After nearly two years of litigation, an Anti-Terrorism Court has sentenced Mahrang Langu to life imprisonment for inciting the mob attack that resulted in the brutal murder of an FC soldier during the 2024 Gwadar protest.
The victim, Sepoy Shabbir Baloch, was a 30-year-old soldier from Sibi performing security duties. He was isolated, overpowered, and killed by a mob during violence associated with the protest. This was not a case concerning political opinion, peaceful dissent, or the right to protest. It concerned the murder of a specific individual, supported by visual evidence, witness testimony, and a judicial process extending over almost two years.
Quadcopter footage presented during the proceedings captured the fatal assault. According to the prosecution and the court record, the footage showed the mob attacking the defenceless soldier and established the role of Mahrang Langu and Sibghatullah in leading and inciting the violent crowd.
The electronic evidence removed any ambiguity between peaceful participation and active involvement in mob violence. A protest cannot remain peaceful once its leadership incites a crowd to surround, assault, and kill a person performing official duty.
Despite the gruesome nature of the killing, the BYC leadership neither condemned the murder nor apologised to the soldier’s family. Its response remained focused on defending the accused and discrediting the proceedings rather than acknowledging the loss of an innocent life.
The accused were provided every opportunity available under the law. The proceedings continued for almost two years, during which the defence was allowed representation, cross-examination, objections, and access to the evidence placed before the court.
The trial initially faced serious disruption in Gwadar. The presiding judge expressed concerns regarding the safety of his family and declined to continue with the case. The proceedings were consequently transferred to Quetta so that the judicial process could continue in a safer environment.
Because witnesses were located across considerable distances, arrangements were made for their testimony through video link—a procedure permitted under the law and regularly employed to ensure both accessibility and security.
The defence first objected to video-link testimony and demanded the physical presence of witnesses. When arrangements were made to ensure witness availability, it submitted an application expressing no confidence in the ATC judge without presenting substantive evidence of prejudice or misconduct.
As the evidentiary record became increasingly difficult to contest, the defence boycotted the proceedings. Repeated non-appearance could not be allowed to indefinitely obstruct a murder trial or deny justice to the victim’s family.
To preserve the accused persons’ right to representation and maintain the fairness of proceedings, the court appointed counsel at state expense. A lawyer publicly associated with anti-government and PTI politics also led the defence but could not rebut the prosecution’s evidence.
The conviction was therefore not delivered hurriedly, secretly, or without representation. It followed an extended trial in which the accused were given repeated procedural opportunities and the evidence was subjected to judicial scrutiny.
The circumstances surrounding the trial also expose the climate of fear created around cases involving BYC figures. Members of the state’s legal team reportedly had to be placed under protective custody, while the residence of the lead lawyer was subjected to firing on the eve of the decision.
Such intimidation is not political advocacy. Threatening judges, witnesses, and lawyers is an attempt to paralyse the justice system and create a zone in which violent actors consider themselves beyond accountability.
The verdict draws a necessary distinction between peaceful political activity and criminal violence. Every citizen has the right to protest, organise, and criticise the government. No individual or organisation has the right to incite a mob, murder a soldier, or terrorise those responsible for administering justice.
The accused retains the right to challenge the verdict before the appropriate appellate forum. Appeals must, however, be pursued through law—not through threats, boycotts, street pressure, or intimidation of judges and lawyers.
Read also:Raji Machi protest Case: Mahrang Lango gets life imprisonment
