Told NIA about Ishrat Jahan: David Headley

Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley’s testimony as an approver in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks case got over on Saturday, and on his last day of deposition he denied part of his statement and at the same time also said that some information given by him to the NIA was not there in it. Headley said that LeT commander Zakiur-Rehman Lakhvi had told him about the Ishrat Jahan operation but it was not there in the NIA’s record.

“I can’t assign any reason for the mistakes committed by others,” said Headley when Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal’s lawyer Khan Abdul Wahab asked him why the statement he had given the NIA did not have information about LeT commander Muzammil informing him that one female member of the LeT was killed at some Naka (in Gujarat) and “that the female member was Ishrat Jahan”. He also said that he did not have first-hand knowledge about Ishrat’s link with the LeT.

To a question, Headley denied that he had disclosed to NIA that he had hatched a plan to kill former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf along with his friends in LeT. He claimed this had been incorrectly recorded in his statement given to NIA in July 2010.

During his four-day cross-examination Jundal’s defence lawyer extensively tried to discredit Headley’s reputation and convince court that he was not a reliable witness.

Mr Wahab brought on record several contradictions and omissions in Headley’s statement given in the form of answers to questions asked by the prosecution by juxtaposing them with his statement given to the National Investigating Agency.

Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam while speaking to media however has said that those were minor contradiction and omissions and they were not relevant to the case against Jundal, who is currently facing the trial, and hence they would not affect the prosecution’s case.

Headley replied in the negative when defence lawyer asked him if it happened that Lakhvi had sarcastically mentioned that Muzammil was a top commander whose every big project had ended in a failure. When copy of his statement recorded by NIA was shown to him, which had this information, he said, “Whether it is there in the statement or not but even if it is there, it is incorrect. I did not say that.” Headley also said, “This is incorrectly recorded,” adding that his statement recorded by NIA was not read over to him.

Headley on Saturday also told the special court that the women’s wing in the Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba was for social causes, not for combat.

Mr Nikam sought permission of the special judge G.A. Sanap to re-examine Headley because he needed some clarification, as there was “some contradiction in his statement”.

Mr Nikam said that while answering questions asked by him, Headley had said that there was a women’s wing in LeT but when the defence lawyer asked him about the same, he said the defence was pre-supposing that he had knowledge about the existence of some women’s cell in LeT. The public prosecutor asked him to clarify this following which Headley said that while answering Mr Nikam’s question he was under the impression that he was being asked about a women’s wing that worked for social causes and the question asked by the defence was in the context of combat operations.

After this Mr Wahab during the cross-examination asked Headley to explain what type of social work the women’s wing did. The terrorist replied that it works for religious education amongst women, taking care of widows and Quranic education.

When the court informed Headley that his testimony was over, he addressed Mr Wahab and said, “Kaha suna maaf” (sorry if I have hurt you with my words).