By: Mazhar Abbas

Laptops or Blackberry phones are considered among the most powerful weapons of journalists today; not only in a journalist’s lifetime but also after his death — particularly if he is killed in the line of duty. Who knows that of the 33,000 messages found in the mailbox of prominent journalist Saleem Shahzad one was from his possible killers. The Judicial Commission constituted to probe the matter has failed to identify if any such message existed.

It was technology that helped resolve the murder mystery of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Pearl was kidnapped and later killed in the outskirts of Karachi in January 2002.

Pearl’s murder was the first case of cyber crime. Technology was not only used by the kidnappers in releasing his footage in captivity but also his slaying was captured and video was released by the suspected group.

It was only after his murder that Cyber Crime Unit was formed in Pakistan. But, till this day, the police or intelligence agencies officials are not properly trained to investigate such cases, involving technology.

Unlike in Pearl’s case, the police and investigators failed in getting hold of the kidnappers of Shahzad by tracing the mobile numbers of possible suspects. On January 12, the Judicial Commission constituted by the government released its 164-page report on the murder of Saleem Shahzad, bureau chief of Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online in Pakistan. The comprehensive report gives some useful suggestions and recommendations including legislation about the accountability of intelligence agencies but fails in fixing the responsibility of the murder due to lack of evidence.

The Commission leaves this main question open for investigation.

When I first got a call from his wife about Shahzad’s disappearance, my first reaction was “Oh my God!” I knew him from his first day as a journalist some time in the mid-1990s. I was the chief reporter of the Karachi-based evening tabloid The Star when he came as cub reporter. Within a year, he started giving stories about Afghan groups, militants and intelligence agencies. At that time, I used to advise him to take extra care, which is essential if you are reporting conflict or meeting parties that are at war with each other.

Within a few years, his articles started getting attention outside Pakistan and he became known as an expert on Pakistan-Afghanistan. He certainly did become one but in the process went too close to both the parties — militants as well as the intelligence agencies. I am sure his emails and mobile phone must contain messages from prominent Afghan leaders and Islamic extremists as well as his intelligence contacts.

When former intelligence officer Col (retd) Imam, Khalid Khwaja and a freelance journalist were kidnapped in March 2010, he appeared in different television talk shows and openly expressed his views. He told me that the militants will not free Imam and Khwaja. I asked him not to speak about it openly even if he had information or was in touch with the militants. But he was an exciting and ambitious young journalist.

The Commission should have observed in its report that Shahzad had no personal or family enmity and was killed in the line of duty. That leaves us with two options: he has either been killed by the intelligence personnel or by a militant group.

The Commission should not have included IGP, Punjab and IGP, Islamabad as its members; their role should have been scrutinised and the probe should have begun by questioning them. There is no doubt the Commission had recorded the statements of journalists, police officers and officials of Inter Service Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency. But what needed further investigation was the fact that why had the slain journalist expressed fears about ISI in his emails to Human Rights Watch and two prominent journalists, Hameed Haroon and Najam Sethi. Were these apprehensions ill-founded or could the Commission not have gone further than what it had on record?

As for the other suspicion hinting at the extremist group of Ilyas Kashmiri on the ground that a few days after the murder of Shahzad, Kashmiri was killed in a drone attack, a telephonic conversation between the two accomplices of Kashmiri was also placed on record in the report. However, the commission did not go for circumstantial evidence in the case nor on the role of the investigation conducted by the Islamabad police and Punjab police.

After reading the entire report on the website of Ministry of Information, one finds some crucial missing links. The critical review of the role of Islamabad police and Punjab police was not done. For instance, did the Islamabad police pass the message of disappearance of Shahzad’s vehicle on police control and at what time? What did the Islamabad and Punjab police do from the day of his kidnapping to the recovery of his body? Did the Islamabad police seek any help of IT experts and had done geo-fencing of the place from where he was kidnapped? Did the Commission address the issue that the investigation was delayed because of jurisdiction and both the Islamabad and the Punjab police wanted the other to conduct the probe? How much importance was given to his telephonic conversations and emails from last few days?

In their testimonies before the commission, the ISI built the case that Shahzad was in fact killed by al Qaeda, specifically the Ilyas Kashmiri group since he was increasingly revealing their strategies and assets in his articles. They named an individual Nawaz Khan, an important militant of the Ilyas Kashmiri group who was detained in Adiala Jail and claimed he was in contact with Saleem Shahzad. These were important statements but did the commission try to seek the appearance of Nawaz or had him examined in Adiala Jail. Even if it did not, did the Punjab police and Islamabad police interrogate him, being an important person in this case.

Here’s how Daniel Pearl’s case was investigated and resolved within a month. The investigation started with Pearl’s laptop. “Record of one telephone call of Sheikh Omar to Pearl led to the arrest of many suspects,” one of the investigators who conducted the probe said, on condition of anonymity.

According to this investigator, Pearl had written on his computer that Omar told him that the number from which he had called him for the first time was fake and he would call him again from another number. Now why did Omar tell Pearl that he had called him from a fake number raised suspicion and the investigation started from this very number, which was later found to be his private number. Two other suspects were arrested from an apartment in Karachi as a result of the email sent from a net cafe.

All these records were placed during the trial against Sheikh Omar and three others. Omar was sentenced to death while others were given life imprisonment by the Anti-Terrorism Court, ATC in June, 2002. Since then their appeals are pending in the appellate bench of the Sindh High Court.

Now coming back to Shahzad’s case, the Judicial Commission apparently confined its proceedings to the statements, interviews and the record placed before them by the police, ISI or the journalists. They had also visited the site from where the body was found.

The Commission perhaps missed an important aspect of the “pattern” of kidnapping and killings in Pakistan. It should have taken notice of the statements of journalists who themselves become victims and suspected that they were kidnapped by the intelligence agencies. However, it’s disappointing that some of the journalists who could have helped the commission by narrating their own ordeal did not appear before the Commission.

There is a pattern adopted by the agencies in the cases of Najam Sethi, Umer Cheema, Saeed Sarbazi and other cases — the purpose of such cases was mostly harassment and not to kill them. On the other hand, the pattern adopted by the militants or extremists is that if they target any journalist they just shoot him straightaway or soon after abduction.

The Commission did not come across any evidence that Shahzad had any personal enmity, which has established one thing — that he was killed because of his writings. He was the kind of journalist who perhaps knew “too much”. His other problem was that he would publicly discuss his links with both agencies and militants.

The militant groups normally accept the responsibility of killings; very rarely do they hide it. They also cite reasons for killing like spying or term the victim as an “American” or “intelligence” agent. The last such brutal killings were of former intelligence official Khalid Khwaja and retired Col. Iman who was once considered very close to Taliban.

In some incidents in Balochistan, the Baloch Libration Army (LBA) claimed the responsibility of killing columnist Dr Chishti Mujahid a few years back.

In the kidnapping and killing of Saleem Shahzad, this pattern was not followed. He was killed within hours after his kidnapping and the body was found near Sarai Alamgir. It appeared that whoever had kidnapped Shahzad did not want to kill him but wanted to teach him a ‘lesson’; he died only after being tortured or beaten badly.

On the other hand, in Daniel Pearl’s case, the group planned his kidnapping after he showed keen interest in an interview with a leader of militant group, Mubarak Ali Shah Gillani. Apparently, he was killed as revenge for the US-led coalition attack on Afghanistan; he became the soft target.

Shahzad was abducted during broad daylight from the heart of Islamabad on May 29, 2011. His abduction and subsequent brutal murder left everyone in a state of shock — not just his family and the community of journalists but also the public at large.

The Commission report says, “for six months it held as many as 23 formal meetings, examined no less than 41 witnesses and went through a large volume of documents comprising writings of the deceased, emails, telephone records and investigation reports as well as the reports of Commissions which had investigated similar incidents in the past. It is on the basis of this extensive inquiry that the present report has been compiled.” I wonder whether they had examined Daniel Pearl’s investigation or not.

The Commission has been unable to identify the culprits behind this incident. “The Commission looked very hard for the kind of substantial evidence/tangible material — direct or circumstantial — which would allow it to single out the culprits from the various suspected quarters. Yet such evidence has not surfaced. From what is available on the record, unfortunately, the culprits cannot be identified.” But the commission ought to have made observations on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Saleem Shahzad is dead and someone is responsible for his death.

It is very unlikely that his killers will ever be arrested as he was not Daniel Pearl. In Pearl’s case, everyone from the Wall Street Journal management to the US President forced the government to arrest and punish those responsible. Shahzad was like the 80 odd other journalists killed in Pakistan whose killers have remained untraceable.

It is not difficult to judge why Pearl’s alleged killers were arrested, tried and convicted and why Shahzad’s killers remain untraceable. Shahzad is dead; long live Shahzad and long live struggle for the freedom of the Press.

By: The News