Detaining suspects under MPO after acquittal ‘colourable exercise by executive’: SHC

The Sindh High Court has observed that detaining the accused in the Orangi Pilot Project director Perween Rahman murder case under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (MPO) after their acquittal was a colourable exercise of authority by the executive.

Issuing a detailed judgment on a petition against the detention of one of suspect under the MPO after his and other suspects’ acquittal in the case, a division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha observed that the home secretary has failed to apply his independent mind sufficiently to the material before him.

The SHC had earlier struck down the Sindh government’s notification under the MPO for 30-day detention of five men acquitted of charges of murdering Rahman, declaring that it had been issued without lawful authority.

It observed that police acted malafidely in their overzealousness to appease the public and the media without giving sufficient weight to the liberty of the petitioner and the other named in the impugned notification with regard to their detention under MPO.

The court observed that no reasonable person would have been satisfied that material placed before him justified the issuance of the impugned order, which was under challenge. It said it is noted that when the petitioners were acquitted by the court in the so-called high profile case, the Sindh government used all means possible to detain the acquitted person and defeat the judgment of the high court by detaining him and other suspects under the MPO or some other preventive detention law on spurious grounds.

The court observed that such tactics were already deployed by the government and were exposed by the court in the matter of Ahmed Omer Saeed Sheikh and Abdul Hameed Bugti in Daniel Pearl and PIDC bomb blast cases, who were detained after acquittal by the high court where all mala fide and devious efforts were made by the government to ensure that acquitted accused remained behind bars.

It stressed that the standard must be high as no person can be lightly deprived of his right to life and liberty, especially if they have already spent nine years in prison and have been acquitted by the appellant court. The court observed that at time of the filing of issuing of such an order the Sindh government had not even filed an appeal against the acquittal before the Supreme Court despite the lapse of over three weeks after the acquittal judgment.

Mohammad Imran Swati submitted in the petition that he was acquitted in Perween Rahman murder case by the Sindh High Court as the prosecution failed to prove charges against him and other co-defendants.

He submitted that the home department on December 1 had issued a notification and detained him and other co-accused for 30 days under the MPO. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the high court acquitted the petitioner of terrorism charges and no reason was mentioned for his detention under the MPO. The court was requested to set aside the detention order.

On November 21 the SHC had set aside life imprisonment and other sentences awarded to five persons by an anti-terrorism court in the Pewveen Rahman murder case, observing that the prosecution failed to prove charges against them.

Mohammad Raheem Swati was sentenced to twice life imprisonment along with his three other accomplices for murdering the social worker in Orangi Tow. The court also sentenced Imran Swati, son of Raheem Swati, and three others to seven years in prison for abetment and concealment of evidence.

Abdul Raheem Swati, Ayaz Ali Swati, Ahmed Khan alias Pupoo Kashmiri, Mohammad Amjad Hussain and Mohammad Imran Swati, who were activists of the Awami National Party, had been prosecuted for killing Rahman on March 13, 2013.

The prosecution alleged that accused wanted to get the OPP office for the purpose of building a Karate center in Orangi Town, and on refusal they hatched conspiracy to kill her through paid killers of banned militant outfit Tehreek-e-Talban Pakistan. The family members of the victim have also challenged the SHC order in the Supreme Court.