SC admits petition over Parveen's target-killing
20 September, 2013
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has admitted for regular hearing a petition regarding the constitution of a commission headed by a judge to investigate the target killing of Karachi-based social activist Parveen Rehman.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, heard the petition regarding the arrest of the accused in the murder case. The petition has been filed by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) and members of civil society groups. Perween Rehman, the director of the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP), was killed in Karachi about six months ago. The Karachi police have yet to submit a charge sheet in the court.
The twelve petitioners, including rights activist Zohra Yousaf and journalist Zubaida Mustafa, have filed the plea in the court under Article 184 (3) of the constitution, making Sindh and federal governments and the provincial police as respondents. Earlier, the Supreme Court registrar office had raised the objection on the petition that the grievance of the petitioners is of individual nature; therefore, they should approach the high court. Kamran Sheikh, counsel for the petitioners, told the bench that Perveen Rehman's murderers are being sheltered by a Karachi-based political party.
The petitioners contended that under Article 9 of the constitution, the state is responsible for providing protection and safety to the life and liberty of all citizens, but in the present case the state not only failed to provide security to the deceased but also failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into the offence.
"It is also the fundamental duty of the police to conduct fair, impartial and satisfactory investigation in matters where an FIR has been registered and to collect evidence without any delay. The investigation conducted by the investigation officer in the instant case is not a fair, impartial and satisfactory investigation, as it has been done in a flimsy and hasty manner and no serious efforts were made to collect more evidence related to the offence," the petitioners argue.