A Pakistani daily, quoting police officials of Punjab province, disclosed on August 25 that about 390 suspects, detained on the charge of being linked to banned terrorist groups, are likely to be released soon as no case has been registered against anyone of them.

According to official figures released to the Daily Times, these detainees belonged to terrorist outfits like Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), Harkat ul Jihad ul Islami (HuJI), Sipah-e-Sabaha Pakistan (SSP), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), Al-Asar Trust, Jamat ul Furqan, etc.

This is not the first time that terrorists involved, even in high profile suicide bombings, walkout out of courts as free men as prosecution was not able to press their cases due to inadequate investigations or non-cooperation of intelligence agencies. Sindh Home Minister Zulfikar Mirza blamed on June 25 the judiciary for a large number of acquittals, saying “380 terrorists are roaming freely – thanks to the judiciary.”

However, court judgments always pointed out reasons ranging from unlawful procedures to outright forging of evidence by prosecution for high rate of acquittals.

A report in Pakistan’s Herald magazine brought out that as many as 121 persons, accused in prominent terrorism cases, were released between 2002 and 2007.   There are at least 16 accused were released during the first of half of this year in high-profile cases of terrorism. 

On May 13, an Anti-Terrorism Court acquitted 9 persons on trial for the February 2008 suicide attack which killed Army’s Surgeon-General, Lt. Gen. Mushtaq Ahmed Baid, in Rawalpindi’s garrison area. 

Trial courts also acquitted in April this year all those charged with the suicide attacks on the military’s General Headquarters (GHQ) and offices of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) in November 2007 and at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in September 2008.  The fact that the prosecution could not produce fool-proof evidence even after two and half a year of investigations was amply commented upon by the judges.  

Following are some of the instances of lackadaisical ways of carrying out investigations into high-profile terrorist cases, compounded by refusal by the intelligence agencies (ISI) to give transcripts of evidence given by their sources, which foreclosed any prospects of successful conviction of those charged. 

In the Marriott bombing case, the prosecution informed the court of two brothers – Rana Ashfaq and Rana Ilyas – who have guided, through mobile phones, the driver of the explosives-laden truck from Jhang to the gates of the hotel. But they did not produce any transcript of the conversations between the brothers and the driver to establish the link.  Police have also included intelligence inputs to indict the accused but the ISI refused to share the evidence with the police taking the plea that it will expose their sources.

The Herald reported that in the attack against the ISI office itself, the police kept the accused for 23 days at a police station where the prosecution witnesses were serving as constables.  “It is clearly prescribed in the law that the witnesses will not get to see the accused during the investigation.”  Similar fate followed the prosecution’s case in the GHQ bombing in which the police failed to follow rules that govern evidence.

In the case of the killing of Mohammad Salahuddin, editor of Urdu weekly, Takbeer, in December 1994, police submitted to the court three names of witnesses who were said to have been working with the weekly for about five years and were in their office when they heard gunshots.  However, the three had never worked at the weekly and were also not present in its office when the killing took place.  They learnt of their being prosecution witnesses only when the trial court summoned them.

An anti-Terrorism court convicted four members of the Harkat ul Mujahideen al-Alami for an attack in 2002 on the US Consulate in Karachi which killed 12 Pakistanis.  But this was overturned by the high court and acquitted them after the defence lawyer brought out inconsistencies in the evidence produced.  The charge sheet filed by the police stated that the car used by the terrorists was a Suzuki but the engine presented in the court was that of a Datsun. 

Some of the policemen who spoke to the Herald revealed that in the case of the terrorist attacks, intelligence agencies arrest and interrogate the accused for around five months before they are handed over to the police.  By the time they take over the investigations, most of the evidence was already lost.  They complain, “The Criminal Procedure Code says that intelligence agencies have no role to play in investigations,” but in practice the police are helpless.  The agencies rarely share their findings with the police.

The Herald also brought out another factor for high rate of acquittals, which is `the fear of retribution by the terrorists’.  “Judges and prosecution lawyers receive threatening calls from terrorists during these trials.  Policemen too receive threatening calls everyday.”

Not a great revelations, isn’t it?  During the hearing of the case against the Jamaat ud Dawa (JuD) chief, Hafiz ul Saeed, for involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack, similar threatening calls were received by judges.  Hearing of the cases against other JuD leaders had to be postponed either because some judges refused to be part of the bench to hear these cases or on some other pretext. They too received threatening calls as media reports indicated. 

Thus, a combination of fear of retribution by the terrorists, non-cooperation of intelligence agencies, and lack of freedom for investigative agencies make trial of high-profile terrorist cases in Pakistan a `mockery of justice’.

The fate of Punjab, which is already reeling under series of suicide attacks, can be imagined with nearly 400 terrorist suspects getting ready to be released and join ranks of their `comrades’ in arms.