ISLAMABAD: Aasia Bibi’s lawyer Saiful Malook left Pakistan for Rome early Saturday morning as he feels his life is in danger.
Speaking to reporters before departing for Italy, Malook had said that he and his family were facing immense security threat and requested the federal government to provide security to them.
However, Malook clarified that he would return to Pakistan to represent Bibi at the hearing of the review petition.
“In the current scenario, it’s not possible for me to live in Pakistan,” the 62-year-old said before boarding a plane early Saturday morning.
“I need to stay alive as I still have to fight the legal battle for Asia Bibi,” he said.
When asked about the protests, Mulook said it was “unfortunate but not unexpected”.
“What’s painful is the response of the government. They cannot even implement an order of the country’s highest court,” he said, adding that “the struggle for justice must continue”.
Meanwhile, complainant Qari Muhammad Saalam has requested the Supreme Court for an early hearing of a review petition against its October 31 order to acquit Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman who was booked for blasphemy in 2009. The complainant said that an application has already been filed to place her name on the Exit Control List (ECL) and if the review petition is not fixed, the application/petition shall suffer an “irreparable loss and injury.”
The review petition which was initially filed in SC Lahore registry has been transferred to Islamabad registry where all judges are sitting.
A number has also been allotted to the review petition. However, review petitions are rarely heard so soon.
The petitioner, in his petition questioned whether the country’s top court had jurisdiction to overrule a peculiar fact like the confessional statement of Bibi. It further questioned whether the SC met the standards of jurisprudence set in this regard in view of the history as well as Islamic provisions and normal principle of justice with reference to application in blasphemy laws.
The petition also sought if the SC had taken into consideration inclusion of members of the Appellate Shariat Court in its bench. The complainant said the SC did not interpret the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code as well as Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 while passing the judgement.
