A perfect example of why Pakistan needs military courts.
When you have judges like Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui (of Islamabad High Court who allegedly kissed Taseer’s murderer Qadri on his forehead after his confession) then there is no hope from the civilian judiciary
The difficulties the police in this country face in gathering evidence, and prosecutors in mounting a strong case, are seen as the primary reason why so many suspects implicated in all sorts of crimes walk free.
Consider the case of Mumtaz Qadri, who was sentenced on Oct 1, 2011 by an Anti-Terrorism Court and shortly afterwards filed an appeal. Read: Mumtaz Qadri files appeal against death penalty
The evidence against Qadri, who openly confessed when charged with the gunning down in January that year of the Punjab governor, Salmaan Taseer, could not be more incontrovertible. Also read: [Blasphemy law claims another life][2]
But, more than three years after a guilty verdict, the case is still pending due to the appeal against Qadri’s sentence. Qadri has, meanwhile, set himself up as a ‘religious’ figure, and there is evidence that he has radicalised others including prison staff. Also read: Mumtaz Qadri, Prison King
Now, with another hearing scheduled before an Islamabad High Court division bench, it seems that the government is having difficulties getting a lawyer to agree to represent the prosecution.
Why this reluctance in what is an open-and-shut case? The reason is simple: fear. Lawyers contacted by this newspaper pointed out that hardly any special protection or security is provided to those who may find themselves in the crosshairs of criminals or extremists on agreeing to take flashpoint cases. Also read: Govt lawyers not ready to prosecute Mumtaz Qadri
The special judge of the ATC that passed the sentence against Qadri had to leave the country for fear of his life, and at the last hearing of the Qadri case in 2011, large numbers of his supporters gathered outside the IHC.
The threat is real, and society’s tilt towards extreme views is palpable. If this is the situation in this case, the fear factor in others where the men accused belong to violent gangs or militant groups, or are hardened criminals, can only be imagined.
Pakistan’s situation demands effective provisions such as witness, lawyer and judge protection programmes, for those who prosecute or testify are in the end individuals. Without that, there is little hope of winning the long-term battle.
MUMTAZ Qadri is an unrepentant murderer who killed Salmaan Taseer, then governor of Punjab, in cold blood for the vilest of reasons. The Supreme Court has done the right and brave thing by upholding Mr Qadri’s murder conviction — and reinstating his conviction under anti-terrorism laws that the Islamabad High Court had wrongly set aside.
Four and a half years on from one of the most shocking events in this country’s history, justice has been done and been seen to be done. Now, Qadri should live out the rest of his natural life in a prison — and jail authorities should take measures to ensure that the special treatment allegedly afforded to him no longer continues. This paper is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances and Mumtaz Qadri is no exception.
It is enough punishment for an individual to spend the rest of his life in prison, cut off from the rest of society; there are no cogent reasons for why the state should take an individual’s life.
In truth, there should never have been any doubt about Qadri’s conviction. The very fact that there were doubts points to the political and social realities on the margins of the country today.
The Islamabad High Court judgement upholding Qadri’s murder conviction, but setting aside the anti-terror conviction exemplified the problems surrounding the case.
The Punjab governor was murdered to try and suppress for all time any debate about the controversial applications of the country’s blasphemy laws. **In assassinating Salmaan Taseer, the murderer, Mumtaz Qadri, was attempting to intimidate and silence the country itself.
The assassination was the very definition of terrorism — a national political motive rooted in a very perverse understanding of religion. **Had the so-called Qadri exception that the Islamabad High Court had seemingly endorsed been allowed to stand, defence teams around the country would have invoked them in the case of sectarian attacks and the murder of non-Muslims. The Supreme Court has corrected that potential historic wrong and it is hoped the detailed judgement will elucidate on how and why what Qadri did constituted terrorism.
To truly honour Salmaan Taseer’s memory, however, the country’s blasphemy laws need to be revisited. No rational individual can suggest that the law is not seriously abused and has a flawed construction when it comes to blasphemy.
Disproportionately, the blasphemy laws have been invoked against the poorest in society and among non-Muslims — a negation of the constitutional equality guaranteed to all individuals. But the effects go deeper.
Today, the mere allegation of blasphemy can result in instant death at the hands of a charged mob.
A distorted set of laws has allowed extremist elements to intimidate and repress an entire society. That must not be allowed to continue.
Perhaps the next step to recovering the nation could be to revisit the conviction of Aasia Bibi