Agencies mishandled high profile terror attacks
 

By Umar Cheema

ISLAMABAD: Intelligence agencies not only mishandled the terrorism cases of Lt-Gen Mushtaq Baig and the Army bus attack near the NLC office in Rawalpindi, the six persons accused of attacking an ISI bus near Hamza Camp were also acquitted on the same grounds.

The police were kept away from the investigation and no evidence was shared with them. The FIR was registered in backdate, and none from the Army appeared as a witness, though four officials initially showed readiness but two backed out when approached by police for the purpose and the remaining two refused court appearance.

No inquiry was ordered to determine what caused the acquittal of the Hamza Camp attack accused though a meeting was held in the Regional Police Officer’s office in April to examine the reasons. Top officials of the Prosecution department, representatives of intelligence agencies and police bosses were in attendance, insiders of the meeting said.

According to the officials privy to the meeting, the intelligence sleuths accused the police and prosecution of badly handling the case that led to the acquittal of the accused. The police instead put the blame on intelligence agencies. Officials from the New Town Police Station in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred told the meeting that they were kept out of the loop. The accused subsequently secured acquittal from the Anti-Terrorism court for lack of evidence.

An explosives-laden van had hit a bus packed with security personnel at the gate of Hamza Camp (old Ojhri Camp) near Faizabad, killing 17 persons and injuring 35 others, on the morning of November 24, 2007. As the incident occurred and police reached the spot, even the then SSP (Operation) Yasin Farooq was not allowed to visit the crime scene that was hosed down within hours, the relevant officials told the meeting in the presence of intelligence sleuths. The wreckage of vehicle was removed and the police were told to leave the place.

A number of contacts with agency officials for registering complain were made, the police officials told the meeting. But the intelligence officials had an application registered with the police station about the incident, that too after four months of the incident. As a result, a Joint Interrogation Team was formed four months later but with no work as the suspects remained in the exclusive custody of intelligence personnel. The police were directed to leave blank an FIR to be filled later and it was done nine months after the incident when the six accused were handed over to the police. Narrating how the ‘arrest by police’ of the accused was flashed in the media, an official told the meeting that the police learnt through TV tickers about the arrest of some suspects who were initially locked up in the Civil Lines Police Station. The New Town Police Station was later ordered to take them in custody and register their arrest. The media was told explosives had been recovered from them. As the issue emerged how to link them with Hamza Camp attack, the agencies offered to present their four officials as witnesses, who would testify that they had seen them running from the scene.

As the police approached the would-be witnesses working in Hamza Camp, two of them flatly refused while the other two showed willingness. But one of them backed out when asked to accompany for identity parade and the other refused to appear in the court as a prosecution witness.

As nine months had already passed, the police now had the accused but neither the witnesses nor the agencies shared their findings, the meeting was told. The police even didn’t have the medico-legal reports of those killed and injured in the incident. These reports were also got prepared from backdate from the Combined Military Hospital (CMH), the police officials told the meeting.

According to the police, they sent many reminders to the agencies for handing over the evidence. Finally, a letter was sent issuing a warning that non-provision of evidence would spoil the case for which the police could not be blamed. Again, no evidence was shared. The end result was the acquittal of the accused.

According to the insider, Asghar Goraya, the then SHO New Police Station, spoke on this issue most of the time. When The News contacted him for his version, he declined to speak saying: “It was an internal debate. What I had to say was said in the meeting. It is not for public consumption.”

The ISPR offered no comment to a list of questions being reproduced below:

1) Is it true that SSP (Operation) was not allowed to visit the crime scene that was hosed down shortly after the incident?

2) Due to late registration of complaint with the police, the JIT was subsequently formed four months later but remained non-functional as no cooperation was extended by the agencies. Is it true?

3) Is it true that the accused in the custody of intelligence agencies were handed over to police after nine months, yet no findings were shared with the police nor any technical evidence provided?

4) Is it true that the complaint with the police was registered after four months after the latter’s repeated requests and thus a backdated FIR (earlier left blank for the purpose) was registered and sealed?

5) Is it true that the Army promised to provide four witnesses for the case? Two of them refused to become witnesses in the beginning and the other two backed out when taken to court for the purpose?

6) Is it true that medico-legal reports of the dead and injured in the Hamza Camp attack case were not provided to the police that had to have them prepared from backdate from CMH doctors?

7) Is it true that police wrote a letter, warning that inordinate delay in handing over the evidence and lack of cooperation could spoil the case but no remedial action was taken?