal intimidation) read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
Published in Dawn, September 2nd, 2019
