TO his family, Ahmed Sheikh has always been a boy to be proud of.

From the time of his promising Forest School days where he was head of his house and an Essex schoolboys chess champion, his family have sung his praises.

Continually speaking of his "good nature", they have often proudly highlighted his London Underground commendation in 1992 for trying to save the life of a woman who had jumped onto the tracks.

And even when he was accused of kidnapping British backpackers in 1994, his family steadfastly stood by him. Their loyalty and belief in their prize-winning son has never faltered.

In the latest and biggest test of all, they have continued to stand shoulder to shoulder with their beloved son Ahmed, putting their trust in him, and refusing to believe their son capable of such a monstrous crime.

Now faced with the death penalty, they now have the harrowing prospect of fighting for their son's life.

The family's belief in and love for their son was evident in November 1994 when they were first interviewed by the Guardian.

Ahmed had been arrested in Uttar Pradesh in India after the kidnap of three British backpackers. It was claimed the then 20-year-old was one of the ringleaders in a previously unheard-of Kashmiri Islamic group which held the men captive for 10 days.

Fearing for their son's safety, Sheikh's mother and father Qaissia and Saeed invited me to their Wanstead home to tell me of their son's "innocence".

Their house was a typical family home, with plenty of family photographs scattered around the living room.

Both Mr and Mrs Sheikh were extremely welcoming as they sought my help in highlighting their plea for justice.

At no time during this interview, and subsequent visits to the house, did the family admit to Ahmed's extreme political views.

In fact, Mr Sheikh was adamant to the contrary, and was furious that "the picture the media has painted of my son is not true. They are showing him as a terrorist, and that's not Ahmed".

They insisted that the alleged terrorist act was out of character, despite an interview in the Sunday Times in which Ahmed admitted the kidnap of the backpackers.

Just as Sheikh confessed to abducting Daniel Pearl, a confession which he later withdrew, Sheikh also confessed to kidnapping the backpackers, saying he had no regrets intrying to help free militants who had fought for the independence of Kashmir.

But the family insisted that if he had been involved, there would have been a good reason for it.

Mr Sheikh, speaking in December 1994, said: "Another thing is that nobody is questioning all the things he is alleged to have done, why he may have become involved in this situation.

"If he was involved, he was probably a prisoner of his own conscience, touched by the plight of the people who were suffering in India.

"He has always been a very passionate person, very involved in fundraising for the needy."

He added: "We are just an ordinary family, who live under the moral code of the Muslim faith, who care about people whatever creed or colour they are.

"Ahmed is the same, and it is against his nature to do anything that would harm people."

The family were also petrified that their son, who had been shot in the arm as he was being arrested, was having to endure further torment by being tortured in jail.

So desperate were his family that they decided to try their own methods to help their son. They had already set up a help group with the assistance of some friends in a bid to get medical and legal aid for him in India.

Eighteen months later, in March 1996, Ahmed was still being held in an Indian prison without charge.

For a family so convinced of their son's innocence, and so anxious for their beloved boy to be home, the waiting was agonising.

Condemning the country for abusing his son's rights, and angry at Britain's own foreign office for not doing enough to help, Mr Sheikh said: "It is ridiculous that a year and a half after Ahmed's arrest, he is still in the same boat.

"It is an awful time for the whole family, so distressing. We would never have believed it could go on so long without him being charged. But over there, human rights laws don't seem to count, and nobody speaks about what is happening."

They enlisted the aid of a lawyer to "try to speed up the situation", but they were still concerned that even this would be ineffective.

Mr Sheikh told the Guardian: "The problem is there seems to be so much corruption in India. Even the prime minister has been forced to resign because of it."

Their belief in their son was tested to the limit earlier this year when he was first charged with the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl.

In true form, the family dropped everything to be by his side, leaving the family home in Wanstead for an indefinite stay in Pakistan. His father Saeed even took to the stand to defend his son.

In the coming days or weeks, their love for their son will be tested to the limit. Whether they now have any doubts as to the innocence of their son, they will certainly keep them private.

Knowing the support they've shown their son throughout, there is no doubt that they will stand by him right to the very end.

July 18, 2002 13:00