Aug. 18
UNITED KINGDOM:
Against the death penalty: one in ten
One For Ten is an revolutionary series of campaign films produced and broadcast
online over 5 weeks in April and May of 2013.
During those 5 weeks, the producers travelled the width of the United States
and interviewed 10 individuals who have been freed from death row after their
false convictions were over turned.
"The case against the death penalty was never more strongly made", was one
comment to Just Festival News and Ekklesia.
The One for Ten team are also really looking forward to meeting people in
Edinburgh and taking part in Just.
Sunday 18th August 4-5pm, the hall at St John's (corner of Princes Street and
Lothian Road, venue 27). Tickets are 6 pounds from the cash box office at the
venue.
Producers: Will Francome, Mark Pizzey - USA 2013 - 1h - English - Rated 15.
Just Festival, also known simply as Just, runs from 2-26 August 2013. It is
based at St John's Church, Edinburgh, and some 27 other occasional venues, and
combines artistic and performance style events with conversations, talks,
films, exhibits and other ways of exploring how to live together creatively in
a mixed-belief society.
For more information on Just Festival, visit http://www.justjust.org and
http://justfestivalnews.blogspot.com
Ekklesia is a sponsor of Just Festival. Our news, reporting and comment is
aggregated at: www.ekklesia.co.uk/justfestival
(source: ekklesia.co.uk)
NIGERIA:
Why Al-Mustapha, Shofolahan should die - Lagos govtM
It is not yet uhuru for Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, former Chief Security Officer,
CSO, to late Head of State, Gen Sani Abacha, over his acquittal by the Court of
Appeal as Lagos State government on Monday, filed an appeal at the Supreme
Court to challenge the court's decision that set him and Alhaji Lateef
Shofolahan free over the murder of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola. Shofolahan was
Kudirat's aide.
The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, who disclosed
this, said the state government took the decision after 1 month of thorough
evaluation of the judgment and found out "there are enough and very good
grounds for appeal."
Ipaye told journalists in Lagos: "The step by the state government was to
ensure that all issues were fully and well articulated and that the victim's
family, the defendants and the society were not deprived of the last window of
opportunity provided by the constitution for the resolution of the case". He
added, "Government was committed to ensuring that law abiding residents and
visitors continued to live, work and pursue their various aspirations in a safe
and secure environment in the state."
The Commissioner argued that the state would be encouraging impunity by not
challenging the judgment of the Appeal Court, especially when it stated that
the delay in the criminal trial of Al-Mustapha, Sofolahan and others earlier
freed were deliberately ochestrated to frustrate their trial.
He said: "I can report that we have indeed appealed the judgments, one in
respect of Al-Mustapha and the other in respect of Lateef Shofolahan. Both have
been studied closely and we came to the conclusion that there were good grounds
for appeal and we have since filed all the necessary papers. We did that
yesterday.
Officially, we have put in our indication that we want to contest the judgment
of the Court of Appeal at the Supreme Court.
"This step will also ensure that all issues are fully articulated and the
victim's family, the defendants and the society are not deprived of the last
window of opportunity provided by the Constitution for the resolution of the
case."
Loopholes
Answering question on the admissibility of loopholes in a paid advert, Ipaye
denied this, but stated, "What we said was that the accused persons
deliberately delayed the trial and this may have affected the case, because
justice delayed is justice denied.
This is one of the major reasons we are challenging the judgment of the
Honorable Justices of the Appeal Court. It will discourage sense of impunity
that if someone can deliberately delayed his own case, he may eventually escape
justice. This will not be good for justice delivery, our democracy and the
nation."
Also, the Commissioner addressed several issues including the controversial
relocation of some Igbo indigenes from Lagos State, detention of some minors in
Kirikiri prisons and the Amnesty International's report on Badia area of Lagos
State. Kudirat Abiola was murdered on June 4, 1996 by gunmen suspected to be
government's agents following which Al-Mustapha and Shofolahan were charged.
3 other persons-Mr James Danbaba, an ex-Lagos police boss, Lt Col. Jibrin Bala
Yakubu, former military administrator of Zamfara State and commander of Mopol
in the Presidential Villa, and CSP Mohammed Rabo Lawal also stood trial in the
case before they were freed.
In the appeal, Lagos State government formulated14 issues before the Supreme
Court to justify why the apex court should set aside the decision of the Appeal
Court.In separate motions on notice filed against the judgement of the
appellate court, the state formulated 8 and 6 issues against Shofolahan and
Al-Mustapha respectively. The motion was brought pursuant to section 233(3) of
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section
27(2 and 3) of the Supreme Court Act, Cap S15, Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria, 2004, Order 7 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 and under the
inherent jurisdiction of the court.
It prayed the apex court to set aside the judgement of the Appeal court, which
upturned the conviction of the respondents by a lower court presided by Justice
Mojisola Dada of the Lagos High Court on January 30, 2012. The lower court
sentenced Al-Mustapha and Shofolahan to death by hanging for the murder of
Kudirat.
Evidence
The state argued that the appellate court erred in law by discharging and
acquitting the 2 men when the evidence linking them to the crime was not
materially challenged.
According to the state, the contradictions in the testimonies of the
prosecution's star witnesses, Barnabas Jabila (Sgt. Rogers) and Abdul Mohammed
(Katako), were not sufficiently substantial to warrant the acquittal of both
Al-Mustapha and Shofolahan, arguing that the testimonies of PW2 (Jabila) and
PW3 ( Mohammed), were detailed, graphic and consistent.
It contended that there was evidence on the record of appeal that the 2nd
prosecution witness (Jabila) explained the immaterial differences in his
evidence made under examination-in-chief and under cross-examination.
The state added: "PW2 (Rogers) gave detailed and consistent evuidence of the
consipracy to murder; and murder of the deceased. These detailed facts were not
materially controverted even under cross-examination. "There was evidence on
record of Appeal that PW2 explained the immaterial differences in his evidence
made under examination-in-chief and confirmed under cross-examination and in
spite of the detailed consistent evidence of PW2 and the detasiled explanation
of the immaterial differences, the Court below still went ahead to impeach and
disregard the whole evidence."
On the 2nd ground, the government stated that the court erred in law when it
held that there were material contradictions that rendered the testimony of the
3rd prosecution witness, (Abdul Katako) unreliable and asserted that the
witness gave graphic and detailed evidence of conspiracy to and murder of
Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, adding that his testimony was neither denied nor
discredited in cross-examination.
It said: "Section 7 of the Criminal Code identifies circumstances where a
person may be held liable for commission of offence", adding, "there was
concrete evidence (both oral and documentary) before the trial court indicating
the participation of the 2nd and 3rd prosecution witnesses and the respondent
in the alleged crimes."
The government further stated that both witnesses had testified how they
participated in the killing of Kudirat under the instruction given by
Al-Mustapha with Shofolahan's assistance as an informant but later denied and
recanted the incriminating testimonies during cross-examination.
It stated: "The Court of Appeal gave overriding credence to a statement made
under-cross examination by PW3 that he was in Azare on June 4, 1996 (day
Kudirat was murdered) when the Defence did not show through the witness that
even if the accusation was true, he could not have committed the offence and
then proceeded to Azare, Bauchi State."
It added: "DW1 (Al-Mustapha) provided the logistics for killing the deceased in
Lagos. PW3 (Mohammed) was assigned as driver to PW2 (Jabila) because of his
knowledge of Lagos and PW3 gave graphic evidence of how he drove PW2 to the
scene of the crime and how PW2 shot the deceased severally.
Conspiracy
On conspiracy, the stated government stated: "PW2 (prosecution witness)
admitted meeting DW2 (Shofolahan) and the killing of the deceased and testified
that DW2 took them to the deceased's house and provided information about the
identification and movement of the deceased. "The statements of PW2, PW3 and
even DW1 tendered and admitted by the trial court showed that these three
witnesses indeed met and had common intention to commit a crime.
It was an undisputed fact that Alhaja Kudirat Abiola was shot and died on June
4, 1996. PW2 (Rogers) admitted he severally shot the deceased on June 4, 1996.
"It was unchallenged that DW1 gave his gun to PW2 for killing the deceased and
the insistence of PW2 that he would be surprised that he used 5.6mm gun instead
of 9mm to kill the deceased.
There was circumstantial evidence establishing the fact that DW1 and DW2
participated and aided the elimination of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola." Ipaye, in the
appeal notices, said the contradictions were immaterial and urged the Supreme
Court to affirm the death penalty.
On ground 4 of the appeal, the state argued: "The Court below erred in law by
substituting its own assessment and evaluation of the evidence with that of the
Trial Court in its judgment in circumstances of this case, when it held that
there was no creduible and reliable evidence in the entire record to justify
the conviction of the Respondents."
It pointed out that the the Appeal Court "did not properly evaluate the
evidence on the printed record which the Trial Court considered in arriving at
its conclusion before setting aside the conviction of the Respondents.
"In the circumstances of this case where the Court below could not assess the
witnesses, consider their demeanour, the nuances of the process before the
court, including specific conducts, or attitudes of the witnesses in relation
to specific, critical, vital; and material evidence, oral or otherwise; the
Court did not disclose sufficient reasons for substituting its own views for
those of the Trial Court", it added.
Bribe, inducement
On the argument that Rogers was bribed or induced, Lagos State government
submitted: "The Court below erred in law by misconstruing what the appellant
characterised lawful "Witness Protection" measure as "Promise" and on one hand
ignored it but on the other hand attached so much weight to the Respondent's
characterisation as promise."
Pointing on the error, the state said, "A court both trial and appellate is not
allowed to approbate and rebrobate at the same time; PW2 confirmed that he had
agreed before the "promise" to give evidence against the defendants as part of
his duties to the State ten years before his oral testimony.
It said further: "In his later attempt to resile from his testimony, PW2
(Rogers) categorically stated that it was human to react that way because his
family members were attacked and the prosecution could not help them.
The Court below, even in the face of credible and uncontroverted testimony
about witnesses' fear or concern, and aspiration for safety for themselves and
their families, failed to recognize the purpose and value of such evidence in
its assessment of the evidence before it."
It added that the Appeal Court ignored relevant materials and gave weight to
irrelevant materials and misconstrued the Witness Protection programme for PW2
and PW3 as inducement and discredited their entire evidence.
It concluded that there was no controverted evidence of PW2 (Rogers)concurrence
of DW1 (Al-Mustapha) that he is the leader of the Strike Force constituted
under the military regime of Late General Sanni Abacha and that DW1 provided
logistics for the killing of the deceased (Kudirat) and that PW3 (Abdul) was
assigned as driver to PW2 because of his knowledge of Lagos and he gave graphic
evidence of how he drove Rogers to the scene of the crime and how he shot the
deceased severally.
The state therefore prayed the apex court to allow the appeal as well as
setting "aside the judgment of the Court below delivered on 12th July, 2013
which set aside the conviction of the Respondents for offence of conspiracy to
commit murder and murder."
The Court of Appeal in its judgment, had stated that there was a "gaping hole"
in the prosecution's case. Highlighting the default, the appellate court said
the prosecution 1st witness, Dr. Ore Falomo, testified that the bullet
extracted from Alhaja Kudirat Abiola's skull was a "special bullet" that could
have come "only" from the Presidency.
The victim, according to the witness, died after a 3-hour surgery to remove the
bullet and after suffering a 2nd heart attack. Falomo said that the police took
away the bullet "for investigation" and never returned it.
The appellate court noted that the prosecution failed to state the whereabouts
of the bullet, get a ballistician to examine the bullet or tender it as an
exhibit before the court. "The prosecution failed to produce the bullet, and
there was no explanation as to why it was not available," the court held.
Again, Mr. Jabila, during his testimony, according to the court, gave a vivid
account of how they, acting on the orders of Al-Mustapha, trailed their victim
from her Ikeja home to Lagos-Ibadan expressway where they sprayed her white
Mercedes Benz with bullets.
However, under cross-examination, the witness said he was in Abuja on June 4
but was asked to give such testimony as part of an agreement with the Federal
Government and Lagos State government. Jabila said that he was promised a job,
house, and security.
His wife had been on a N15, 000 monthly salary which was later increased to
N20, 000. He also said that Professor Yemi Osibajo, the then Lagos State
Attorney General and the late Bola Ige, then Attorney General of the
Federation, paid him repeated visits while in detention, with the latter giving
him N100,000 on one occasion.
Mr. Abdul, who had admitted being Mr. Jabila's driver when the murder was
committed, said he was made the same offers by the authorities including a
promise that he would not be brought to court - but they reneged on their
promise. When he recanted, Mr. Abdul said that he was in Azare, Bauchi State,
on the day of the murder.
"There was no explanation for this somersault," Justice Pemu who read the
judgment said. No date has been fixed for the hearing of the case. However, the
judgment of the Supreme Court will determine whether or not the joy and the
reunion of Al-Mustapha and Shofolahan with their loved ones will endure.
(source: Osun Defender)
INDONESIA:
New hope for 'drugs mule' grandmother facing execution by firing squad in
Indonesia as Britain enters talks over possible prisoner swap; Lindsay
Sandiford, 56, was sentenced to death in January by judges in Bali
A British grandmother facing the firing squad for smuggling drugs into Bali
could be sent home if the Government agrees to extradite a tycoon wanted over a
900?million pounds banking scandal.
Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi asked Indonesia's justice minister Amir
Syamsuddin to allow drugs mule Lindsay Sandiford and a 2nd Briton on death row,
Gareth Cashmore, to be allowed to serve out jail terms in the UK.
In return, Mr Syamsuddin requested that Britain extradite multi-millionaire
Rafat Ali Rizvi, a 52-year-old British national sentenced in his absence to 15
years in 2010 for allegedly stealing funds from Indonesia's collapsed Bank
Century.
Mrs Sandiford, 57, was caught carrying cocaine worth 1.6 million pounds in May
last year.
Rizvi, 52, who has a luxury home in Park Lane, was a major shareholder in Bank
Century.
He is accused of moving 900 million pounds wort of distressed debt securities
into accounts around the world along with another key shareholder.
Rizvi, who also has homes in the Bahamas and Singapore, was this year linked to
a buyout of Glasgow Rangers FC, despite being on an Interpol wanted list.
He claims he is the innocent victim of a political conspiracy.
Cashmore, a 34-year-old roofer from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, was convicted
last year of smuggling 14lbs of crystal meth.
There is no extradition treaty between Britain and Indonesia, but Mr Syamsuddin
Indonesia was willing to discuss 'co-operation on the transfer of sentenced
persons'.
The Foreign Office said: 'We do not have a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with
Indonesia but are in discussions about the possibility of introducing one.'
The Foreign Office insists the cases of the 2 death row Britons are not being
linked to the request for the extradition of Rizvi, who has a fortune estimated
at nearly 400 million pounds.
Rizvi's lawyers claim he could face the death penalty if sent to Indonesia,
should further corruption charges be levelled against him.
Speaking after his return to Jakarta, Mr Syamsuddin said he had 'conveyed our
hope' for the extradition of Rizvi from Britain.
He said he had been told the matter would be raised with the Home Office, which
is responsible for the decision.
He also said a request had been made to him for a special case to be made for
Sandiford and Cashmore to serve out jail terms in Britain.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said Baroness Warsi had expressed Britain's
opposition to the use of the death penalty at the meeting on July 30 and had
appealed for Sandiford and Cashmore to be spared execution.
Asked if Amir had directly requested for Sandiford and Cashmore to be 'swapped'
for Rizvi, the spokesperson said: 'We cannot comment on the Indonesian
position.
'The UK position is that the Gareth Cashmore and Lindsay Sandiford cases stand
alone.
'We will continue to take every opportunity to urge the Indonesian authorities
to reconsider the imposition of the death penalty on both these individuals.'
Sandiford has lost her appeal against her death sentence in Bali in April.
A spokesman for Bali High Court announced that the court had rejected an appeal
from the 56-year-old from Cheltenham.
She got a death sentence despite taking part in a sting after her arrest which
resulted in the arrest and conviction of the smuggling plot???s alleged
masterminds, who got lighter sentences.
When the death sentence was first delivered, the judges said Sandiford had
damaged the image of Bali as a tourist destination and weakened the
government's anti-drugs programme.
As it was read out, there were gasps of surprise in Denpasar District Court as
not even the prosecution had been seeking the death penalty. The British
grandmother is being kept in Kerobokan jail in Bali, Indonesia. A court
official confimed his office had received the appeal request from the prison.
In her witness statement, Sandiford said: 'I would like to begin by apologising
to the Republic of Indonesia and the Indonesian people for my involvement.
'I would never have become involved in something like this but the lives of my
children were in danger and I felt I had to protect them.'
During the trial, her lawyer read out a statement from her son which said: 'I
love my mother very much and have a very close relationship with her.
'I know that she would do anything to protect me. I cannot imagine what I would
do if she was sentenced to death in relation to these charges.'
Briton Julian Ponder, 43, the plot's alleged mastermind, was sentenced to 6
years for possessing cocaine after initial accusations of conspiracy to traffic
drugs were reduced.
His partner Rachel Dougall, 38, got 1 year for failing to report a crime while
a 3rd Briton, 40-year-old Paul Beales, jailed for 4 years for possessing drugs.
Sandiford claims she only agreed to carry the cocaine because of death threats
to her son and says Ponder, Beale and Dougall organised her smuggling run from
Bangkok to Bali.
She is on death row in the Bali's notorious Kerobokan jail with Dougall, Ponder
and Beale and claims to have been subjected to death threats for sneaking on
them to police.
Dougall, whose 6 year-old daughter with Ponder, Kitty, is being cared for by
her parents in Brighton, is due to walk free in May after completing her 1-year
sentence.
The Government has said it is disappointed Sandiford has lost her appeal.
The Foreign Office also reiterated the UK's opposition to the death penalty and
said it had repeatedly made representations to the Indonesian government about
this case.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'We are disappointed to hear that Lindsay
Sandiford's appeal has been refused by the High Court in Bail.
'The UK strongly opposes the death penalty and has repeatedly made
representations to the Indonesian government on this matter.
'We will continue to provide consular assistance at this difficult time.'
The decision follows Foreign Secretary William Hague's earlier plea not to
execute the grandmother from Cheltenham.
Mr Hague sent a strongly-worded appeal to the 3 judges through the Foreign
Office arguing Sandiford's death penalty is 'unwarranted because it is an
excessive punishment'.
The 14-page submission, shown to the Mail on Sunday by a court insider, says
the British government has 'serious concerns' over Sandiford's case.
'The government requests that the court takes into account the violations of
Mrs Sandiford's fundamental rights and decide that in these circumstances the
death penalty would not be appropriate,' it says.
'Allegations of mistreatment of Mrs Sandiford during the initial period in
detention have been raised. This includes threats with a gun and sleep
deprivation.
'The UK government also has serious concerns at the absence of immediate - and
prolonged delay of - consular notification. This is all the more concerning
given the absence of legal representation and a translator during the period of
detention.'
The document - known as an Amicus Brief - says Sandiford's death penalty should
be reduced to a jail term and implies her execution would have diplomatic
repercussions.
'Mrs Sandiford is a 56 year old woman. She has 2 sons and an infant grandchild
who would plainly be seriously affected were Mrs Sandiford to be executed,' it
says.
'Mrs Sandiford cooperated with the authorities with a view to detaining others
who were involved in the drug trafficking.
'The High Court should take into account this cooperation, especially given
that the others involved have now been convicted.'
British embassy officials in Indonesia did not learn of Sandiford's arrest for
nearly 2 weeks after her initial arrest as she cooperated in the drawn-out
police sting.
'The (British) government wishes to draw the attention of the court to the
allegations of mistreatment by officials when Mrs Sandiford was first
detained,' says the document.
'This mistreatment constituted violations of Mrs Sandiford's fundamental rights
under international law and Indonesian constitutional law.
'Mrs Sandiford was also not provided with a lawyer during the period of
interrogation and in addition concerns have been raised about the adequacy of
Mrs Sandiford's legal representation during parts of the trial process.'
Criticising the January sentence in the district court in the island capital
Denpasar, document argues: 'It is not apparent that the court took account of
these considerable mitigating factors when making its decision.
'The fact that the prosecution did not seek the death penalty gives weight to
the inappropriateness of the death sentence in Ms Sandiford's case.'
Human rights organisation Reprieve has previously said it believes there is
evidence to show that Sandiford was threatened and coerced into acting as a
courier.
Indonesia has an estimated 114 prisoners on death row.
Most of the more than 40 foreigners among them have been convicted of drug
crimes, according to a March 2012 report by Australia's Lowy Institute for
International Policy.
(source: The Daily Mail)
PAKISTAN:
Nawaz halts execution of death sentences
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has ordered an immediate halt to the carrying out
of the death penalty in the country, a government spokesman has confirmed.
The spokesman told The News that reports aired on some TV channels that
President Zardari had stopped the implementation of the death sentence on some
condemned prisoners were incorrect.
The spokesman said that the president of Pakistan had sent a letter to Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif that he wanted to meet the PM to discuss the issue of the
long-pending death sentence on hundreds of convicted prisoners.
The spokesman said that as the date of executions was approaching and the
president was out of the country, the prime minister had directed the Interior
Ministry to hold everything regarding the execution of death sentences till the
conclusion of the meeting between the prime minister and the head of state.
It is important to mention here that the previous government had stopped the
implementation of the death sentence of many terrorists and hardcore criminals
and some experts considered this as one of the basic reasons for rising
terrorism and the freedom of terrorists to act with impunity.
During the last more than 2 decades, only 1 killer, Saulat Mirza, was convicted
and sentenced to death and even the implementation on his death sentence has
been pending for more than 7 years.
While terrorism in Karachi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and other parts of
the country is on the rise, the PML-N government's decision will be seen as the
weakness of the state, and experts fear the situation in Karachi and KP will
further deteriorate in coming days because of the soft policies of the central
government.
Earlier, according to an NBC News report, campaign groups appealed to Pakistan
not to resume executions after a moratorium on the death penalty expired in
June.
In a joint letter to Pakistan's president and prime minister, Human Rights
Watch and the International Commission of Jurists (IJP) said the resumption of
the death penalty "puts Pakistan in opposition to the global and regional
movement towards the abolition of the death penalty."
"The decision not to renew the moratorium on executions and carry out
executions constitutes a major step back for human rights in the country. This
decision is all the more alarming given that more than 7,000 people are on
death row in Pakistan," it said.
The moratorium began in June 2008; a soldier found guilty of murder was
executed in November 2012, but that was the only exception.
The letter said the groups understood that an anti-terrorism court in Sindh
province had issued warrants for the execution of 2 members of the banned
sectarian and militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.
Attaullah alias Qasim and Muhammad Azam alias Sharif were convicted by an
anti-terrorism court in July 2004 for the killing of a doctor, according to the
letter. They are scheduled to be executed between August 20 and 22.
The Pakistani Taliban has warned the newly elected government not to execute
the men, saying they would try to kill Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the
Chief Minister of Punjab Shahbaz Sharif in response.
"The ICJ and Human Rights Watch believe that those who commit acts of terrorism
should be prosecuted before competent, independent and impartial courts that
meet international due process standards," the letter said.
"However, we oppose the death penalty under all circumstances as an inherently
cruel and irreversible punishment that violates the right to life."
Some 150 countries worldwide, including 30 states in the Asia-Pacific region,
have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, the letter said.
(source: The News)
****************************
Executions Of Taliban Militants Risk Provoking A Wider War in Pakistan
The Pakistani government's decision to restore capital punishment was designed
to put the fear of god into the hearts of the country's hardened militants.
Instead, the move has provoked threats of war from Taliban factions as some of
their comrades face imminent death by hanging.
The first 3 executions are slotted for next week. They include at least one
prominent militant figure and 2 low-profile extremists associated with
anti-Shi'a Sunni hard-line groupings.
Their scheduled execution prompted three major Taliban factions this week to
issue a stern warning to leaders of the governing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz
party (PML-N) for pushing ahead with the hangings.
The 3 militants include Muhammad Aqeel (aka Dr. Usman), who was convicted of
masterminding a deadly attack against Pakistani military headquarters in 2009.
Leaders and purported spokesmen of Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e
Jhangvi, and Mujahedeen-e Ansar told PML-N leaders to brace themselves for a
wider war if Aqeel and the 2 other militants are executed next week.
Emboldened Taliban
The groups, widely seen as close allies, warned of suicide attacks and
assassinations across the country of 180 million people, which is already
reeling from militant violence.
Hassan Askari Rizvi, a defense analyst based in the eastern Pakistani city of
Lahore, suggests that the Taliban is feeling confident of pressuring the
government after carrying out a string of successful assaults since the
administration took office in June.
"Now, because of that confidence and inability of the government to control
them, they have threatened the government," he says. "We will wait and see what
happens [and] whether the government goes ahead with the executions of these 3
people. And if it does, then what is going to be the reaction of the Taliban?
They can engage in violence. They have been engaging in violence, so they feel
confident that they can do it in future."
Pakistan's new federal government, led by the conservative PML-N, ended a
5-year suspension of executions in July.
The administration declared that "there will be no general amnesty for the
convicts waiting for execution."
The government has decided to speed up the executions of some 450 convicts who
were supposed to be hanged during the past 5 years.
It is has prioritized the cases of those convicted on terrorism charges.
The PML-N administration is working to strengthen its antiterrorism policies.
It is pushing for a comprehensive policy to tackle extremist violence, and its
leader, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has called for terrorism to be defeated.
While marking the country's Independence Day on August 14, Sharif said: "Our
will is strong and we have the capability to beat the terrorists."
A 'Retrograde Step'
The executions can still be postponed if the incumbent President Asif Ali
Zardari delays signing the relevant death warrants, which are legally required
before the hangings can be carried out.
Zardari has never signed such warrants during his 5-year term, which ends in
early September. His Pakistan Peoples Party enforced the suspension of
executions during its 5-year rule from 2008 to March of this year.
International human rights watchdog Amnesty International has opposed the
restoration of the death penalty. It called the development a "shocking and
retrograde step" and demanded an immediate restoration of the moratorium on the
use of the death penalty.
The government's decision, however, has attracted some backing from opposition
politicians.
Senator Afrasiab Khattak, a senior leader of the Awami National Party, sees no
other alternative for Sharif.
He maintains that the government needs to stand up to the Taliban because the
"terrorists just want to establish a state within a state."
Despite his opposition to the administration and reservations about the death
penalty, Khattak believes that the government's decision to lift the ban on
executions cannot be blamed for provoking a war.
"These people [the Taliban] would have always reacted in the same way," he
says. "Whether it was yesterday or it is today or it would happen tomorrow."
Currently, some 8,000 prisoners are on death row in Pakistan. Many of them have
exhausted the appeals process and could now be executed. A lot of the convicts
have links to the Taliban and other extremist factions.
Before the moratorium was enforced in 2008, Pakistan was one of the world's
leading practitioners of the death penalty, carrying out scores of executions
every year.
(source: Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty)
***************************
Pakistan court drops charges against cleric in blasphemy case, lawyer says
A Pakistani court on Saturday dismissed charges against a cleric who accused a
young Christian girl of blasphemy and who was arrested last year for allegedly
forging evidence against her, his lawyer said.
The case had brought new spotlight on Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws, sections
of which carry the death penalty or life imprisonment. However, the laws retain
broad support in this country, where Islamic conservatism is on the rise
alongside extremism and many Muslims are highly sensitive about their faith.
The lawyer, Wajid Gilani, said the district judge in Islamabad on Saturday
granted the motion to acquit his client, cleric Khalid Chishti, after the judge
ruled that the prosecution had not brought forward sufficient evidence.
Chishti was the imam, or prayer leader, at the mosque in the mixed,
Muslim-Christian neighborhood of Maherabadi in the Pakistani capital.
He had accused the young girl of burning pages of Islam's holy book last year.
He said a man had allegedly brought him a plastic bag containing some burned
papers and ash, claiming the girl had been carrying them around.
The bag was submitted as evidence to the police and subsequently the girl was
arrested to pacify the angry mob in the neighborhood.
But then, the cleric himself was arrested and accused of planting pages of the
Quran in the bag. The girl was released on bail after spending 3 weeks in jail
and subsequently found shelter in Canada along with her family.
After the girl's arrest, most of the other Christian families fled the
Islamabad neighborhood where the incident happened, fearing retribution. They
took refuge in a forested area in central Islamabad but were kicked out of the
area the following day by angry residents.
Meanwhile, there were contrary reports about the girl - some said she was 11
years old and has Down's syndrome; a medical board said she was about 14 and
that her mental age didn't match her physical age.
The defense lawyer, Gilani, insisted on his client's innocence and claimed
police had implicated Chishti in false charges.
"My client was innocent from the very beginning and he had to suffer for no
crime," said the lawyer.
The prosecutor and the investigating officer could not be reached for comment
on Saturday.
Rao Abdur Raheem, a lawyer for the man who brought the initial complaint
against the girl, questioned who had burned the Quran since Chishti was
exonerated and the girl had been released previously.
"My case is still there, blasphemy occurred but who should we now blame for
it," asked Raheem.
Human rights activists say Pakistan's blasphemy laws are too broad and vague,
and are often used by people trying to settle scores with rivals or target
religious minorities, who make up 5 % of Pakistan's 180 million people
Few leaders in this predominantly Muslim country have shown willingness to
tackle the contentious issue, especially after 2 prominent politicians who
criticized the blasphemy law were murdered in recent years. One of the
politicians was shot by his own bodyguard, who then attracted adoring crowds.
(source: Associated Press)
IRAN----executions
Prisoners hanged in public in 3 locations in Karaj
The Iranian regime's henchmen have hanged 3 prisoners on Sunday morning in 3
districts of the city of Karaj.
The executions took place in Ressalat, Karim Abad, and Fardis districts. No
more details were given on the victims.
Today's public execution is taking place as Hassan Rouhani's cabinet has
started to work. His cabinet's head of judiciary is Motafa Pour-mohammadi who
has long record in crimes against humanity in Iran.
*********************
Mullahs judiciary confirms stoning to death of a man and a woman
The Iranian regime's highest judiciary authority has confirmed the sentence of
stoning to death for a woman and a man, according to reports from inside Iran.
The Supreme Court has communicated the ruling to authorities in the central
prison of Tabriz, northwest Iran.
The 2 prisoners previously had been condemned to stoning in December 2012
inTabriz but following objection by their lawyers the case had been referred to
the mullahs' Supreme Court.
The 2 victims have been identified as Zahra pour Saei and Ali Saei. There is
the fear that the punishment will be executed secretly.
(source for both: NCR-Iran)
NEW ZEALAND:
Sizeable support for reintroduction of death penalty
More than 1/3 of New Zealander's would support the reintroduction of the death
penalty.
In a Curia poll for TV3's "The Nation" of 624 respondents, 38 % were in favour
of the death penalty, 55 % were against it, and 7 % were undecided.
35 % of Labour voters favoured the death penalty and National voters polled at
44 %. Least likely to be in favour were Green Party voters at 19 %, but the
most in favour of capital punishment were New Zealand First voters at 84 %.
Despite an overwhelming majority of his party's supporters favouring the
reintroduction of the death penalty, New Zealand First MP Denis O'Rourke does
not believe it should.
"The death penalty is right in principal but wrong in practice," he said.
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson Ruth Money said their clients who have
suffered through losing a loved one to homicide do not believe capital
punishment is appropriate either.
"Survivors that we deal with have not heard one of them say they believe in
capital punishment.
"They believe in the public being safe but they don't believe its their choice
to take someone's life," she said.
(source: National Business Review)
INDIA:
Hindu organization Shiv Sena demands immediate execution of Sikh Political
prisoner Prof. DPS Bhullar
After Supreme Court of India rejected the review petition against SCI's April
12, 2013 decision clearing execution of Sikh political prisoner Professor
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's execution, Hindu organization Shiv Sena has
demanded immediate hanging of Prof. Bhullar. While hailing the Supreme Court of
India's verdict, Shiv Sena said immediate execution of Prof. Bhullar will
convey a strong message.
Prof. DPS Bhullar, a Sikh political activist, was sentenced to death under
infamous TADA law by Indian courts. It is notable that even Indian judiciary
was split over his conviction as Presiding judge of three judges SCI bench had
acquitted him in appeal (in 2002) but the other 2 judges had confirmed his
death sentence.
Set norms of the law were clearly violated in this case, as the judges opened
that this case was to be taken as an 'extraordinary manner'.
As per information Avtar Singh Makkar, President of Shiromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) has urged the government of India to review the
issue keeping in mind the emotions of Sikh community.
It is notable that a TADA court had convicted Sikh political prisoner Prof.
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar in a 1993 blast case in a highly controversial and
contested manner in 2001. The Supreme court of India judges were split over the
guilt of Prof. Bhullar. Justice M. B. Shah, the presiding judge of the 3 judges
bench of SCI acquitted Prof. Bhullar while noting the absence of incriminating
evidence against Prof. Bhullar. But the other 2 judge of SCI bench had upheld
his conviction and death sentence in March 2002. His review petition was
dismissed in December 2002 and curative petition was dismissed in 2003. His
petition under Article 72 remained pending before President of India from 2003
to 2011. In 2011 Prof. Bhullar's wife approached the SCI seeking commutation of
death sentence on the ground of inordinate delay in execution. When the SCI
issued notice to Government of India asking it to explain the delay in deciding
the petition, the government of India rejected the petition and informed SCI in
this regard.
April 2013 the SCI rejected the clemency plea in this case but after few weeks
a similar plea of another death row convict M. N. Das was entertained and his
death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.
Prof. Bhullar's wife had filed a review of April 2013 decision of the SCI that
was rejected on August 14, 2013.
Bhai Mandhir Singh of Akali Dal Panch Pardhani has commented that the SCI
verdict has reaffirmed that Sikhs are slaves in India. He said Prof. DPS
Bhullar's case is political in nature and in this case India is commuting a
political murder under the grab of judicial decisions.
Current status of the case is that Prof. Bhullar is in mental asylum since
2010. A medical board set up by Delhi government to examine his health, had
affirmed that Prof. Bhullar was suffering from severe depression. In wake of
this report his execution was temporarily suspended by Lt. Governor of Delhi,
who had referred the matter to the Ministry of Home Affairs (Government of
India). Now the matter is pending with MHA, GOI.
(source: sikhsiyasat.net)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
