Final Adjournment in Arfan Bhatti Terror Case
The Oslo District Court has officially adjourned for the final time in the contentious terror case against Arfan Bhatti. Over the course of the proceedings, a dozen witnesses took the stand, and an extensive body of evidence was presented. In a poignant moment, Bhatti himself was the last to speak.
“I sit here with a recurring feeling of being prejudged. I sincerely hope that my name doesn’t precede me,” Bhatti expressed, emphasizing his concern over public perceptions.
Bhatti identifies as a family man, asserting that he has demonstrated both the desire and capacity for personal change. “I hope the judges will uphold their professionalism and objectivity,” he continued. “I urge them not to allow my name to set a precedent that undermines my legal rights.”
The Call for Acquittal
As the case progresses, state prosecutors are pushing for the maximum penalty: a staggering 30 years in prison with a minimum term of 20 years. In stark contrast, Bhatti’s defense team is arguing for his complete acquittal, contending that there is no evidence linking him to the attack that took place on June 25.
Leading the defense, attorney John Christian Elden challenged the assertion that the incident amounted to a targeted act of terror. “Could this be regarded as a revenge attack carried out by Zaniar Matapour, a lone actor?” Elden questioned, pointing to the complexities surrounding the case.
Matapour, previously convicted for his role in the attack, had testified against Bhatti, claiming his motivations lay in anger towards the authorities rather than a specific agenda against the LGBTQ+ community.
Question of Suspicion
The prosecution maintains that Bhatti played a pivotal role in both the planning and execution of the attack. Conversely, the defense argues that evidence fails to substantiate this claim. Elden reinforced this position before the court, asserting, “It doesn’t matter what you believe. If it can be shown that Bhatti only entered the picture after the shooting, then he is not guilty.”
Elden described how Bhatti became embroiled in suspicion due to media coverage, particularly citing an NRK article that suggested prior communications between Bhatti and Matapour. He recounted querying police regarding Bhatti’s status, only to receive a resounding denial. “He is of no interest to us. We have no need to question him,” the police reportedly stated.
Later, Bhatti was charged and placed on an international wanted list, leading to his arrest in Pakistan and eventual extradition to Norway—a situation that arose after a public identification by law enforcement.
The Agent Chat Controversy
At the heart of the prosecution’s case lies a chat log purportedly between Bhatti and someone he believed to be an ISIS leader, but who in fact was an undercover operative. Elden criticized the selective presentation of this evidence, noting, “We are only able to present fragments of text messages,” and pointing out discrepancies highlighted by both parties involved in the communication.
Moreover, he lamented that the agent involved was not called to testify, with only anonymous witnesses from the intelligence service providing information. “We know that this agent is allegedly motivated by ideology. But which ideology? That remains unclear,” he mused. Elden cautioned that such dogmatic motivations could skew investigative interpretations.
Denying Terrorism Intent
Bhatti faces charges for allegedly attempting to forge agreements with ISIS to execute further terrorist acts. However, defense attorney Bernt Heiberg argues that Bhatti’s comments during those agent conversations lacked serious intent. “These exchanges amount to little more than bravado,” Heiberg contended. He suggested that Bhatti was merely responding to the agent’s provocations, qualifying these interactions under the concept of illegal police provocation—a stance the prosecution has vehemently rejected.
Public Perception and Expert Reports
The prosecution presented a stark view of Bhatti, describing him as a man harboring antagonism toward Norwegian values. Sturla Henriksbø articulated the belief that Bhatti poses an ongoing threat, while Aud Kinsarvik Gravås noted that he has only become more perilous with age. “He has a long history of violence,” Gravås remarked, underscoring concerns about recidivism.
In response, Elden painted a contrasting portrait of Bhatti. Defense witnesses described him as a calm and composed individual grappling with adversity rather than instigating it. “The evidence suggests a different narrative altogether,” Elden argued, pointing to the impact of social stigma on Bhatti’s employment and personal life.
With the trial now concluding and a verdict anticipated, the defense maintains that there is no basis for a guilty verdict. They argue decisively for an acquittal, contending, “There is no justification for any punitive measures against Bhatti.”
As the courtroom drama reaches its final act, observers await the outcome, acutely aware of the weight of both the charges and the implications for justice in cases of alleged terrorism.