Mirwaiz’s counsel shoots another written response to NIA’s summon
'My client can't travel to Delhi, he is facing assassination threat'
Srinagar: In response to second summon issued by National Investigation Agency (NIA), the counsel of Hurriyat Conference (M) chairman and Jamia Masjid’s head cleric, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq on Monday told NIA that his client is facing assassination threat and that he can’t travel to Delhi in such a situation.
“My client is facing assassination threat and that he can’t travel to Delhi in such a situation and when National Investigation Agency has questioned many people in the past in Humhama, Budgam why can’t be the same yardstick applied for the Mirwaiz,” the counsel has told NIA in a written response.
To the first notice, Mirwaiz’s lawyer, Advocate Aijaz Ahmed Dhar had shot a written response to the agency citing ‘hostile atmosphere and the security concerns’ as major reasons why the Hurriyat chairman can’t travel to Delhi.
“My client also informed the local police station (about the issue) but they expressed their helplessness. With great difficult it appears that my client has once again been summoned to Delhi on March 18,” the written response from the counsel reads.
“It appears that the genuine concerns which had been mentioned in the earlier response have not been considered objectively. I reiterate that my client is not refusing to be examined in connection the subject matter of some investigation.”
The chief cleric’s counsel further states in his response that his client has serious concerns about his safety, which was provided earlier to him was withdrawn unilaterally.
“Your attention is invited to some of the distressing comments which have appeared in mainstream print media since the news about him being summoned to Delhi. There are open calls for assassination,” the written response reads. “Merely staging in the notice that security will be provided to (Mirwaiz in Delhi) appears to be perfunctory observation.”
Mirwaiz’s lawyer further states that there are serious implications to his client travelling to Delhi apart from security concerns, which were broadly identified in the first response. “It seems that such concerns have escaped the attention of NIA,” the response reads.
“I therefore ask you to consider the earlier responses and the present one fairly and fix time, date and place for examination of my client at Srinagar as may be convenient.”
The counsel further states that his client has also informed him that on several occasions earlier, many persons have been examined by the NIA at Humhama, Budgam while conducting the investigations. “If that be so, I see no reason as to why my client cannot be examined in a similar manner,” he writes.
Mirwaiz’s lawyer has attached the assassination threats issued to the Hurriyat (M) Chief on social media ever since NIA summoned him to Delhi.