Released by PMLN Chief Coordinator Ahsan Iqbal to diplomats on April 15, 2004

Makhdoom Javed Hashmi and several other members of National Assembly revealed the contents of a letter received by them at a news conference in Parliament cafeteria on October 20, 2003.

Nine days later, on October 29, police registered a case against Mr. Hashmi on the complaint of a retired army major named Khurshid Ahmed. ISI personnel arrested Mr. Hashmi same night from Parliament Lodges.

Mr. Hashmi was charged under an old sedition law enacted by British Raj to punish freedom fighters of 1857 uprising for "abetting mutiny". It was last used by the British government in 1922 against Maulana Muhammed Ali Jauhar, one the top politicians of his time.

He was not produced before a magistrate as required by law. However, police officers told reporters on October 30 that a magistrate, who was not a judicial magistrate, had remanded him to police custody for five days. The police did not allow relatives and lawyer of Mr. Hashmi to meet him.

According to National Assembly rules, no member can be arrested without permission of the Speaker when the House is in session. The Speaker overlooked this violation. He also declined to use his power to order production of an arrested member in the House.

On November 4, 2003, Mr. Hashmi was brought to magistrate before court time, and the magistrate permitted the police to keep him under its custody for another nine days. Meanwhile, police declined to present remand orders and FIR to Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. Hashmi's kin and lawyers were still denied a meeting with him.

On November 12, police produced Mr. Hashmi before a judicial magistrate, who ordered him to be kept in jail under judicial custody for 14 days. Hashmi told the court about being tortured at unidentified place. He said he "was not allowed to sleep as high voltage lights were kept before his eye and investigation team tied a ribbon on his eyes and hit him against the walls.''

On November 20, judge rejected Mr. Hashmi's application for medical check up, and put off decision to grant him A Class facilities, as required by jail manual, for ten days. Meanwhile, Mr. Hashmi was kept in solitary confinement. General Pervez Musharraf, talking to editors, indicated government's decision to punish Mr. Hashmi with the remark, "no one could be allowed to create dissent in the ranks and files of Pakistan Army."

On December 5, District and Sessions judge, commencing the trial, rejected Mr. Hashmi's bail application, and further adjourned request for A Class facilities that were finally accepted on December 8.

On December 15, Chief Commissioner Islamabad issued orders that the proceedings of the case of ARD President Makhdoom Javed Hashmi would be held in Central Jail Adiala instead of district and sessions court.

On January 24, 2004, District and Sessions Judge indicted Mr. Hashmi on charges of forging documents to incite mutiny and defame the army. Mr. Hashmi denied the charges.

The trial, continuing up to April 10, was held in camera. Media were not allowed to cover the trial.

The prosecution produced 14 witnesses, but relied on only two as witnesses of Mr. Hashmi's press conference. Both are army men - in service Captain Zahoor Ahmed and retired Major Khurshid Ahmed. They claimed that they were issued visitor passes to hear assembly proceedings. A visitor pass is issued only on the recommendation of a minister or a legislator. But Assembly secretariat has no recommendation on record for the two passes. Anyway, such passes are not valid for cafeteria where the press conference was held. But, the prosecution did not produce any witness from among the newsmen or other persons present there.

As for original complainant Khurshid Ahmed, he failed to justify nine days delay in registering his FIR with the police. He told the court that he spent those days in trying to contact the SSP Islamabad! While both these witnesses could not recall the Assembly proceedings for which they had been issued passes.

The investigating officer, Muhammed Ishaq Waraich, admitted in court that he had nothing to prove whether Mr. Hashmi had prepared the "letter", nor had he tried to find out its author.

In fact, the judge announced the sentence against Mr. Hashmi on the strength of false, concocted or at least untenable evidence.

It would also be interesting to note that Mr. Hashmi has been convicted under seven different sections of Pakistan Penal Code. Two of these sections - 124-A and 131-require that written complaint by the government is necessary to proceed against an accused under these sections. There was no such complaint in case of Mr. Hashmi, and the District and Sessions Judge, therefore had no authority to try him.

Of course, lawyers will raise all these points, and many others, in their appeals before higher judiciary.