Report on proceedings against May 12 culprits ordered

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday directed the provincial prosecutor general to submit a detailed report on the criminal proceedings being taken against the people involved in the May 12 riots case.

More than 50 people were killed on May 12, 2007, in different parts of the metropolis in violence and armed attacks on political parties and lawyers’ rallies that wished to welcome the then chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry, who was visiting the city to attend the Sindh High Court Bar Association’s golden jubilee celebrations.

Hearing the petition seeking a judicial inquiry into the incident, the SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro directed the prosecutor general to file the details of the cases against the people involved in the violence as well as the present status of their trial proceedings.

The bench had earlier observed that court proceedings were also paralysed due to the May 12 mayhem, and inquired as to what action was taken against the people who were involved in the obstruction of the justice system.

The deputy prosecutor general sought time to submit a report in compliance with the court order in which the prosecution was directed to submit the details of the cases as well as the status of the trial proceedings pending against the May 12 culprits.

The court directed the provincial prosecutor to submit the compliance report without fail, observing that in case the report is not submitted due to non-cooperation of the police, the Karachi additional inspector general of police and the legal additional inspector general shall have to appear before the court in person to explain the non-compliance.

The bench directed the additional attorney general, the amicus curiae, to assist the court on the maintainability of the petition and adjourned the hearing until June 22.

The May 12 mayhem proceedings could not be concluded due to the imposition of a provisional constitutional order (PCO) in November 2007, and the matter was later disposed of by another bench during the PCO, and it is pending since then for revisiting the court orders.

A suo motu notice was taken of the riots on the report of the SHC incharge registrar that was submitted before the then high court chief justice Sabihuddin Ahmed. The registrar said the SHC and the city court buildings were surrounded by a mob, and they were stopping everyone from entering the courts’ premises.

The report said that because of the blockade of roads and the siege of the high court premises, a number of judges also faced hardships, which was evident from the letters of protocol officers of judges, including Justice Azizullah M Memon, Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Mohammad Athar Saeed and Justice Yasmeen Abbasey, and information communicated by the driver of Justice (retd) Sajjad Ali Shah.

The SHC reconstituted a five-member bench, which dismissed the suo motu petition regarding the siege of the high court and the city courts buildings as “not maintainable”.

The bench observed that the court, under Article 199, cannot assume the role of an investigator, and can only issue directions to expedite investigations and proceed in accordance with the law.

In the previous hearing the SHC had ordered that the riots case be referred to the high court’s chief justice to decide the application seeking the constitution of a larger bench for hearing. The court was hearing the plea seeking a judicial inquiry into the case. The petitioner, Iqbal Kazmi, who had withdrawn his petition on November 19, 2007, approached the court after the restoration of the pre-November 3, 2007, judiciary for reopening the case.

The SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro observed that the matter has been heard in part by another bench so the matter should be placed before the chief justice for an appropriate decision.

On the application regarding the constitution of a larger bench for hearing, as the matter was previously heard by a larger bench, the court was informed that it had earlier directed the office to place the matter before the chief justice of the SHC, but no order has been passed.