KARACHI, March 9: The star witness for the prosecution in the Daniel Pearl kidnapping case, who had earlier identified the prime suspect, Ahmed Umer Saeed Shaikh, as one of the kidnappers, recorded on Saturday his statement before a judicial magistrate.

Nasir Abbas, the 32-year-old taxi-driver, stated before the JM, South, Ms Irum Jahangir, on oath that on Jan 23 he was having his car washed near the Do Talwar in Clifton. He said, in the meantime, a taxi-driver, Faisal Afridi, came there and told him that some people needed two cabs for Sheraton Hotel.

The cab-driver said he followed Afridi to pick up the passengers from Zamzama in Clifton where a journalist, his wife and another woman were standing.

“The journalist got into the front seat of my taxi and asked me to take him to Laxon Building. He talked to me in English which I could not understand.”

He said the woman, accompanying the couple, told him in Urdu to take the passenger to Laxon Building, situated behind the PIA booking office.

The driver said he took the journalist to his destination. He said the journalist got down from the cab, asking him to wait. “After a short while, he returned and asked me to take him to the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) office,” he said.

Nasir Abbas said he asked a man about the CPLC office as he did not know its address. “The man told me that it was at the offices of the SSP South.”

He said he took the journalist to the SSP South office. “He got down from the taxi and went into the office, but returned immediately with a man, who told me that he wanted to go to the CPLC office at the Governor’s House.”

The cab-driver said he took the US journalist to the Governor’s House. “He asked me to wait and went inside.”

He said Daniel Pearl returned after 45 minutes and asked him to go to Village Restaurant. “Since he spoke in English, I could not understand him, and then he told me to take him near Metropole Hotel.”

The driver said the US journalist asked him to stop when he reached Metropole Hotel. “He was talking on his mobile phone at that time. Then he got down from th taxi and asked me about the fare. I could not understand. I asked him to give me as much as he was wanted to. He took out a Rs500-note. I was retuning him Rs200 when he nodded me to keep the change. In the meanwhile, a white car, in which four people were travelling, stopped ahead of my cab. The journalist walked to that car and the man sitting with the driver in the front seat of the white car got down. The journalist shook hand with that man, who opened the rear door of his car and made him sit in the car,” the driver said.

Pointing to Ahmed Umer Saeed Shaikh, the driver said: “The man who made the journalist sit in the car is present in the courtroom and I recognise him.”

Additional advocate-general Salman Habibullah appeared on behalf of the state for the statement of the prosecution witness under section 164 of CrPC.

Saiful Malook, a Lahore-based attorney hired as defence counsel by the Shaikh’s family, appeared in the court. He, however, did not cross-examine the witness, though the court gave him an opportunity to do so.

The judicial magistrate in her observations on the statement of the prosecution witness said “the defence counsel was given an opportunity to meet the accused, and he met him and discussed with him for half an hour in my chamber.”

However, later talking to newsmen on the premises of the City Courts, the defence counsel said he had met his client for only five minutes in the presence of the JM. He said he refused to cross-examine the prosecution witness since he was not given “a proper opportunity to seek instructions from his client for the purpose.”

He quoted his client as telling him and the magistrate that the investigation officer told him in the morning that there was no evidence against him, and that police were fabricating evidence against him due to certain compulsion. Shaikh Umer also requested the court to call the investigation officer and ask him on oath if he (the suspect) was telling lies.

Police had sealed off all entrances leading to the court of the judicial magistrate and they did not allow anybody to attend the court proceedings.

Even Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, the counsel for other suspects, was not allowed to attend the proceedings.

Talking to Dawn, the defence counsel said the statement of an accused under section 164 of CrPC was to be recorded in the presence of all the accused in the case. “In this case a piecemeal process has been adopted, which is not only unprecedented, but also of no legal effect under the law of the land,” he said.

Mr Khawaja said the opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness was to be provided to all the other accused or their counsel in the case “as the interest of all the accused is common.”

He said any statement made or any question asked of the witness could adversely affect the case of other accused. “In the present case neither the accused were produced in court, nor their counsel given an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness.”

Police brought the prime suspect, clad in a light sky-blue shalwar-qamees with his face muffled, to the court amid strict security under the supervision of the senior superintendent of police, investigation, Manzoor Ahmed Mughul, around 1:50pm.