The Supreme Court on Monday directed the attorney general to submit his response within two weeks on recommendations of the UN Commission and findings of Scotland Yard and other investigation agencies on the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
A three-member bench of the apex court comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Tariq Parvez and Justice Amir Hani Muslim admitted an appeal for regular hearing against the June 23, 2011 verdict of the Lahore High Court, rejecting a plea seeking registration of a second FIR in the Benazir assassination case against former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf and 12 others.
The court also directed Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq to submit to the court investigation reports of the United Nations, Scotland Yard, Inspector General of Police Mian Majeed and FIA on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
The chief justice noted that after receiving the reports, a larger bench could be constituted if needed. He said according to the concluding chapter of the UN report, Pakistan was fully empowered to investigate the case further. He also asked the attorney general whether the government had implemented the recommendations of the Scotland Yard and UN investigation teams.
Appellant advocate Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam, who had served as late Benazir Bhutto’s protocol officer for about 21 years, stated that his party leadership cancelled his membership after he included in his petition the names of two sitting federal ministers for their alleged involvement in Benazir’s assassination. He stated that when an FIR in the Akbar Bugti murder case could be registered, why could a second FIR not be registered in the Bhutto assassination case.
Aslam filed the appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, making Musharraf, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, former Chief Minister Punjab, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, former Law Minister, Babar Awan, former Intelligence Bureau Director General Ejaz Shah, former caretaker Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz, former Interior Secretary Kamal Shah, former spokesman to Interior Ministry, Brig (retd) Javed Iqbal Cheema, and others respondents.
The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi bench, had dismissed Aslam’s request seeking the registration of an FIR against Musharraf and 12 others and the inclusion of the names of Babar Awan and Rehman Malik in the Exit Control List (ECL). One of the LHC judges had also written an additional note that Aslam was neither the aggrieved party nor a legal heir of the late Benazir Bhutto and thus had no right to get an FIR registered.
The appellant has stated that the LHC’s June 23 order was unlawful, perverse, without jurisdiction and based on fanciful application of the mind. He said the LHC ignored the design of washing of the crime scene, which was a deliberate destruction of material evidence. He also said there were two blasts around the truck carrying Benazir Bhutto in Karachi on October 18, 2007. He said the blasts killed 121 persons who were buried without autopsy, a question that the LHC had ignored in its order. He said the LHC had also failed to give due consideration to the United Nation’s report on which $60 million from the national exchequer was spent.
Online adds: During the hearing, the chief justice remarked that Benazir Bhutto was murdered ruthlessly in broad daylight and neither any inquiry commission was constituted nor anyone took interest in exposing her assassins.
The CJ remarked: “Benazir was a great leader and no one took interest in exposing her killers. It is a matter of vital importance and a larger bench will hear the case.” Justice Iftikhar inquired from the attorney general: “No inquiry commission was constituted in this incident which was a mammoth tragedy despite the fact that a criminal inquiry was must in this case. The former prime minister was killed mercilessly in broad daylight but no one took interest in exposing the killers.”
Ha said: “If recommendations of the Scotland Yard or UN Commission were implemented, which was a vital matter, it could not be overlooked. Larger bench would be constituted in this regard.”
No comments:
Post a Comment