Was Nadeem Nusrat present at the scene of crime or not?

Dear visitors/browsers

We hereby invite you to participate in the debate on the rebuttal by the Advocate General Sindh to Mr. Altaf Hussain's press conference held on 25 August 1999, at the International Secretariat of MQM in London.

In this press conference Mr. Altaf Hussain showed the copy of the judgement of the Anti Terrorist Court (ATC) IV, Judge Hussain Bakhsh Khoso in Special Case No. 100/1999. On Page 5 of the ATC judgement it states that:

" Point No: 2

Whether on 12.11.1997 at about 08-05 A.M on the P. I. D. C. Bridge situated on Moulvi Tameezuddin Road accused Ahmed Saeed alias Saeed Bharam, and Mohammad Saleem alias Dainter @ Ganja alongwith absonding accused Ajmal Pahari, Kashif David, Faisal Lamba, Waseem Tunta, Sajid and Nadeem Nusrat being armed with Kilashankoves were members of an un-lawful assembly and with their common object at the instance of Altaf Hussain and Anees Ahmed, intentionally committed murders of Anwar Mirza, J-Anilo, Trichi, E-Egbo and L-Jenning by firing at them with kilashankoves, and by committing the murders of the above deceased, accused created a terror and sence of insecurity in the public, and both the accused voluntarily made Judicial Confessions before the Judicial Magistrate on 24.2.1999, as alleged by the Prosecution?

My findings on the above points and reasons thereon are as under:-
FINDINGS
Point No: 2 ……………………………. Proved"

Scanned copy of the page 5 of the judgement.

It is clear from Point 2 of the judgement that according to the ATC Judge, Mr. Nadeem Nusrat was armed and present along with others at the scene of crime on the 12 November 1997. Whereas as a matter of fact Nadeem Nusrat has been living in the United Kingdom since January 1992, and applied for political asylum in June 1992.

Most surprisingly the Advocate General of Sindh was very quick in responding to the press conference of Mr. Altaf Hussain. In his haste he forgot to read the judgement or it is very much possible that he might have read it but was unable to understand the language. For your interest following is an extract of the Advocate General's statement published in all the newspapers on 27 August 1999.

The News International -- 27 August 1999

AG Sindh rebuts Altaf's claims

In a point-to-point rebuttal of Altaf Hussain's claims, Raad said that neither in the confessions of the two accused under trial nor in the deposition of the investigating officer was it stated that Nadeem Nusrat was present in Karachi and was with the other killers during the offence. In their confessions, the AG added, the two accused stated that instructions to kill the Americans had been conveyed by Nadeem Nusrat on behalf of Altaf Hussain, and the investigating officer in his deposition repeated this very fact. Therefore, Altaf Hussain's claim was nothing but a blatant distortion and a lie.

The Daily Jang -- 27 August 1999

We have gone through the Page 5 of the judgement of ATC, it clearly shows that the Advocate General does not agree with the ATC Judge on this decision. In other words the Advocate General did not rebut the claims of Mr. Altaf Hussain but has actually made rebuttal against the judgement of the ATC Judge, which clearly states that Nadeem Nusrat was present along with others at the scene of crime. This diverse opinion of the important sections of the Government shows that the decision is not justified and based on solid grounds but preconceived and based on victimisation of political opponents. The disagreement of the Advocate General Sindh with the ATC judgement proves that it was concocted on the whims of Nawaz Sharif Government and not on the whole truth.

We invite you to send your views and comments on the authenticity of these facts presented to the national and international media by Mr. Altaf Hussain and what do you make of the rebuttal of the Advocate General Sindh. Also please go through the copy of the judgement and its text and guide us if we have misunderstood the meaning of Point No. 2 that Nadeem Nusrat was present at the scene of crime?

Please send your views and comments at [email protected] or [email protected]