KARACHI: A prosecution witness on Saturday nominated Mayor Karachi Wasim Akhtar and Umair Siddiqui in a case pertaining to alleged arson and violence during the May 12, 2007 mayhem in Karachi.

The Karachi mayor, Umair Siddiqui along with around 20 others have been charged with rioting, arson attacks and terrorist acts in identical cases registered at the airport police station on May 12.

Around 50 people were killed and over 100 wounded in attacks on rallies taken out by different political parties and the legal fraternity who had attempted to receive the then deposed chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry at the Karachi airport ahead of a lawyers’ gathering.

CJP Chaudhry was forced to fly back to Islamabad after nine hours of being restricted to the airport.

Mayor Akhtar was the provincial home adviser to the chief minister at that time.

On Saturday, the judge of the ATC-VII, who is conducting the trial in the judicial complex inside the central prison, took up seven identical cases for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses.

The detained accused Umair Siddiqui was produced from the prison while others, including Arshad Baig, Anwar-ul-Hassan, M. Abbas, M. Nasir, Farhatullah, Faisal Wahab, Zafar Khan, Zulfiqar Ali, Zakir Hussain, Suhail Rana, Azhar Qureshi, M. Imran, Abdul Salam, Syed Salman Rizvi, Nasir Zia, Nazim Akhtar, M. Aslam, M. Hanif, Abdul Zahid, Abdul Ahad and Haq Nawaz appeared on bail.

Accused Wasim Akhtar was granted exemption from personal appearance from the court till further orders on request of his defence counsel Irshad Ahmed.

The prosecutor produced a witness, M. Hassan Panhwar, to record his statement.

The witness deposed that he was posted as sub-inspector at the Airport police station and assigned security duty in the area of the Malir Halt on the day of the alleged incident on May 12, 2007.

The witness, while assigning role of the accused persons, testified that he had seen both Wasim Akhtar and Umair Siddiqui leading a rally in the area.

Mr Panhwar further deposed that the participants in the rally turned violent, as they started firing with weapons and also set ablaze vehicles in the area.

The witness, since retired from the police service, said that an FIR in the present case was lodged on his complaint.

The witness also rightly identified Siddiqui before the court as the accused in the case.

During his cross-examination, the defence counsel Irshad Bandhani and Mohammad Mushtaq pointed out that the witness Mr Panhwar in his statement, recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had clearly stated that he was unable to identify any of the accused persons, who were allegedly present at the place of the incident.

They added that the witness had also not mentioned description of any accused in his earlier statement.

The counsel asked witness Panhwar whether he had identified Umair Siddiqui as accused since he was the only accused summoned in the witness box.

However, the witness maintained that he had clearly identified Wasim Akhtar and Umair Siddiqui as the accused persons.

After recording his testimony and cross-examination, the judge directed the investigating officer to ensure presence of other witnesses of the prosecution on the next date without fail and fixed the matter on Feb 29.

The judge also record statement of a prosecution witness in another identical case.

The prosecutor produced another witness, Salahuddin Shaikh, a private person.

The witness deposed that he was coming from Gulshan-i-Hadeed with his mother in a Mehran car, which unidentified accused persons intercepted near the Rangers headquarters at the Malir Halt. He added that the accused set fire to his car that was destroyed.

Then, the prosecutor asked the witness to identify the accused persons.

But, the witness failed to identify the indicted MQM leaders Wasim Akhtar, Umair Siddiqui or anyone else, as the accused in the case.

Responding to a question, the witness admitted that he lodged an FIR about burning of his four-wheel vehicle three to four days after the incident.

After recording their testimonies, the judge summoned other witnesses to record their statements in the present case. The investigating officer was directed to ensure their presence before the court on the next date without fail and the matter was fixed on Feb 29.

The judge summoned the supervisory investigating officer of the Airport police station to appear before the court on the next date and also produce prosecution witnesses in another identical case. The judge issued this directive as none of the prosecution witnesses turned up to testify against the accused persons in a third identical case.

The investigating officer of the case informed that he had been transferred from the Airport police station and requested that the supervisory IO of the police station be directed to produce the witnesses in the present case.

The judge directed the office to send notice to the SIO through the SSP concerned.

The judge also summoned witnesses of the fourth identical case and directed the IO of the case to ensure their attendance before the court without fail on Feb 29.

The judge issued notices to the complainants in two other identical cases to appear before the court to record their testimonies on Feb 29 and directed the IOs to produce the witnesses on the next date without fail.

Published in Dawn, February 9th, 2020