Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman’s lawyer argued well: Abid Saqi

LAHORE: PML-N leader and Barrister Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha and other leading lawyers have expressed dismay at the decision of the Lahore High Court in the bail plea of Jang/Geo Editor- in-Chief Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman in the false plot case.

In a Geo programme – Capital Talk on Wednesday, PML-N’s leader Barrister Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha said that he was disappointed at the dismissal of the bail petition of Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman. He said he hoped that the Editor-in-Chief would be bailed out soon so that suffocation on the media front could end.

Pakistan Bar Council Vice-Chairman Abid Saqi was vocal about the judicial system in the country and categorically said it had totally collapsed, adding there was no need to shut accountability courts for reason being already closed.

In another Geo programme Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath, Mr Abid Saqi said a formal debate on the Lahore High Court decision on the bail plea was not possible pending the detailed judgment. He said the counsel for Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman had argued well in the court and it was being expected the learned judges were convinced but unfortunately the decision came otherwise. He said the matter would definitely be taken to the Supreme Court and there would be a favorable decision.

He said the case had no evidence and implicating the Editor-in-Chief in a false 34-year old property case was based on malfide to curb the freedom of speech.

Another panelist senior lawyer and legal expert Justice (retd) Rashid A Rizvi terming the case against Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman a case of political victimisation said judiciary followed the 18th and 19th century concept in bail matters. He said he had no doubts that it was a case of a political vendetta as had it been a case, it would have been taken up 34 years back when Nawaz Sharif was here. Counsel for the Jang/Geo Editor-in-Chief Amjad Pervaiz said during the proceedings of the case the prosecution could not take up a surprise argument which the respondent failed to reply. There was not a single point by the prosecution that was responded to. Rather the prosecution failed to respond to certain queries.

Mr Pervaiz said in his opinion it was very good case in the light of the past judgments of the Supeme Courts and four high courts, including the Lahore High Court.