Death-row convicts cannot record confessions on video, experts

Karachi
The revelations against the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), unfolded on mainstream media channels on the night of March 18 by an alleged party member on death row hours before he was to be hanged, got the whole country questioning whether confessions of a convict could be video recorded and made public in such a manner.
“Article 45 of the constitution may have empowered the President to reject or allow a mercy petition of a death row prisoner or stay a hanging, but there is absolutely no law under which confessions of convicts could be made public,” noted Justice (retd) Rasheed A Rizvi while speaking to The News on Sunday, with respect to Saulat Mirza’s video.
There was no law which could nullify a verdict passed by the apex court, either in dismissal of a petition against a condemned prisoner or uphold a sentence awarded by a lower court, he added.
Justice Rizvi observed that under the article the President could grant pardon, reprieve and respite as well as remit, suspend or commute a sentence passed by any court, tribunal or other authority. However, he added that no case was ever reopened in judicial history under Section 164 of the criminal procedure code (CrPC).
Senior lawyer, Noor Naz Agha, stated that according to the course of law, a confessional statement could be recorded under Section 164 but at an earlier stage of a trial, when an accused was in the remand of the police or investigators who recorded such statements before a judicial magistrate, and not after the trial was concluded.
Commenting on the rarity of such cases, she said it was a one of its kind case as some confessions of a condemned prisoner were never made public. The aspect of ‘last will’ could, however, not be rejected as prisoners had the right to be provided with an opportunity to meet their families and express their will, Agha added.
Advocate Shakeel Ahmed opined that judgments of the Supreme Court could not be bypassed

under any circumstances.
Also acknowledging the President’s power to stay an execution, he added that no law permitted to make the confessions of a condemned prisoner public. “In the eye of law it was an offence to record the statement of a condemned prisoner and any person involved in this act could be tried for violation of law.”
If a convict had availed all the legal and constitutional remedies, there was no chance of annulment of the sentence awarded to him, he added.
Former special public prosecutor Mubashir Ahmed Mirza also maintained that the ruling of an apex court was superior to all other courts and authorities. He also reiterated that no law could reopen a closed case under the existing laws.
Advocate Khurram Abbas said getting the last will recorded was a convict’s legal right and no authorities could turn it down. “If a condemned prisoner made a confessional statement before a judicial magistrate, it could be recorded under section 164, on the basis of which a legal proceeding is initiated,” Abbas concluded.
Abdul Maroof, also a retired special public prosecutor, observed that a case even after the execution of a convict could be reopened, for the law does not restrain anyone from a reinvestigation; however, a condemned prisoner could not be treated as approver. “In such a case the legal position of the convict would still be that of a key accused.”
According to him the statement if recorded under the concerned section of the CrPC would be considered an exculpatory or inculpatory confession which was admissible under the law. “However, a fresh case could not be registered on the basis of the evidence; instead supplementary charge sheets were submitted in the trial court.”
He concluded that it was not fair to record a convict’s statements for political gains instead of bringing legal preferences into consideration.