20000322

Plane hijack case

Qureshi concludes arguments

WIRASAT HUSSNAIN

KARACHI: Continuing his arguments before the Anti-Terrorism Court on Tuesday, the chief prosecutor in the plane conspiracy case, Raja Qureshi said that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his six accomplices were guilty of committing terrorism, hijacking, kidnapping and attempt to murder 198 passengers of the PIA flight PK-805 on October 12, 1999.

Proceedings of the case began at about 9:20 a.m. and Raja Qureshi, the advocate general of Sindh, concluded his arguments at about 11:45 a.m.

All the accused, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, former chief minister of the Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, former adviser to prime minister on Sindh affairs Syed Ghous Ali Shah, former chairman of the Ehtesab Bureau Saifur Rehman, former chairman of PIA Khaqan Abbasi, former principal secretary to prime minister Saeed Mehdi, and former inspector general of Sindh police Rana Maqbool Ahmed, were present in the court. Their family members, and some workers of the Pakistan Muslim League from Lahore, Peshawar, and Karachi were also present.

The hearing was later adjourned till Friday, March 24, when the defence would present its final arguments.

Winding up his arguments at the Anti Terrorism Court presided over by Judge Rehmat Hussain Jaffery, Qureshi said Nawaz Sharif continued to be prime minister till 6:30 p.m. "but as prime minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan he continued to exercise his powers till 7:15 p.m." on Oct. 12 and was directing the operation, he added.

Qureshi said PW19, Brig. Javed Iqbal, military secretary to the former prime minister, had stated in his statement that "the army took over at 7 p.m." Similarly, PW13 Mohammed Asif had stated in his statement that "army entered his (Nawaz Sharif) room at 7:15 p.m."

Qureshi further said, "Had the army not taken action, there would have been murder of 198 people."

He said the main accused and the co-accused were liable to be punished under Section 7(2) of the Anti Terrorism Act -- for acts of terrorism; under Section 365 PPC for acts of kidnapping; under Section 324 PPC for acts causing attempt to commit murder; and under Section 402-B PPC for hijacking/attempt to hijack and abatement in hijacking.

Sentence under Section 7(2) ATC is 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine, under Section 365 PPC 7 to 10 years, under Section 324 PPC 10 years, and under Section 402-B PPC it is death/life imprisonment/forfeiture of property.

Qureshi cited two cases in support of his arguments and said physical presence of a hijacker was not necessary at the place of crime. "It may be by word of mouth, remote control, by artificial means. No plea can be taken against it on these grounds."

He said, "Physical presence in hijacking is not necessary. There are two ways to commit the act: I) through seizure and that could be physical and, ii) through gaining control. Looking conversely at the Oct. 12 case, if the control is acquired through Air Traffic Control (ATC)-- it amounts to seizure."

To a question from the court on acquiring control through the Air Traffic Control, Qureshi quoted from the Civil Aviation Authority Rules (CAA) 1994 framed under Pakistan CAA Ordinance 1982 and explained the order of command through Radar and ATC. "Radar is the first check point i.e. Sapna (29,000 ft. high in the air) and the second check point is Marvi (10,000 ft. high in the air). Once the plane leaves Sapna, where scientific appliances are to be used for its control from radar, and enters into Marvi it is under the control and command of ATC."

He said the flight PK-805 was controlled by the ATC and force was applied.

On the application of force and control of the plane through ATC, when Qureshi produced a local monthly publication which had published the text of recording between the ATC and the captain of the PK-805, the defence counsel, Kh. Sultan, objected and said any material not placed on record could neither be relied upon nor presented in the court at the stage of arguments.

Court: Does the court have power to permit production of such document?

Defence: For what purpose? Those documents are based on spools which have not been placed on record.

Court: But reading will not affect.

Defence: If the transcript is not on record, how can it be read or relied upon?

Court: Even if anything irrelevant, it can be seen by the court.

Defence: When it is irrelevant, it can't be read

Judge Jaffery, however, asked Qureshi to read on. But before reading it, Qureshi took out the cross-examination of Brig. Nadeem Taj in which he had referred to the conversation of COAS Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Maj. Gen. Iftikhar. The two generals had exchanged greetings and inquired about the position at the Karachi airport.

Continuing his arguments Qureshi said force was applied to divert the plane from Karachi to outside Pakistan, to change the landing station from Karachi to Nawabshah and then back to Karachi.

He said, "Force was used and fear was created by refusing landing, issuing command to go out of Karachi to Nawabshah, force was used to bring back the flight from half way to Nawabshah, force was used to make the flight descend from Sapna to Marvi. All this was done to abduct 198 people."

Concluding his arguments Qureshi said, "The accused struck terror and created fear in the minds of the people and such fear resulted into a sense of insecurity and therefore the accused are guilty of the offences/charges against them."