ISLAMABAD - General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf’s lawyer has pleaded that second FIR (first information report) of Lal Masjid operation should not be registered against the former president, while former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi and others should be nominated in the second FIR of the operation wherein several innocent people were killed.

Akhtar Shah, Musharraf’s lawyer, added that in the first information report of Lal Masjid operation former army general was not declared guilty.

Additional Sessions Judge Sikandar Khan Saturday heard the application of Shohada Foundation leader Jan Muhammad Qureshi.

Advocate Abdul Haq appeared on behalf of Shohada Foundation. SHO Police Station Aabpara Mehmood Awan was also present during the hearing.

In the start of the proceedings, Abdul Haq told the court that due to the attack on Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman on Friday last the Pakistan Bar Council had given a call for lawyers’ strike; therefore, instead of arguing his case that day (Saturday) he would give arguments on the next hearing.

He informed the court that Shohada Foundation had filed an application under section 22/A of CrPc for registration of second FIR against Pervez Musharraf for killing of innocent people in Lal Masjid operation.

The lawyer said the Shohada Foundation’s application was against the SHO PS Aabpara; therefore, the court should not hear the arguments of the counsel of the accused.

ASJ Sikandar Khan said according to the section 22A only the counsels of the petitioner and the SHO could argue. However, he allowed Musharraf’s counsel to argue.

Akhtar Shah stated that an FIR had already been registered against Musharraf regarding the incident and in that FIR the former president was not found guilty; therefore, the court directed for registration of FIR against other 14 accused and not against Musharraf.

The judge said the guilty could be determined only after the investigations by police.

He said Musharraf was like other citizens of Pakistan before the court; therefore, no discrimination would be made.

He said presently the application before him was under section 22A against the SHO Aabpara for registering the FIR.

The court adjourned the case till 29th October and directed the petitioner’s counsel and the SHO Aabpara to complete the arguments on the next hearing so that order could be passed.