KARACHI: Saulat Ali Khan, better-known as Saulat Mirza, an activist of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement on death row, must have another recourse to litigation to get himself shifted back from a Balochistan prison to one in his home city, as the provincial authorities on Wednesday got the matter disposed of by informing a court that the condemned prisoner had been moved out for security reasons.

The Muttahida worker’s brother, Farhat Ali Khan, had filed a petition in the SHC seeking Mirza’s shifting from the Machh jail to the Central Prison Karachi.

Mirza was sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court in Karachi on May 24, 1999, for murdering the then managing director of the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC), Shahid Hamid, his driver, and guard on July 5, 1997 in the Defence Housing Authority.

He argued that his brother had been shifted to the Machh jail without the orders of the competent authority or any notification.

The petitioner stated that since his brother was removed from the Karachi jail, his particulars and health were unknown to his family, because the fundamental right of visiting him had been denied.

He said that his brother had been in prison since 1999 in the murder case, and his mercy appeal was pending before the president.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Amir Mansoob Qureshi, asked the court to order his transfer back to the Central Prison Karachi.

Appearing before a division bench of the SHC, headed by Justice Ahmed Ali Sheikh, on Wednesday, the home secretary submitted that Saulat Ali Khan, alias Saulat Mirza, had been transferred from the Central Prison Karachi along with other high-profile prisoners due to security reasons on the request of the prisons’ chief and with the approval of the chief minister.

The court disposed of the petition with the consent of the counsel for the petitioner following the statement of the home secretary.

DHA shootout case

The Sindh High Court on Wednesday disposed of the plea of the father of the slain Suleman Lashari seeking suspension of the prime suspect’s father, SSP Ghulam Sarwar Abro, after the police department assured the court that “the investigation will be carried out in a very transparent, impartial and legal manner”.

Sardar Ghulam Mustafa Lashari, the father of 18-year-old Suleman Lashari, through advocates Mohammed Khan Buroro and Mubashir Imam, had moved the SHC for placing the SSP of Police Training Centre, Sakrand, under suspension, who, according to him, was influencing the course of investigation in the murder case.

The applicant said it had become a matter of record that the SSP’s son, Salman Abro, along with his police guards killed Suleman Lashari with official weapons at his residence in DHA. The victim’s father apprehended that fair trial of the accused persons could not be conducted as long as the SSP remained in office.

On Wednesday, the chief legal officer of the police department, Additional IG Ali Sher Jhakrani, made a categorical statement that the investigation into the incident would be carried out in a very transparent and impartial manner. He added that it would be a test case for the police department.

He submitted that the provincial police chief would ensure that the investigation officer of the case was not influenced by anyone including the SSP.

The counsel for the petitioner expressed their satisfaction on the police statement and sought disposal of the application.

An FIR (235/2014) was registered by the victim’s brother at the Darakhshan police station against Salman Abro and the four police constables – Rasheed, Yasin, Maqbool and Imran – under Sections 302 (premeditated murder), 324 (attempted murder) and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act for killing Suleman Lashari at his residence in DHA.

Musharraf plea against ECL

A two-judge put off the hearing of retired general Pervez Musharraf’s application to have his name excluded from the Exit Control List (ECL) so that he could visit his ailing mother in Dubai.

The bench comprising Justices Mohammed Ali Mazhar and Shahnawaz Tariq adjourned the hearing as the counsel for the applicant, Dr Farogh Naseem, could not appear on medical grounds.

Judgement reserved

The Sindh High Court reserved its judgement on a constitutional petition against the re-appointment of Nasir A. Mughal as vice chancellor of the Sindh University.

A two-judge bench, headed by Justice Mohammed Ali Mazhar, which had earlier restrained the vice chancellor of the Sindh University (SU) from taking any major decisions, including appointments, promotions and postings, till further orders, reserved the verdict after hearing final arguments from the two sides.

Petitioner Nauman Sahito, represented by Advocate Zamir Ghummro, impleaded the governor/chancellor, the chief secretary, the SU registrar, the Higher Education Commission and the VC as respondents.

Advocate Ghummro submitted that the service of former VC Mazhar-ul-Haque Siddiqui had been suddenly terminated two years ago. Instead of filling the vacancy through open advertisement and the prescribed procedure, the university registrar appointed Mr Mughal VC on an ad hoc basis and no one knew about the period of his appointment.

He argued that no prescribed procedure had been adopted and the present incumbent had been appointed VC even without the advice of the chief minister, which was binding under Article 105 of the constitution.

Advocate Ghummro contended that Mr Mughul’s appointment was replete with glaring irregularities as the proper procedure provided in the law had been completely overlooked and a retired person had been favoured over many competent and qualified professors in the province.

He said the appointment of the VC had been made in violation of Article 105(1) of the constitution that provided “Subject to the Constitution, in the performance of his functions, the Governor shall act in accordance with advice of the Cabinet,(or the Chief Minister).”

The counsel also said that Mr Mughal had been re-appointed in 2010 in violation of the Supreme Court’s verdict on re-employment of retired officials.

He submitted that the respondent VC was also reportedly holding a key post at Preston University, Karachi, and a university in Pennsylvania, the US, in violation of the service rules of the country as well as the university.

Advocate Ghummro stated that Mr Mughal did not regularly attend the university due to his engagements abroad and the administration failed to control the deteriorating law and order situation on the campus.

He said the VC had been appointed also in violation of the Articles 4 and 25 of the constitution as his appointment did not conform to the instructions issued on this behalf by the HEC.

The counsel added that Mr Mughal failed to perform his prime duty under the statute to implement the law by failing to constitute syndicate, senate and maintain the law and order on the campus.

Besides, he said, the respondent incumbent had been appointed without considering that he was reportedly a citizen of the United States, having conflict of interests.

Moreover, Advocate Ghummro added, Mr Mughal was over 75 years and was not physically and mentally fit to hold the position of the VC. The VC indulged in various acts of high-handedness, maladministration and corruption that were widely reported in the print and electronic media, he added.

The petitioner asked the court to declare the appointment illegal and order that he vacate the office with immediate effect.

Published in Dawn, May 22nd, 2014