Arfan Bhatti requires transparency in order to speak. The police still hope that he will testify about the terrorist-accused friend.

The police hope terrorist accused Arfan Bhatti will answer questions about what Zaniar Matapour is like as a person. Bhatti demands full transparency to explain himself.

Arfan Bhatti, accused of terrorism, opposed the police’s demand for custody, but was imprisoned for four weeks on Saturday afternoon. The Oslo district court clearly states that there are good reasons to suspect that he played a role in connection with the mass shooting carried out by Zaniar Matapour in Oslo on 25 June 2022.

– The result of the ruling is as expected. The court has established that there is a risk of tampering with evidence and a risk of evasion, says police attorney Ingvild Myrold ​​to Aftenposten. She is happy to have Bhatti in Norway.

– We have been working on the issue of extradition for a long time. And for the investigation it is important that there has now been a development and that Bhatti is back in Norway. Then we can complete the last part. And not least, it means a lot to those who were affected by the attack.

Prosecutors want Bhatti to testify in the ongoing trial against Matapour on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Bhatti will not explain himself there, says defender John Christian Elden.

– He will not give any testimony in court. The court has been notified of this in advance, says Elden to NTB.

– Although his defender has stated that he will not give a statement, it may still be that he will be required to appear, so that the actors will have the opportunity to ask him questions, says the police attorney.

Bhatti was in Pakistan during the terrorist attack in central Oslo on 25 June 2022. But the police believe he had contact with his friend Matapour before leaving and that they communicated digitally in the time before the attack.

– What do you think about him not wanting to say anything?

– We had hoped to hear his explanation. It is because he can shed light on Matapour as a person, says Myrold.

Sent letter from Pakistan

Bhatti has written a long, handwritten letter to the Norwegian authorities to explain why he does not want to explain himself, writes NRK.

He believes that PST has violated his human rights and refuses to explain himself until he gets full access to “case and personal information, including third-party information registered about me with the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, PST, OPD and all ordinary police and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”, the letter says.

The Oslo police have given Bhatti access, claims police lawyer Myrold.

– In this specific criminal case, for which I am responsible, Bhatti is entitled to full access to the case’s documents. As far as his own case is concerned, he has been given access to the vast majority of the documents, with the exception of a few documents which are kept confidential for him. It is quite common in criminal cases that some of the information is withheld.

– If he wants insight into other cases that others have had against him, that is not something I can answer for, replies Ingvild Myrold.

Wants a joint trial

The Oslo police have charged Bhatti with complicity in serious acts of terrorism, complicity in murder and attempted murder, in addition to terrorist organization and murder organization. The penalty for the terrorism charge is 30 years. The police prosecutor cannot say when a separate trial against Bhatti may come.

– It is difficult to say exactly when the case will be fully investigated. We are currently in the middle of an extensive investigation and there is not much I can say about when it will be completed.

Myrold ​​suggests that they want a trial together with the other three who are also charged with similar matters. Two men and a woman are also charged with complicity.

– We want to look at the question together against all four accused. It is again too early to say exactly when an indictment may come, but we see that it is appropriate to try to collect this so that they can mutually shed light on the issue of evidence.