• Defence lawyer tells the jury that Pakistan has a completely different language, completely different tradition, a very completely different political context.
• Asks jury to learn the precise phrases of Altaf Hussain from his speeches.
• Altaf Hussain’s counsel says his shopper referred to as for an finish to migrant genocide in his speech.

LONDON: The Muttahida Qaumi Motion (MQM) chief Altaf Hussain’s defence lawyer Rupert Bowers QC has informed Kingston Crown Court that Hussain is not a terrorist and may not be convicted of two counts of encouraging terrorism.

Placing up the defence in favour of Altaf Hussain, Rupert Bowers QC informed the jury in his ultimate tackle that they’ve heard from the prosecution that Hussain was concerned in two counts of terrorism throughout his addresses on August 22, 2016 from London to Karachi however the jury ought to think about that the occasions happened not within the UK however in a completely different jurisdiction – Pakistan – and Hussain’s politics was based mostly on advocating the case of progressivism, girls rights and empowerment of Muhajirs of Pakistan.

He informed the jury that Pakistan has a completely different language, completely different tradition, a very completely different political context, a completely different expertise and a very completely different method of how the state actors equivalent to authorities, police and different state our bodies act – fully completely different from the way it works within the UK. The lawyer mentioned that there’s a completely different idea of rights, a completely different sense of regulation and order and the way human beings are handled.

He mentioned the jury has been requested by the prosecution not to measure Hussain’s case in opposition to the cultural yardstick of Pakistan however the yardstick of the regulation of England and Wales is not the identical because the yardstick applies within the Pakistani context.

He informed the jury that there was little question that Altaf Hussain revealed statements from London however the jury wants to contemplate whether or not his statements had been prone to be understood by a cheap individual listening to them as direct/ oblique encouragement to commit the act(s) of terrorism.

He invited the jury to contemplate that the folks listening to those speeches had been a group of individuals in Karachi and “it’s not the reasonable person with the experience of living in southwest London with all freedoms, rights that we enjoy or have grown up with”.

He mentioned: “You’re dealing with people in Karachi. Not just that, it’s the people in that tent listening to those speeches. The yardstick of Pakistan. You have to be careful to distinguish between statements made by Altaf Hussain, not what other people were shouting and you have to consider the culture that he grew up with, what he’s hearing coming back at him through the telephone.”

He requested the jury to contemplate what qualifies as terrorism and what it’s the kind of act, the design behind the act and the aim of the act.

He incited the jury to learn the precise phrases of Hussain from his speeches and “from the words he actually used in those speeches, you cannot be sure that if anything was encouraged that included violence to personal property”.

He informed the jury that the Rangers and its head had been not a part of the general public. He informed the jury that Hussain didn’t incite violence and didn’t accomplish that for ideological or political goals as alleged by the prosecution.

Rupert Bowers QC mentioned it was the prosecution’s witness Dr Nichola Khan who informed the court in regards to the “endemic violence that exists in Pakistan, in Karachi” and that’s why the jury ought to, whereas making use of the regulation to the precise details of this case, ought to think about “what Hussain understood or intended, and what people understood”.

Rejecting the prosecution cost that violence occurred as a results of Hussain’s speech, Rupert Bowers QC mentioned that the MQ founder referred to as for a protest in opposition to Geo, Samaa and ARY however boycotting of media is not violence and Hussain mentioned that “it’s not the workers’ fault, it’s the bosses”.

Rupert Bowers QC mentioned Hussain provided his apology the next day however that was a proof and “not an admission of wrongdoing”.

Hussain’s lawyer concluded: “If violence ensued in the latter part of that day, you’ve seen it, he’s regretful of that. In my submission to you, he’s not a terrorist, and I ask you to acquit.” 

The choose retired the jury on Friday afternoon to contemplate the decision on two counts. Hussain has been charged with two counts of encouraging terrorism opposite to part 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Hussain has denied each costs. The jury will return on Monday to renew deliberations and should announce a verdict anytime.

Initially revealed in

The Information