Minister Faisal Vawda Loses Cool Again, Lashes Out At Journalist Matiullah Jan

Minister for Water and Power Resources Faisal Vawda once again lost his cool with a journalist. The minister lashed out at Matiullah Jan when the latter asked him when he gave up his American citizenship.

Vawda was surrounded by journalists after he came out of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) after hearing of the dual nationality case against him. When Matiullah Jan asked a simple question, the minister lost his cool and accused the journalist of sensationalism. “I know you need this [information] for your sensational vlogs.

Later, the minister took to Twitter and proudly shared the video, terming Matiullah Jan a ‘vulture of media’. “I will keep exposing others too,” he wrote.

Website: Naya Daur

Discovery Of Old Bones Raises Fresh Questions About Pakistani Journalist’s Death

When Pakistani road workers discovered human remains on their construction site in North Waziristan in early March, they unearthed more than the bones of an elderly teacher who was abducted and killed 13 years ago.

The victim, Muhammad Salam, was also a potential witness to the 2006 killing of Hayatullah Khan — a journalist who had been reporting details of a military operation against Al-Qaeda militants sheltering in the area.

Some Pakistani sources tell RFE/RL they think the schoolteacher was abducted and killed because he knew too much about the journalist’s death.

They argue it is unlikely Salam’s killers were from the Taliban or Al-Qaeda because, at the time, those groups would publicly announce their kidnappings and killings — often releasing videos of their victims and labeling them as spies or government agents.

Hayatullah Khan’s reporting and photographs from North Waziristan in December 2005 had shown that a senior Al-Qaeda leader had been killed in the lawless tribal region by a U.S. drone strike — not in a bomb-making accident as Pakistan’s government had claimed.

Khan was abducted just two days after filing that story. He was killed six months later in front of the schoolteacher’s house in the village of Khaisor, about 15 kilometers from Khan’s village of Hurmaz.

A government commission headed by Judge Muhammad Raza Khan of the Peshawar High Court investigated the killing of the journalist. That commission completed a 32-page report in late 2006 but its conclusions were never released to the public.

It remains unclear whether investigators had questioned Salam about the journalist’s death before the teacher was also abducted and killed by unknown assailants.

Safdar Dawar and Shamim Shahid, two Pakistani journalists who were friends of Khan, pieced together details about his death from accounts by local residents and relatives.

Shahid says villagers told him at Khan’s funeral that “the captors released Hayatullah near Salam’s house” on June 16, 2006, with his hands tied behind his back and told him to run.

“They said the captors opened fire at him as he was running and screaming for help,” shooting him in the back of the head, Dawar told RFE/RL.

Shahid says he was told that only women saw what happened because it was during Friday Prayers when all the men of the village were at the mosque.

“Several women went outside after they heard the shooting and one woman threw a stone at the killers’ car as it sped off,” Shahid told RFE/RL.

But one of Khan’s brothers, Ihsanullah Khan, told RFE/RL on March 15 that Salam had told him a slightly different account before the schoolteacher was also abducted and killed.

“Muhammad Salam told me my brother Hayatullah came to his house after escaping from his captors,” Ihsanullah said. “He told me that my brother was thin and very weak, and that he was asking for food and water. He told me he’d spent about 15 to 20 minutes with my brother there before his captors arrived and killed him.”

Another of Khan’s brothers, Haseenullah Khan, told PBS-TV’s Frontline program that the family believes Pakistan’s government was involved in the kidnapping and killing because of his investigative reporting on U.S. drone strikes in North Waziristan.

The Paris-based media rights group Reporters Without Borders has called for years, to no avail, for Pakistani authorities to release the results of the government’s investigation and explain Khan’s disappearance.

Human rights activists say the cases of both the slain journalist and schoolteacher fit a pattern seen in thousands of “enforced disappearances” since late 2001 allegedly carried out by Pakistan’s powerful military and intelligence services in the tribal regions near the Afghan border and in the restive province of Balochistan.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan noted in 2004 that “a relatively new form of violation of citizens’ most fundamental rights…was the phenomenon of disappearance, something that was not witnessed before or at least not to the extent now recorded.”

The Pakistani Senate’s Functional Committee on Human Rights also expressed concern in July 2006 about enforced disappearances.

But Pakistani authorities deny involvement in any of the disappearances.

In a 2006 report on Pakistan’s human rights record during the “war on terror,” Amnesty International concluded: “There can be no justification for Pakistan carrying out human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest, secret and unlawful detention, and enforced disappearances; torture and other ill-treatment; extrajudicial executions; and unlawful transfers to other countries.”

A Grisly Scene

The schoolteacher’s son, Shaukatullah Salam, rushed to the road construction site about 25 kilometers from the family’s home as soon as he received word in early March that the remains of a body had been dug up there.

Shaukatullah was 11 years old in December 2007 when he last saw his father leaving their house in Khaisor village near the town of Mir Ali.

The schoolteacher had told his son he was going to the bazaar to get some food and would return shortly. He never came home.

Now 24, Shaukatullah was horrified by the grisly scene at the roadwork near the village of Dosali where the remains were discovered.

Workers had uncovered the bones of an apparent torture victim whose hands were tied behind his back. Many of his bones had been broken.

Shaukatullah recognized a decaying waistcoat as what his father was wearing the last time he saw him. He also recognized his father’s watch and pen, items left in the shallow grave that suggest the killing was not the result of a robbery.

Erasing any doubt about the identity of the victim, Shaukatullah picked up his father’s plastic national identification card.

“We collected the bones in a box and we also collected his wristwatch, his pen, and his identification card,” Saukatullah said, adding that he was given the remains so the family could carry out a proper Islamic burial.

There was no forensic examination of the crime scene or Salam’s remains by Pakistani authorities.

“We had no enmity with anyone,” Shaukatullah told RFE/RL. “He was a mullah and an old man. And he was a schoolteacher with the Education Department.”

“For the past 13 years, whenever we would hear about a dead body being discovered on the road, we would rush to that place to see if that may be our father,” Shaukatullah said.

“From North Waziristan to Wana [the administrative center of neighboring South Waziristan], we have combed all of the areas and asked every tribal elder about our father’s whereabouts.”

“We met the political authorities with the help of his fellow teachers, but we were not given any clues,” Shaukatullah said.

Journalist’s Last Story

On December 5, 2005 — about two years before the schoolteacher’s disappearance — Pakistani journalist Hayatullah Khan was abducted by five unknown assailants while traveling to cover a protest against U.S. drone strikes in his home district of North Waziristan.

Just two days before his abduction, Khan had published what would be his last story in the Urdu-language daily newspaper Ausaf.

Five suspected Al-Qaeda militants had been killed by an explosion in the village of Asoray, which is north of North Waziristan’s administrative center, Miran Shah.

Among the dead was Abu Hamza Rabia, an Egyptian extremist described by U.S. intelligence officials as Al-Qaeda’s third-in-command under Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri.

Rabia had filled a power vacuum within Al-Qaeda created in May 2005 when Pakistani intelligence agents captured the terrorist network’s previous operations chief, Abu Faraj al-Libbi.

According to then-Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, who now heads Pakistan’s Interior Ministry, Rabia died while working to build a bomb in a house near Mir Ali where a large cache of munitions was stored.

But Khan’s interviews with witnesses and his photographs of shrapnel from a U.S.-made Hellfire missile indicated the Al-Qaeda operations chief in North Waziristan had been killed by an air strike from a U.S. Predator drone.

Khan’s photos were distributed internationally by the European Pressphoto Agency. That raised doubts from media around the world about Islamabad’s official version of how the Al-Qaeda leader had been killed.

U.S. officials initially refused to give details about Rabia’s death. But they later admitted to reporters in the United States that it was the result of a joint operation involving “U.S. and Pakistani resources.”

In fact, Rabia was killed by one of a series of U.S. drone strikes against Al-Qaeda figures carried out in North and South Waziristan during 2004 and 2005 as part of Operation Al-Mizan.

With Washington providing $2 billion a year to help Pakistan’s national security agencies fight Al-Qaeda militants sheltering in the tribal regions, Islamabad deployed up to 80,000 troops for Operation Al-Mizan from 2002 to 2006.

According to a RAND Corporation study in 2010 by Seth Jones and Christine Fair, those troops included regular army soldiers and the Frontier Corps, as well as officers from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and a battalion from Pakistan’s Special Services Group.

Then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was also allowing the U.S. military to use Shamsi Airfield to the south of Quetta as a base for joint CIA operations, U.S. Air Force surveillance, and drone strikes against militants along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Khan’s final story and photographs focused international attention on the secretive military operations at Shamsi Airfield — suggesting they involved more than the refueling and maintenance of surveillance aircraft that the Pentagon was publicly admitting at the time.

That created an awkward domestic political situation for Musharraf’s government.

Initially, it had denied that U.S. drone strikes were taking place in Pakistan and attempted to hide evidence of such attacks.

Later, while publicly criticizing the United States for carrying out drone strikes in Pakistan, Islamabad continued to allow the attacks to be launched from that airfield in the southwestern part of the country.

It wasn’t until November 2011 — after Washington cut its military aid disbursements to Pakistan and a NATO airstrike on the Afghan-Pakistan border killed 24 Pakistani soldiers — that Islamabad ordered U.S. forces to vacate Shamsi Airfield.

Warned, Abducted, Killed

According to the U.S.-based nongovernment group Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Khan had been summoned to meet with a Pakistani military intelligence officer in Miran Shah just a few weeks before his abduction.

CPJ says the intelligence official warned Khan to “leave his profession or leave Waziristan or accept the government’s political policies,” as U.S. drone strikes continued to be used as a tactic in Pakistan’s tribal regions as part of Operation Al-Mizan.

Khan’s brother, Ihsanullah, told CPJ that “Hayatullah passed his will to his tribe” on November 27, 2005, and “explicitly stated: ‘If I am kidnapped or get killed, the government agencies will be responsible.’”

After the journalist was abducted, his relatives received conflicting information from authorities about his whereabouts.

“Whatever role, if any, the government played in Khan’s killing, it appeared to engage in a cruel misinformation campaign during his six-month disappearance,” a CPJ investigative report into Khan’s case concluded in 2006.

“As Khan’s family careened between government sources in search of information, the official account morphed from one month to the next,” CPJ said. “Khan was in government custody, soon to be released; Khan had been abducted by ‘miscreants;’ he had been taken by Waziristan [mujahedin]; he had been flown to the military base at Rawalpindi and then detained in Kohat Air Base.”

After he had been missing for five months, CPJ says Khan’s relatives were told by a regional government agent that he’d been taken to the U.S.-run military base at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan and the situation was “out of his hands.”

In an interview on June 8, 2006, President Musharraf denied that Hayatullah Khan was in the custody of Pakistani authorities.

But Shamim Shahid, the Peshawar bureau chief then for the English-language newspaper Nation, told RFE/RL he had received information from the Interior Ministry about Khan’s situation less than a week after Musharraf had denied his government was holding him and just two days before the journalist was killed.

“High-ranking officials informed me through a third person that Hayatullah was going to be released,” Shahid said. “But instead he was killed. That official contacted me because I was on the forefront of the case as an organizer of protests to demand that Hayatullah be freed.”

Shahid, who later testified before the government inquiry into Khan’s death, also told RFE/RL that Khan had visited him in Peshawar a week before his abduction — indicating he was “under pressure” because of his earlier reporting about U.S. drone strikes in North Waziristan.

“He had booked a hotel room for the night, but I brought him out of the hotel and booked him a room at the Peshawar Press Club instead for security reasons,” Shahid said.

“He was my friend,” Shahid said. “After our talks on November 29, 2005, I told him not to go back to Waziristan. But he went back the next day without letting me know.”

Knowing Too Much?

Shaukatullah Salam, the son of the slain schoolteacher, told RFE/RL that he had no knowledge of his father’s involvement in any events related to the journalist’s abduction and death.

“The only connection our family has to this is that Hayatullah’s dead body was discovered close to our house,” Shaukatullah said.

But RFE/RL learned through a close relative of Khan that the schoolteacher did know members of the abducted journalist’s extended family.

That relative, who asked not to be named for safety reasons, said Khan’s family believes Salam knew the full story behind the kidnapping and killing of the journalist but was scared to talk about it publicly.

In November 2007, just a few weeks before Salam was abducted and killed, an unknown assassin slipped into the residential compound where Khan’s widow, Mehrunnisa, was living.

The assassin placed a remote-controlled bomb under the widow’s bedroom and killed her by detonating it during the night while she slept.

Mehrunnisa had claimed in an interview with the BBC after her husband’s death that he had fallen victim to a conspiracy hatched by the security forces in the tribal regions.

Ihsanullah Khan told RFE/RL that the family is now preparing to file a legal petition with the Supreme Court in Islamabad calling for the release of the 2006 report on the government’s inquiry into the journalist’s abduction and death.

Website: Gandhara

Pakistan- Journalist says he faces vindictive action over unveiling corruption

PESHAWAR: A case has been registered against senior journalist Ghulam Akbar Marwat in Lakki Marwat over unveiling alleged corruption in the distribution of subsidized flour.

The Food Department has also accused the journalist of blackmailing. The journalist community has condemned the vindictive action against the journalist over reporting malpractices.

Ghulam Akbar Marwat, who is president of Lakki Marwat Press Club, broke a news few days ago that the district food controller in connivance with the flour mills owners was doing malpractices in distribution of subsidized flour available from the government due to which the citizens are finding it difficult to get the flour on subsidized rates.

Ghulam Akbar Marwat said the journalists were receiving complaints from citizens that they were not receiving flour at subsidized rates. He said he unveiled the corrupt practices of the Food Department and flour mills owners due to which the district food officer got registered a case against him. The journalist said it was announced on the official Facebook page of deputy commissioner that flour bags would be provided in Mandrakhel village on official rates, but the Food Department said only 500 flour bags are available. He said he came to know that only 370 flour bags were distributed in that village. He claimed that he came to know through ‘credible sources’ that the Food Department, district administration and mills owners were hand-in-glove for this misappropriation, and now he is being punished for bringing facts before public.

The district food controller has rejected allegations against him and said the journalist has been booked over trying to hinder the official work and mislead the public.

Ghulam Akbar Marwat has got anticipatory bail from the court and journalist organizations have condemned the registration of case against him and termed it an attack on freedom of media.

Federal Union of Journalists senior vice president Shameem Shahid said targeting journalists for unveiling corruption is unfortunate. He demanded the government to withdraw case against the journalist.

Khyber Union of Journalists secretary general Muhammad Naeem said protests would be staged if the case was not withdrawn.

The journalists of Lakki Marwat have also condemned action against Ghulam Akbar Marwat and said journalists cannot be suppressed through such tactics.

Website: MENAFN

‘Being slandered through controlled media,’ Justice Isa tells Supreme Court

‘Being slandered through controlled media,’ Justice Isa tells Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa said on Monday that he was being slandered and that propaganda targeting him was being broadcast through “controlled” media.

The judge made these remarks in the Supreme Court during a hearing on an application moved by him, seeking live telecast of court proceedings of the review petition in his case.

In his petition, Justice Isa said the move to broadcast the proceedings live would bring more transparency and discipline in the court’s conduct.

A 10-judge SC bench, presided by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, is hearing the petition.

“I am being publicly maligned. Propaganda is being spread against me through controlled media,” said Justice Isa. He claimed that the government had “destroyed” the media and would now set its sights on social media platforms such as YouTube.

He said if live coverage was allowed of his case then it would be clear for all to see what is “just and true”.

“They are afraid of truth and justice. They are scared,” the petitioner judge said.

Justice Bandial asked the Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman about the remarks of Justice Isa on restrictions on the media. The AAG responded that while the court had always spoken about the freedom of the media, it had never ruled that live coverage of court proceedings was the right of the media.

Rehman said the federal government had declared Justice Isa’s application as inadmissible, adding that “[court] proceedings in review petitions cannot be requested for live coverage,” adding that Section 184/3 of the Constitution could not be applied to review cases.

“No new stance can be taken in review cases. The law mentions hearings in an open court,” Rehman said, adding that there was nothing in the law about airing those hearings in the media.

Live broadcast, the AAG said, was the right of the media and not any individual’s, adding that no media house had requested permission to broadcast live from the court.

“Does freedom of expression mean live broadcast?” Rehman asked.

To this, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said technology had aided the court in many matters and helped to create ease, citing the example of hearings via video link.

“The federal government should not tell us what to do. Live broadcast is [under] the authority of the court, not of the federal government,” said Justice Shah.

The AAG responded that it was the stance of the government that live telecast was not a judicial concern but an administrative matter of the SC.

Justice Munib Akhtar observed that if the government did not have the authority to tell the court about the matter then no one else did either, saying “the hearing is still being held in open court.”

The AAG said there was a difference between the live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings and judicial proceedings, noting that the former involved general debate, while the latter were technical and did not use common language.

“We are living in a global village. We have to keep up with the world,” remarked Justice Shah, saying there was “nothing secret” about court proceedings and “the Supreme Court is the court of the people of this country.”

He said the people could not be stopped from watching court proceedings if they wished to and they should be able to know if any lawyer or judge misbehaved. “The world should know what we are doing,” he added.

“There is no use in sitting while sticking your neck in the ground like an ostrich.”

The AAG argued that in-camera hearings “have been held many times”.

Justice Akhtar noted that six judges on the bench were not present and without hearing them, the court could not give the order for live broadcast since all other judges would be bound by it. “Hearings are conducted in open courts so justice is seen to be done,” the judge remarked.

The AAG argued that ensuring that justice is seen to be done did not mean that people saw the decision being made but rather that the decision should be “impartial”.

The hearing was adjourned until March 17.

‘Best interest of justice’

In his application filed in February, Justice Isa had sought a directive that the state-run Pakistan Television Corporation be directed to broadcast live proceedings of the hearings of his review petitions in the case against him.

In the application, he pleaded the apex court to order the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to issue written instructions to all private channels that they could not be restrained from broadcasting or live streaming the court proceedings.

Justice Isa said the prayer had been made in the best interest of justice and that court proceedings were broadcast in a number of countries.

During a hearing last week, Justice Bandial had asked the AAG to inform the court what steps the government would take for live broadcast of the present hearing.

The AAG informed the court on Thursday that the federal government would obviously oppose the plea for live telecast, but could have responded had notices been issued to it.

Newspaper: Dawn , Pakistan Today  

‘Being slandered through controlled media,’ Justice Isa tells Supreme Court

‘Being slandered through controlled media,’ Justice Isa tells Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faez Isa said on Monday that he was being slandered and that propaganda targeting him was being broadcast through “controlled” media.

The judge made these remarks in the Supreme Court during a hearing on an application moved by him, seeking live telecast of court proceedings of the review petition in his case.

In his petition, Justice Isa said the move to broadcast the proceedings live would bring more transparency and discipline in the court’s conduct.

A 10-judge SC bench, presided by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, is hearing the petition.

“I am being publicly maligned. Propaganda is being spread against me through controlled media,” said Justice Isa. He claimed that the government had “destroyed” the media and would now set its sights on social media platforms such as YouTube.

He said if live coverage was allowed of his case then it would be clear for all to see what is “just and true”.

“They are afraid of truth and justice. They are scared,” the petitioner judge said.

Justice Bandial asked the Additional Attorney General (AAG) Aamir Rehman about the remarks of Justice Isa on restrictions on the media. The AAG responded that while the court had always spoken about the freedom of the media, it had never ruled that live coverage of court proceedings was the right of the media.

Rehman said the federal government had declared Justice Isa’s application as inadmissible, adding that “[court] proceedings in review petitions cannot be requested for live coverage,” adding that Section 184/3 of the Constitution could not be applied to review cases.

“No new stance can be taken in review cases. The law mentions hearings in an open court,” Rehman said, adding that there was nothing in the law about airing those hearings in the media.

Live broadcast, the AAG said, was the right of the media and not any individual’s, adding that no media house had requested permission to broadcast live from the court.

“Does freedom of expression mean live broadcast?” Rehman asked.

To this, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said technology had aided the court in many matters and helped to create ease, citing the example of hearings via video link.

“The federal government should not tell us what to do. Live broadcast is [under] the authority of the court, not of the federal government,” said Justice Shah.

The AAG responded that it was the stance of the government that live telecast was not a judicial concern but an administrative matter of the SC.

Justice Munib Akhtar observed that if the government did not have the authority to tell the court about the matter then no one else did either, saying “the hearing is still being held in open court.”

The AAG said there was a difference between the live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings and judicial proceedings, noting that the former involved general debate, while the latter were technical and did not use common language.

“We are living in a global village. We have to keep up with the world,” remarked Justice Shah, saying there was “nothing secret” about court proceedings and “the Supreme Court is the court of the people of this country.”

He said the people could not be stopped from watching court proceedings if they wished to and they should be able to know if any lawyer or judge misbehaved. “The world should know what we are doing,” he added.

“There is no use in sitting while sticking your neck in the ground like an ostrich.”

The AAG argued that in-camera hearings “have been held many times”.

Justice Akhtar noted that six judges on the bench were not present and without hearing them, the court could not give the order for live broadcast since all other judges would be bound by it. “Hearings are conducted in open courts so justice is seen to be done,” the judge remarked.

The AAG argued that ensuring that justice is seen to be done did not mean that people saw the decision being made but rather that the decision should be “impartial”.

The hearing was adjourned until March 17.

‘Best interest of justice’

In his application filed in February, Justice Isa had sought a directive that the state-run Pakistan Television Corporation be directed to broadcast live proceedings of the hearings of his review petitions in the case against him.

In the application, he pleaded the apex court to order the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to issue written instructions to all private channels that they could not be restrained from broadcasting or live streaming the court proceedings.

Justice Isa said the prayer had been made in the best interest of justice and that court proceedings were broadcast in a number of countries.

During a hearing last week, Justice Bandial had asked the AAG to inform the court what steps the government would take for live broadcast of the present hearing.

The AAG informed the court on Thursday that the federal government would obviously oppose the plea for live telecast, but could have responded had notices been issued to it.

Newspaper: Dawn , Pakistan Today  

Death sentence of Wali Babar’s killers quashed

SUKKUR: A double bench of the Sindh High Court, Larkana, on Thursday, accepting the appeal of convicted accused in journalist Wali Babar case, quashed the sentence passed by the ATC Court, Kandhkot.

Reports said that on Thursday, Justice Muhammed Kareem Agha and Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi of Sindh High Court Bench, Larkana, had quashed capital punishment of two accused, Faisal Mota and Kamran alias Zeeshan, and life imprisonment of Faisal Mehmood alias Nafsiyati, Naveed alias Polka, Muhammad Ali Rizvi, Shahrukh alias Manni after scrutinising their appeal. The accused were MQM activists.

In 2011, the special Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC), Kandhkot, had handed down death sentences to two absconders and life imprisonment to four others found guilty of murdering TV reporter Wali Babar. The court had convicted two absconding accused, Faisal Mehmood and Kamran, giving death sentences in absentia. Four co-accused, Faisal Mehmood alias Nafsiyati, Naveed alias Polka, Muhammad Ali Rizvi and Shahrukh alias Manni, were handed down life terms.

Newspaper: The News

Death sentence of Wali Babar’s killers quashed

SUKKUR: A double bench of the Sindh High Court, Larkana, on Thursday, accepting the appeal of convicted accused in journalist Wali Babar case, quashed the sentence passed by the ATC Court, Kandhkot.

Reports said that on Thursday, Justice Muhammed Kareem Agha and Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi of Sindh High Court Bench, Larkana, had quashed capital punishment of two accused, Faisal Mota and Kamran alias Zeeshan, and life imprisonment of Faisal Mehmood alias Nafsiyati, Naveed alias Polka, Muhammad Ali Rizvi, Shahrukh alias Manni after scrutinising their appeal. The accused were MQM activists.

In 2011, the special Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC), Kandhkot, had handed down death sentences to two absconders and life imprisonment to four others found guilty of murdering TV reporter Wali Babar. The court had convicted two absconding accused, Faisal Mehmood and Kamran, giving death sentences in absentia. Four co-accused, Faisal Mehmood alias Nafsiyati, Naveed alias Polka, Muhammad Ali Rizvi and Shahrukh alias Manni, were handed down life terms.

Newspaper: The News