ISLAMABAD, May 31: The special Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Islamabad that convicted MNA Abdul Latif and former MPA Wazirzada a day earlier has issued a 42-page detailed verdict in the May 9, 2023, violence case.
Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra ruled that the attack on Ramna Police Station carried out in reaction to the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan amounted to acts of terrorism. The court concluded that the accused were not engaged in a peaceful protest but were attempting to destabilize the state and spread fear through violence against law enforcement and public property.
The court noted that the convicts were members or supporters of a political party and deliberately used the cover of protest to launch a violent assault on a state institution.
\”It is clear the accused wanted to terrorize law enforcement agencies and the public to achieve political aims,\” the judgment stated. \”Peaceful protest is a constitutional right, but no law permits violent actions or attacks on state institutions.\”
The court handed down a combined sentence of 27 years and three months to each convict under various charges. However, as the sentences are to run concurrently, each individual will serve 10 years in prison.
Among those convicted is MNA Abdul Latif, a resident of Upper Chitral, along with the following individuals:
Zaryab Khan (Nowshera), Muhammad Akram, Meera Khan (Parachinar), Samuel Robert (Mardan), Wazir Zada (Chitral), Abdul Basit (Haripur), Shan Ali (Sargodha), Shahzaib (Bagh), Muhammad Yousuf (originally from Afghanistan, residing in Islamabad), and Sohail Khan (Mansehra).
The court observed that Islamabad is considered one of Pakistan\’s most secure cities, home to several foreign embassies, and an armed attack on a police station there represents a highly dangerous act. The judgment emphasized that such acts fall squarely within the definition of terrorism as outlined by the Supreme Court.
The court found that the accused attacked the police station, opened fire on law enforcement personnel, set motorcycles on fire, and caused extensive damage to public and government property.
The prosecution, the court noted, successfully proved its case with sufficient evidence and because the act was carried out collectively, all accused were held equally responsible.