Gul Plaza Fire: Shop Owner Terms Tragedy 'Act of Terrorism and Murder' in Court Testimony

گل پلازہ آتشزدگی: دکاندار کا مجسٹریٹ کے سامنے بیان، واقعے کو دہشت گردی اور قتل قرار دے دیا

Gul Plaza Fire: Shop Owner Terms Tragedy 'Act of Terrorism and Murder' in Court Testimony

Another shop owner of Gul Plaza testified before a judicial magistrate on Thursday, holding the shopping mall's managing committee responsible for the fire that claimed the lives of over 70 people. Muhammad Shahid, who owned four shops at Gul Plaza, recorded his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Judicial Magistrate (South) Aasim Aslam.

He deposed that on the night of January 17, he was at home when, at around midnight, he received a call from a friend who informed him about the fire at Gul Plaza. Upon reaching the scene, he said, he saw that the fire had engulfed the market from three sides.

The intensity of the fire was unprecedented, he added. The shop owner stated that all the gates of the plaza were closed, and the entire area was in darkness, noting that the locked gates hindered rescue operations.

He stated that rescue teams had to break open gates to gain access. There were approximately 15 to 16 security guards and watchmen employed at Gul Plaza, but they were not instructed to open the gates after the fire broke out.

Shahid alleged that the negligence of the managing committee left shop owners, customers, women, and children trapped, with no effective safety measures taken. He claimed that many victims remained alive inside for several hours, and timely intervention could have saved them.

He asserted that since the fire originated inside the market, it was an internal matter for which the managing committee bears full responsibility. Given the intensity of the blaze, he raised suspicions of a conspiracy or an act of terrorism.

The shop owner noted that the judicial commission's report confirmed only two to four of the 16 gates were open. He further alleged that the management lacked fire safety equipment and had submitted a fake Civil Defence report during the inquiry.

Shahid concluded by terming the incident an act of terrorism that falls within the legal definition of murder.

Related coverage