Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman‘s counsel claimed well: Abid Saqi
Leading lawyers have expressed dismay at the verdict of the Lahore High Court in the bail petition of Jang-Geo Editor- in-Chief Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman in the fake plot trial. In a Geo programme – Capital Talk on Wednesday, Pakistan Bar Council Vice-Chairman Abid Saqi said the judiciary system in the country and categorically said the judicial system had completely failed, adding there was no need to shut accountability courts for cause being already closed.
Barrister Mohsin Shahnawaz Ranjha said that he was surprised at the rejection of the bail petition of Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman. He said he hoped that the Editor-in-Chief would be bailed out early so that suffocation on the media front could stop. 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-Rahman 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 case should certainly be referred to the Supreme Court and there will be a positive ruling.
He claimed the lawsuit has no proof and implicating the Editor-in-Chief in a bogus 34-year old property lawsuit was focused on malfide to curtail the freedom of expression. Another senior lawyer panelist Justice (retd) Rasheed A Razvi finalizing the petition against Mir Shakil-ur-Rehman on a charge of political victimization stated that the judiciary adopted the bail principle of the 18th and 19th centuries.
He said he had no illusions that it was a tale of a political vendetta because had it been a trial, it should have been taken up 34 years ago when Nawaz Sharif was here. Counsel for the Jang / Geo Editor-in – Chief Amjad Pervez said during the hearings of the case the complainant did not take up a surprise statement which the defendant refused to counter.
There was not a specific argument from the defense that was referred to. Instead the prosecutors refused to respond to such questions. Mr Pervaiz said in his view it was a strong case in the light of the previous judgments of the Supeme Courts and four high courts, including the Lahore High Court.