Daily Times

The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan recently overturned the verdict of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), which quashed the conviction of Mumtaz Qadri — the cold-blooded killer of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer — under Section seven of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) but retained his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The SC maintained that Mumtaz Qadri “is a terrorist and his conviction under Section seven of the ATA is re-introduced”.

The apex court also dismissed Mumtaz Qadri’s appeal concerning any reduction in his sentence. Qadri still has the right to send his mercy petition to the president of Pakistan but it will be, I am sure, decided later by his legal team whether to send such a mercy petition or not. The divisional bench (DB) of the IHC comprising of honourable Justices Noorul Haq N Qureshi and Shaukat Aziz Siddique, on February 11, 2015, reserved their judgment but on March 9, 2015 amidst tight security around the suburbs of the IHC and a ban on media entry announced their verdict upon Mumtaz Qadri’s appeal consisting of 64 pages in which his conviction under the ATA was quashed solely on the grounds that no threat to the public or panic whatsoever had been caused as a result of Mumtaz Qadr’s firing, which took away the life of Governor Salmaan Taseer, whom Mumtaz Qadri accused of blasphemy. However, the DB found sufficient material evidence, which may have made the judges uphold the death sentence under Section 302 of the PPC.

Immediately after the decision of the DB the counsel of Mumtaz Qadri, while talking to the media, signalled that the court had extended ‘half justice’ to his client as the conviction under the ATA had been quashed by the bench. The decision of the IHC was not welcomed by the many human rights groups and a sizeable number of lawyers. From the decision of the IHC, it was projected that Qadri was not a terrorist and that he had done no wrong by shooting Salmaan Taseer, therefore his conviction under the ATA could be dismissed. The honourable SC bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, had taken up two appeals: one moved by the advocate fighting for Qadri and another was moved by the federal government against the IHC’s verdict. During the course of the proceedings, the learned Justice Asif Saeed Khosa enunciated that in any democracy, the government and citizens can criticise and even voice their opinion against those laws that for them create hardship within society. The honourable judge further said that laws were made by parliament and that parliament is a place where the representatives of the citizens sit to legislate and pass laws for the country.

The arguments by Qadri’s counsel were too emotional and lacking legality, common sense and basic stability of mind. At one point, his counsel argued that Qadri assassinated Salmaan Taseer because he was convinced the victim had committed blasphemy and that his action of killing Taseer was in line with the sayings of the holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), therefore he had clear justification for killing him. In reply to this, Justice Dost Muhammad said: “We have to look into whether the deceased (Salmaan Taseer) indeed committed the act of blasphemy or he commented adversely on the effects of the blasphemy law.” He further observed: “Salmaan Taseer was only discussing the many defects in the blasphemy law that, most of the time, are misused in Pakistan for personal reasons and benefits. The facts of the case do not make me believe that any sort of blasphemy had been committed by him. We have to look into whether the deceased (Salmaan Taseer) indeed committed the act of blasphemy or whether he commented adversely on the effects of the blasphemy law.” There can be no mincing of words here.

In the opinion of the author, the honourable justices of the SC rightly observed that the blasphemy law of Pakistan had been misused for personal benefit and gain due to which many innocent people have already suffered. There are a number of innocent people — most of them are Christians and Ahmedis — who have been languishing in different jails in Pakistan because they have been accused of blasphemy. It is not out of place to mention that most of those who are languishing in jails and accused of blasphemy have been implicated in false and frivolous charges of blasphemy by right-wing clerics in collusion and connivance with the police and local authorities. There are even some people who are accused of blasphemy and detained in different jails, especially in Punjab, who are not of stable mental condition and are unable to understand what is right and wrong. How can such people be detained for blasphemy? Quite often we come across news of events where violent mobs on their own, without ascertaining the actual facts, lynch innocent people after accusing them of blasphemy; one need not remind the readers of the tragic case in Kot Radha Kishan.

The bench also rightly observed that the laws are made by parliament, which is a place where the people’s representatives sit in order to legislate and introduce laws to govern society. The laws made by parliament can be criticised and discussed freely without any hurdle as the Constitution of Pakistan provides freedom of speech to every citizen in the country. The bench further opined from the facts of the case that it had transpired that no blasphemy had been committed by Salmaan Taseer at all. In the opinion of the author, it must be said that the judgment of the SC is a landmark one, one that I am sure will have an effect on any future debate about the blasphemy laws. The arguments and intellectual discourse of the honourable justices of the SC will be discussed and remembered for a long time to come.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court. He can be reached at greenlaw123@hotmai.c.om