KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) rejected on Tuesday written apologies submitted by Inspector General Sindh and Additional Inspector General Karachi.
Hearing a contempt plea filed against Sindh Inspector General of Police Ghulam Haider Jamali following the attack on media personnel by police outside court premises, the court ruled that contempt charges will be framed against both the province and city’s top police chief.
They said that they were ‘silently’ involved in the attack on media person by masked police personnel in plain clothes.
The court on Monday had directed the provincial chief secretary and home secretary to explain in writing who ordered masked police personnel in plain clothes to cordon off the high court’s building and beat up media personnel and others during the appearance of former home minister Dr Zulfiqar Mirza on May 23.
Read: Police attack journalists outside SHC as Mirza appears in court
Before the SHC today, the IG Sindh submitted a report in which it was claimed that the Superintendent of Police Preedy, In-charge of Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and 12 SSU commandos were suspended over the conduct of the police officials.
Just yesterday (May 26), a division bench, comprising justices Sajjad Ali Shah and Saeeduddin Nasir, also issued show-cause notices to the Sindh IG, Karachi AIG and the DIG and SSP of South zone to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for ‘obstructing the process of justice and lowering the dignity of the court’.
Read: Law versus law enforcers: Who were the masked goons, asks SHC
During Monday’s proceedings, chief secretary Sajjad Saleem Hotiana, home secretary Mukhtar Soomro had appeared before the court along with IG Ghulam Haider Jamali, Karachi AIG Ghulam Qadir Thebo, the Zone South DIG Dr Jameel and SSP Chaudhry Asad.
Who ordered the operation?
Both the secretaries had maintained that the dignity and sanctity of the Sindh High Court was above everything, adding that the Sindh government would not, at any cost, let it down. “There were no directions from the provincial government to cordon off the high court or the anti-terrorism court, nor would it defend the transgressors who were found involved in the incident, as reported in the media,” the secretaries added.
The bench directed, however, both the officers to file their points of view, under their own signature, explaining on whose directions the high court was cordoned off and who authorised the masked men in plain clothes to participate in the operation.
Sep 28, 2016 0
Special coverage on China's Two Party Sessions by The Daily Mail - People's Daily