SHC orders judicial inquiry into May 2007 killings

KARACHI: Upholding the principle of public right to know, the Sindh High Court on Tuesday ordered the Sindh government to constitute one-member tribunal of inquiry headed by sitting or retired judge of high court to probe the denial of citizens' access to justice, court siege by miscreants and government functionaries' failure to control over the May 12, 2007 incidents.

The order came on a petition seeking restoration of May 12 related proceedings and constitution of a judicial commission to probe the May 12, 2007 incidents in which more than 50 people were killed in different parts of the city in violence and armed attacks on political parties and lawyers’ rallies that wished to welcome the-then chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on arrival in city.

The court, which also framed 13-point terms of reference for inquiry of the May 12 incidents, observed that the tribunal will have all the powers under the West Pakistan Tribunal of Inquiries Ordinance 1969 which shall complete the inquiry within three months.

Expressing dissatisfaction over the criminal proceedings against the May 12 culprits by the provincial government, the court observed that “hardly any of the big fish who were part of the command and control structure in Karachi on May 12, 2007 had been named in any FIR or was facing any kind of proceedings.

It said: “In our view it is apparent that after 11 years of the incident either through inefficiency or design, the investigation agencies, the prosecution department GOS and the Anti Terrorism Courts (ATCs) have miserably failed to discharge their duties in deciding these important cases for reasons best known to themselves,” SHC’s division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha observed in 49 page judgment.

The court observed that the way in which 65 cases had been dealt with, investigated, prosecuted and tried “completely unacceptable.” The court observed that despite all the videos, TV footages and other material available in respect of May 12, 2007 incident, it seems quite astonishing that so many cases had been disposed of in A class.

The court observed that incidents of May 12 still remain to be fairly, properly and independently inquires into and responsibility fixed on those responsible for any lapses on May 12, 2007 before or during the incidents.

The court observed that it has to be probed as whether those at the helm of affairs who had command and control responsibility on and before May 12 2007 bear any responsibility for the incident which led to a denial of access to justice, a complete breakdown in the law and order in the country’s commercial hub, cost many precious lives, injured many others, caused millions of rupees damage to both private and public property and led to an attack on the independence of the media.

The court further ordered constitution of a joint investigation team under Section 19 of the anti terrorism Act by the competent authority within two weeks to trace out all the persons involved in A class cases and make further investigation in all other cases in connection with the May 12, 2007 incident in Karachi. The court ordered the competent authority to submit the compliance report within two weeks.

The court requested the Chief Justice of SHC to appoint a sitting judge to monitor 65 cases of May 12 through monthly progress reports from the concerned trial courts, which initially should give an explanation for their failure to dispose of each and every one of these 65 cases despite the passage of 11 years and who has been responsible for such delay.

The court observed that tribunal of inquiry will not prejudice the ongoing individual criminal cases which arose after the May 12, 2007 incident such like Mir Murtaza Bhutto murder inquiry tribunal which was made public prior to the conclusion of the trial.

The court observed that May 12, 2007 incident was one of the blackest day in the city of Karachi which has seen much turmoil in respect of the legal community and the public’s fundamental right to unhindered access to justice especially when the court had directed federal and provincial governments to provide fool proof security arrangements for the visit of then CJP.