Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Of Chameleon i.e. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Judiciary & NRO.

Chameleon: Any of various tropical Old World lizards of the family Chamaeleonidae, characterized by their ability to change color and you can find many such characters in the Legal Community of Pakistan. One such character is Barrister Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada - Hafeez Pirzada loved Zulfikar Ali Bhutto so much that only after a few days of Bhutto's Judicial Murder in 1979, both Mumtaz Bhutto and Hafeez Peerzada got married [Courtesy Monthly Herald Pakisatn Divided They Stand by Mazhar Abbas Issue of January 2008].




But that behaviour above didn't deter Abdul Hafeez Pirzada from lecturing the common Pakistanis about the Law, Constitution, PCO, NRO, Rule of Law, Supremacy of Judiciary over Parliament, Human Rights and above all Illegality of Martial Law - While giving argument during NRO Proccedings against the NRO, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, said the innocent people of Pakistan have been robbed of their basic fundamental rights through misuse of NRO, adding, under article 89 of constitution, if ordinance will not be presented in the parliament, it will be automatically expired after 120 days and no institution, including the apex court itself, could extend its term. FOR FURTHER DETAILS: Pakistanis robbed of rights through NRO: Pirzada Updated at: 1230 PST, Thursday, December 10, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=93226

And the very same Abdul Hafeez Pirzada had appeared from the side of persoanlist who had issued NRO i.e. General Pervez Musharraf.



ISLAMABAD: Pervez Musharraf’s top legal adviser Malik Qayyum is of the opinion that the Supreme Court can initiate high treason proceedings against the former president. Ironically, no counsel appeared before the bench on Musharraf’s behalf in response to a notice issued by the court a week back. Qayyum stayed in the court room for a few minutes but did not think it fit to avail the opportunity to defend his former boss as he had no such instructions from him. “Musharraf didn’t accept my advice, and rather accepted Abdul Hafeez Pirzada’s counsel not to appear before the court,” Malik Qayyum said. Other sources said Pirzada advised Musharraf to take the stance that the present apex court has no legal status to review his November 3 action and the subsequent orders, which are part of the Constitution, as included in its copies printed by the present government. REFERENCE: Malik Qayyum also dumps Musharraf Thursday, July 30, 2009 By our correspondent http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23570



President Pervez Musharraf’s friend left to advise him, Barrister Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, has told him he can prolong the impeachment proceedings indefinitely to allow the president sufficient time to recoup. Further, he has argued that all the “sins” counted against him by his accusers have been condoned by the Supreme Court of Dogar, which can be moved to rescue him again while the impeachment proceedings are in progress. These pearls of advice from a former PPP stalwart follow a three-point plan, which he had suggested earlier but which failed miserably. Musharraf’s other two legal wizards, Sharifuddin Pirzada and Malik Qayyum, have withdrawn from his defence. Pirzada considers his a lost case and is shunning him. Malik Qayyum is uncharacteristically lying low, which has brought Hafeez Pirzada to the centre stage. While Hafeez Pirzada has been telling Musharraf that the charges for impeachment are insufficient and flawed, PPP’s Farhatullah Babar is promising a solid charge-sheet that might go beyond Pirzada’s presumptions. REFERENCE: Barrister Abdul Hafeez Pirzada still thinks he can save President Pervez Musharraf Written by Salik Malik Local Aug 16, 2008 http://www.daily.pk/barrister-abdul-hafeez-pirzada-still-thinks-he-can-save-president-pervez-musharraf-5863/

The Snow White Clean Abdul Hafiz Peerzada was lecturing the Nation about corruption whereas failed to "remember" the following:



Others persons who got these plots include DG ISI Maj Gen Asad Nawaz Khan, Dr Anwar Aziz, Brig Sajawal Khan, Justice Javed Iqbal, Afzal Wali, Riffat Jamil Nishtar, Mohammad Shujaat Azeem (the brother of information minister Tariq Azim), PPPP leader Naheed Khan, Azra Wasim Sajjad, Dr Abdul Riaz, Major General S. Ali Hamid, Ms Zeba Fasih Bokhari, Sadia Hafeez Pirzada and others. This correspondent tried to get the version of the Prime Minister House but the press secretary to the PM, Shabir Anwar, did not receive the telephone calls. Likewise, Information Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani did not receive the calls. According to the list, General Pervez Musharraf purchased a five-acre plot from the daughter-in-law of Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar in 2003. Ms Riffat Jamil, wife of Jameel Nishtar had bought this farm to launch her own poultry and vegetable business from a certain Hasan Qureshi who was actually allotted this plot by the CDA in 1979. General Musharraf got this plot on November 4, 2003 from Ms Riffat Nishtar. The price of the plot is not mentioned. Likewise, Shaukat Aziz bought a plot measuring 2.6 acres to launch his own poultry and vegetable business on March 14, 2003 from Murtaza Siddiqi, son of Haji M. Yousaf. This gentleman was given the plot at a throwaway price in 1985. [NOTE LIST ALSO CARRY THE NAME OF Said Hafeez Pirzada] REFERENCE: 499 high and mighty in for trouble - C move against misuse of farmhouses to affect rulers, generals, bureaucrats, businessmen By Rauf Klasra Wednesday, October 10, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=10566 - Abdul Hazif Peerzad is shrewed who plays on both sides: The Supreme Court had taken suo motu action on applications filed by the superseded officials, a few of whom have now retired, and named it as the Tariq Azizuddin case. Abdul Hafiz Pirzada is the government’s counsel and Akram Sheikh the pro bono publica lawyer in the court that takes up the case for hearing on January 20. REFERENCE: 173 Grade 21 officers superseded, shows govt data Monday, January 18, 2010 By By Dilshad Azeem http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=219412



After the court proceedings, Malik Qayyum when asked whether he was in contact with Musharraf, he said that he met him a couple of months back. “Now, I am not in touch with him. Yes, I will represent him if he asked me to do so.” He was of the view that Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and two other lawyers are the members of Musharraf’s legal team of which he was not a part. “Musharraf should avail this opportunity, if the Supreme Court is providing him one to present his view,” Qayyum said. The chief justice also ordered to make The News edition of July 22 as part of the record of Nov 3, Case. The News, Islamabad edition of July 22 was full with exclusive coverage of the Nov 3 Case. “No one is ready to defend Musharraf’s acts. Please pass on this to attorney general,” the chief justice said while giving the copy of Wednesday’s The News to a court officer referring to a front page story “No one to defend Musharraf in SC”. The chief justice also wrote in his order that media is widely covering this case and each and every observation of the judges is reported which reflects the interest of general masses in this case. The News is especially covering important observations of the honourable judges of the apex court they make during the hearing of this highly significant and historic case which according to the Chief Justice of Pakistan will decide the future of democracy in Pakistan. REFERENCE: No Musharraf loyalists in this courtroom at least - Qayyum advises former dictator to appear before court; ready to represent him if asked; CJ makes The News part of record Thursday, July 23, 2009 By Muhammad Ahmad Noorani http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23416




The groups are engaged in establishing contacts with the members since midweek last and it is expected that the members would reach here this evening (Monday) To a query by this scribe the constitutional experts have said that once the impeachment process is initiated the ruling alliance would find it difficult to halt it even the president resigns in its course. President’s legal aides including Abdul Hafeez Pirzada are contending that the Parliament hears the impeachment motion like a tribunal and if the case is submitted, the tribunal will have to complete the hearing and it has to give its verdict after starting its hearing. They have referred to the article 47 of the constitution that deals with the Removal/impeachment of the president and it says, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the constitution, the President may, in accordance with the provisions of this Article, be removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the constitution or gross misconduct.” The impeachment motion will be ready by Monday afternoon before the commencement of the National Assembly sitting, the sources said. It will be signed by about three hundred members of the Parliament while the same article of the constitution says in this regard that “Not less than one-half of the total membership of either House may give to the Speaker of the National Assembly or, as the case may be, the Chairman written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of, or, as the case may be, to impeach, the president; and such notice shall set out the particulars of his incapacity or of the charges against him.” “If a notice under clause (2) is received by the chairman, he shall transmit it forthwith to the Speaker. (4) The Speaker shall, within three days of the receipt of a notice under clause (2) or clause (3), cause a copy of the notice to be transmitted to the president.” “The Speaker shall summon the two Houses to meet in a joint sitting not earlier than seven days and not later than fourteen days after the receipt of the notice by him.” The experts reminded that the Parliament or its any appointed committee look into the allegations for investigations and the Articles 47 says about it further, “The joint sitting may investigate or cause to be investigated the ground or the charges upon which the notice is founded.” The experts said that the president has the right to defend himself in the Parliament or before the committee constituted by the House for the purpose. He can appoint his representative for the purpose. The article says, “The president shall have the right to appear and be represented during the investigation, if any, and before the joint sitting. “If, after consideration of the result of the investigation, if any, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-third of the total membership of the Parliament declaring that the president is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating the constitution or of gross misconduct, the president shall cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution,” the experts referring the last clause of the article on the subject in question have given the idea about the competence of the Parliament to oust the president. REFERENCE: Jeddah palace not to host Pak leaders any more By Muhammad Saleh Zaafir Monday, August 18, 2008 http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=16668

The Rampant Pakistani Judiciary often reprimand Lawyers as to why they accept Cases of those persons to plead who are "Known Corrupt" [as per several Supreme Court Judges of Pakistan] whereas no such question was asked from Abdul Hafeez Pirzada who defended General Musharraf Govt's Case of Privatization of Steel Mills. [FOR JUDICIAL THREAT TO LAWYERS READ Judicial Dictatorship & Attorney-Client Privilege. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/03/judicial-dictatorship-attorney-client.html

That was not enough the incumbetn CJ shared the bench with now "Condemned EX - CJ Abdul Hameed Dogar" - What a joke! Pakistan Steel Mills not to be handed over till verdict, Supreme Court assured. - Business Recorder June 15, 2006 The counsels for the Federation Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and the Privatisation Commission Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada assured the Supreme Court that the government would not hand over Pakistan Steel Mills to the successful bidder till the decision of the court. They gave this assurance when counsel for the petitioner, Barrister Zafarullah Khan made a request to the court to extend the stay order, which was expiring on 14th June, till final verdict of the court. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry observed that since PSM privatisation was a subjudice matter. REFERENCE: Pakistan Steel Mills not to be handed over till verdict, Supreme Court assured. Business RecorderJune 15, 2006 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-147089367/pakistan-steel-mills-not.html

FOR FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND RECORD

"QUOTE"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Original/Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar
Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad
Mr. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza
Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari

CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2006 &
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 345 & 394 OF 2006

(On appeal from the judgment/order of High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 30.03.2006 passed in Constitution Petition No.D-240 of 2006) Const. P.9/2006

Wattan Party through its President … … Petitioner.

Versus

Federation of Pakistan,
through Cabinet Committee of Privatization,
Prime Minister Secretariat, Islamabad and others … Respondents.
CP.345/2006

Pakistan Steel Peoples Workers Union,
CBA through its Chairman … … Petitioner.

Versus

Federation of Pakistan, through the Cabinet Secretary and others … … Respondents.

CP.394/2006

Federation of Pakistan, through the Cabinet Secretary and others … … Petitioners

Versus

Pakistan Steel Peoples Workers Union,

through its Chairman & others … … Respondents

For the petitioner : Barrister Zafarullah Khan, Sr. ASC.
(in Const. P.9/2006) Raja Muhammad Akram, Sr. ASC
Assisted by Ms. Sadia Abbasi, Advocate.
Muhammad Habib-ur-Rehman, Adv.

For the petitioner : Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, ASC. (in CP.345/2006 and for Respt. Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR. No.1 in CP. No.394/2006)


On Court Notice : Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, (in Const. P.9/06 & for Attorney General for Pakistan. petitioner in CP.No.394/06) Assisted by Mr. Khuram M. Hashmi, Adv.

For respondent No.1 : Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC (in Const.P. No.9/06 & for Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR Respt. No.2 in CP.No.345/06) Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR

Assisted by Mr. Hamid Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, Adv.

For respondent No.2&4 : Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Sr. ASC. (in Const. P.9/2006) Mr. Sulman Aslam Butt, ASC

Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR.

Assisted by Ms. Danish Zubari, Adv.

Mr. Waqar Rana, Adv.

For respondent No.3 : Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Sr. ASC. (in Const. P.9 /2006 & Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. , AOR.

For Respondent No.5 Assisted by Mr. Idrees Ashraf, Adv.

(in CP.345 /2006 Mr. Ali Hassan Sajjad, Adv.

For respondent No.7 : Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. ASC.

(in Const. P.9/2006) Mr. Kazim Hassan, ASC

Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR.

Assisted by Mr. Raashid Anwar, Adv.

For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, AG (Sindh) (in CP.345/2006) Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Addl. AG (Sindh)

Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.

Mrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, AAG

For the applicant : Mr. Ahmer Bilal Sufi, ASC. (in CMA.1190/2006) Mr. G.N. Gohar, AOR
Respondent No. 5 & 6 : Nemo.

(in Const.P.9/06)

Respondent No. 2-3&5 : Nemo.

(in C.P.345/06)

Respondent No.2-5 : Nemo.

(in Const.P.394/06)

Dates of hearing : 30th & 31st May, 1st , 5th to 8th, 12th to 15th 19th to 23rd June 2006.

REFERENCE: CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 9 OF 2006 & CIVIL PETITION NOs. 345 & 394 OF 2006 (On appeal from the judgment/order of High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 30.03.2006 passed in Constitution Petition No.D-240 of 2006) http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/CJD_Pakistan_Steel_Mills_Case_Order.pdf


"UNQUOTE"

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada argue against NRO several years ago he himself defended Asif Ali Zardari in Alleged Corruption Cases - From the Dark Pages of History.



ISLAMABAD, Feb 26: A seven-member bench of the Supreme Court on Monday started hearing of the appeals of Benazir Bhutto and her husband Asif Ali Zardari against their conviction, and sought state views on the request of Ms Bhutto seeking placement of tapes containing conversation of Justice Qayyum and others on the record. An Ehtesab Bench of the LHC, comprising Justice Malik Qayyum and Justice Najmul Hasan Kazmi, had convicted Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari on April 15, 1999, and sentenced them to undergo five years' imprisonment each, and to pay fine of $8.6 million each. The Ehtesab court had also ordered their disqualification as members of the parliament for five years, and ordered forfeiture of their property made with money acquired through corruption. The SC bench which started proceedings on Monday comprised Justice Bashir Jehangiri, Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Justice Munir A Sheikh, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar. The prosecution case was that pre-shipment inspection contract was awarded to M/s SGS in consideration of 6 per cent commission of total amount received by the company from the Government of Pakistan. The commission was paid to offshore company, Bomer Finance Inc., owned by Asif Ali Zardari, his agent Jens Schlegelmilch.

The ultimate beneficiaries of these commissions were Asif Ali Zardari and Benazir Bhutto, the prosecution had alleged. On Monday Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, counsel for Asif Zardari, opened the arguments. At the outset, he requested the court to direct the federation to place the tapes on the basis of which Sunday Times published a story, on the record. The counsel further requested the court that his client Asif Zardari should be produced in the court for facilitating him to seek his instruction from time to time as he was not in a position to visit jails for instructions. Another request which the counsel made was to summon Salvatore Alfersano, an expert on Swiss law, to appear in the court for assisting the court. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada also requested the court to place on record the legal opinion of prominent jurists of the world on the trial of his client. The court asked the Attorney General, Aziz A Munshi, and other counsel representing the State to submit their point of view by Wednesday. The court, however, made it clear that it would not like to adjourn the proceedings and continue hearing of the appeals. The court was informed by the appellants' counsel that they would not be attending the proceeding on Tuesday as the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association have given call for boycotting the proceedings on Tuesday. REFERENCE: State views sought on Benazir's plea Rafaqat Ali DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 3 March 2001 Issue: 07/9 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/mar0301.html



ISLAMABAD, April 9: Allegations of abetment against the opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, for awarding the pre-shipment inspection contract to a Swiss company, SGS, are not supported by direct evidence and the case of the prosecution is based only on surmises and conjectures, Ms Bhutto's counsel argued on Friday. The special public prosecutor (SPP), Ali Sabtain Fazli, concluded his submissions, at 10:30am on Friday, before the Ehtesab Bench in the ehtesab reference No 30. Asif Ali Zardari had asked the court to adjourn its proceedings as senior counsel Abdul Hafeez Pirzada was supposed to have opened the argument. The court did not accept the request. The court, comprising Justice Malik Qayyum and Justice Najmul Hasan Kazmi, rose for half an hour after directing the defence counsels to start their arguments at 11:00am. As the proceedings resumed, Babar Awan started his arguments by saying that the prosecution's case was based on haphazard circumstantial evidence and not on direct evidence. He contended that it was established principle of law that if a case was based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence should not break at any stage. "In this case (the) chain breaks at every stage and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused," the counsel argued. To the allegation, that Ms Bhutto misused her official position as prime minister by awarding the pre-shipment inspection contract to SGS, no illegality had been committed, the counsel argued further. Regarding the allegation that illegal gratification was received by the former prime minister, the counsel said the prosecution had brought forward no evidence whatsoever. "The case is based on surmises, conjectures and inference is drawn that she being the prime minister obtained illegal gratification." The defence counsel stated that the sitting prime minister (Nawaz Sharif) had admitted that his decision to freeze foreign currency accounts (FCA's) was wrong. The admission was witnessed by millions of people on television. The decision to freeze the FCAs have brought the stock markets down, and eaten up billions of rupees.

"Why no case has been registered against the sitting prime minister," the counsel argued.

The defence counsel contended that Jens Schlegelmilch, an alleged front man of Asif Ali Zardari, had never come to Pakistan and the statement that he used to be the special guest of the former prime minister was wrong. The counsel further stated that the government had made no effort to ensure the presence of the Jens Schlegelmilch for recording his statement. Both the investigative officers in the Ehtesab Reference No 30 had admitted in their statements that they never attempted to record the statement of the alleged front man. The prosecution was in such haste that they even did not provide any opportunity to the accused for clearing their positions. Asif Zardari was never contacted for getting his version, the counsel said. The defence council said Benazir Bhutto was never interested in the pre-shipment inspection scheme and had attended only one meeting regarding it. The evidence of those officers, who had been suspended on corruption charges, was biased and could not be relied upon.

Referring to the evidence of Saqlain Shah, a police inspector posted at the gate of the prime minister secretariat at that time, the defence counsel said he (Mr Shah) had stated that someone by the name Mr Shaken came to see Asif Zardari. The Prosecution was assuming Mr Shaken to be Jens Schlegelmilch. Earlier, the special public prosecutor contended that proceedings conducted by the Swiss judge, Daniel Devud, were judicial proceedings. As under Swiss Law the investigation magistrate enjoyed judicial powers. With regard to sending the commission to Switzerland for verifying the documents, the special prosecutor stated the commission was given only a ten-day period to visit Switzerland and submit its report. He said that he defence was informed about the commission on the very first day the court constituted it. REFERENCE: Case based on surmises: Benazir's counsel Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 10 April 1999 Issue : 05/15 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/10Apr99.html



RAWALPINDI, Aug 27: The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, on Thursday exempted Ms Benazir Bhutto from personal appearance in the court till Oct 25, and modified its earlier order of freezing her bank accounts. The court, comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi and Justice Shaikh Amjad Ali, however, ignored her request that the court order should be couched in such a language that she was allowed to operate her bank account. Stating that it had frozen only Rs1,500,000, details of which were provided by the prosecution, the court stated that it had passed an order identical to the one issued on Wednesday by the Ehtesab Bench of the Lahore High Court. Ms Bhutto, who appeared along with her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, had addressed the court herself. She had requested the court not to limit the operation of her account to Rs1,500,000 as there was "much more" money in her account. The court accepted the application of Ms Bhutto requesting to grant her exemption from personal appearance as she wanted to travel abroad to attend seminars and deliver lectures in American universities. The special prosecutor, Malik Mohammad Rafiq, said he had no objection to granting of exemption provided this exemption was not used by her to seek further adjournments on the pretext that her counsels needed instruction from her. He further stated that the exemption granted by the Ehtesab Bench, Rawalpindi, would not be valid in regard to her appearance in the other courts. The court accepted that from Sept 6 up to Oct 5 Ms Bhutto would not be required to appear in the court.

It may be noted that advocate Babar Awan, counsel for the opposition leader, has requested the court to pass an order consistent to the order passed by the Ehtesab Bench of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday. At this stage, Ms Bhutto intervened and stated before the court that she was not "begging for charity" as it was her own money in her account that she wanted unfrozen. She said that she had survived even when her accounts were frozen. She said the court order to freeze her accounts, without hearing her on April 27, had caused her great monetary loss and mental anguish because of the stigma associated with it. "If you want to keep my money with you, God will give me more," she remarked in a highly charged voice. She said great injustice was being done to her through the courts and added: "Almighty Allah is witnessing everything."

She further said it was her crime that she restored peace in Karachi; got the Brown Amendment passed; saved Pakistan's nuclear programme from a roll-back and took the country out of the danger of being declared a terrorist state. Recalling the services that she had rendered for the country, she asked the court whether she deserved the treatment being meted out to her. Ms Bhutto said a bank defaulter whose bank accounts would not be frozen by the courts was persecuting her. Her voice choked when she was addressing the court which heard her with patience. The court stated that it had frozen only that account which had only Rs1,500,000 and allowed to use Rs1,300,000 out of that. The court would further allow her to use the remaining amount, it said. The special prosecutor, Mujeebur Rahman said after her formal indictment, the request to unfreeze Ms Bhutto's accounts should not be accepted. Everyone, including judges burst into laughter Ms Bhutto cursed the public prosecutor: "I pray to God that all your properties catch fire." The public prosecutor said that he had all the respect for her even though she had cursed him.

Ms Bhutto further stated that the order of the court was used by the government to strangulate her financially. The State Bank, she said, issued a circular to all the banks that she should not be allowed to operate any of her accounts. The court noted in its order that any order of any bank contrary to what had been stated in the court order would not be effective. The court adjourned the hearing till Oct 1 as the counsels for Ms Bhutto and for the ARY Gold directors requested for adjournment. Earlier, Javed Talat, former finance secretary, submitted an application in which he prayed the court to direct the government to provide him certain summaries of Cabinet division and commerce ministry to defend himself. He also asked for the details of the revenue which the government was getting by licensing the import of gold and silver. He also informed the court that he had engaged Abdul Hafeez Pirzada as his senior counsel. REFERENCE: DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 29 August 1999 Issue: 04/34 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/29Aug98.html



ISLAMABAD, Sept 21: Asif Ali Zardari has submitted an application before a Rawalpindi accountability court for his acquittal in the SGS pre-shipment inspection contract case praying that any retrial would amount to double jeopardy. The application had been moved under Article 13 of the Constitution which guarantees protection against double punishment and self incrimination. Article 13 of the Constitution also states that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once or shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be a witness against himself. The accused stated that he had already completed five years sentence, awarded by the Rawalpindi Ehtesab Bench of the Lahore High Court.

Mr Zardari has been kept in a room of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), after declaring it a sub-jail, since February, 2001. Earlier he was kept at the Karachi Central Jail since 1996. An ehtesab bench, led by former Lahore High Court Chief Justice Malik Qayyum, had awarded Mr Zardari five years imprisonment with a fine of $8.6 million on April 15, 1999. The judge had also disqualified the former senator as a member of the parliament. Prominent lawyer Hafiz Pirzada, who had also pleaded the case of the accused before the LHC ehtesab bench, is representing him in the accountability court. Since he was busy in the Supreme Court on Friday, the hearing was put off for September 28, on which the application of Mr Zardari would be discussed. The former premier, Benazir Bhutto, and Asif Zadari are being retried in the SGS case. The Supreme Court on April 6, 2001 had declared the LHC verdict biased and ordered for retrial of the accused.

The SGS reference was sent to the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was later referred to the Rawalpindi accountability court for retrial. The couple has been accused of getting six per cent commission of the total revenue of preshipment for awarding the contract to the Societe Generale Survillence (SGS). The commission was paid to an offshore company, Bomer Finance Inc allegedly owned by Asif Ali Zardari, through his fiduciary agent Jens Schlegelmilch. The ultimate beneficiaries of the commission were Asif Ali Zardari and Benazir Bhutto, the prosecution alleged. Meanwhile the earlier notices issued to the respondents for the appearance in the court could not be served as majority of them lives abroad. The other respondents in the case are: former Central Board of Revenue (CBR) chairman A.R. Siddiqui; Jens Schlegelmilch of Switzerland; the then SGS vice-president, Colin Robey; the then SGS managing-director, Oliver De Breakeleer; three operation managers, Michael Lysewyes, Mickael Warrow and David Murray; two managers, R. Rijken and Ms Andrea Ralp. REFERENCE: Asif moves court for acquittal in SGS case By Nasir Iqbal DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 22 September 2001 Issue: 07/38 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/sep2201.html



"DO your judges still cover their heads with horsehair? Invited or not, they visit us. Some dump on us copies of what they proclaim to be historic judgements they have written. Others tell us they are in Washington for medical treatment for themselves or their wives." This was said by a US Supreme Court judge to a man who had identified himself as a national of Pakistan, and who could only grunt and groan in response and do his best to uphold the honour of the country's judges. The horsehair referred to was the wig worn by the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Nasim Hassan Shah in his photograph printed on the cover of a booklet containing his 'historic' judgement restoring Nawaz Sharif and his corrupt government dismissed by the then president in 1993. The medical treatment referred to was that of the wife of the present Chief Justice of Pakistan, Irshad Hassan Khan. We now have another 'historic' judgement handed down last week by a bench of seven, headed by Justice Bashir Jehangiri, in the appeal against their conviction for corruption of the former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, and her husband Asif Zardari.

Their guilt is doubted by none, not even their own defenders. But would the duo have been able to do what they did, robbing and destroying this country, without the aid and abetment of others? Dismissed for the first time, their re-entry into the government was expedited by none other than President Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the man who in 1990 had sacked Benazir's first government on charges of corruption, vociferously citing her husband Asif as being the most corrupt of the corrupt lot. After he had dismissed her successor, Nawaz Sharif, and his government on the same charge in 1993, Ghulam Ishaq sent for Benazir and Asif from London where they were biding their time, and himself swore in Asif as one of his caretaker ministers. Has anybody been able to calculate the loss to the country caused by the two rounds of Benazir's governments? Now to the latest historic judgement, which records the taped version of a conversation which took place "between Saifur Rahman and Qayyum J." I can swear on oath that I was present in Saifur Rahman's office one day when he received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Rashid Aziz Khan, reporting on the good work his court had done. Saif told him that he had done well and that he would convey the good news (whatever it was) to Mian Sahib.

The judgment makes it crystal clear what the honourable judges of our Supreme Court had in mind. Paragraph 36 reads: "The record reveals the glaring injustice meted out to Asif Ali Zardari, appellant, when the Court [Ehtesab Bench of the Lahore High Court] declined to grant him permission to recall certain witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination.... It may be pointed out that because of freezing of assets and funds, the appellant, Asif Ali Zardari, had expressed his inability to engage a counsel of his choice to cross-examine those witnesses.....". The question that arises is, do Their Lordships really believe that Benazir and Asif are living below the poverty line and surviving on food ladled out in soup kitchens? Perhaps the judges were not made aware of the fact that their lawyers in Karachi have been handsomely paid, and that, knowing their clients as they did, they took their money in advance. As far as their law suits in England are concerned, it is a well known fact that the duo engaged senior counsel Lord Lester and a string of other leading counsel to plead for them, and various firms of solicitors, all of whose fees ranged up to 600 per hour, or, roughly speaking, some 1,000 rupees per minute.

The last paragraph of the judgement states, "Before parting with the judgement we are inclined to dispose of the plea of Mr Abdul Hafiz Pirzada, learned Sr. ASC, to the effect that Asif Ali Zardari, appellant, had already served out a substantive sentence of imprisonment, and therefore, he is entitled to be released from jail. As we have already sent the case to a court of competent jurisdiction, it would be more appropriate if this matter is agitated before the court aforesaid.' We must be thankful for small mercies. How can any sane man who lives abroad, have dealings with Pakistan and hope to safely invest his money here and prosper, bereft as we are of law and order? Anybody surfing the net, seeking information on this country, will come across a well read publication, the Information Times, published in Washington DC. (http://www.InformationTimes.com). On April 18, the Information Times carried an article on "44 wanted men, fugitives, crooks, criminals, thugs, smugglers, robbers and thieves of Pakistan who are wanted by NAB." Each person listed is ably qualified to be a respected member of any international swindling, smuggling or money-laundering organization. REFERENCE: Another historic judgement By Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:28 April 2001 Issue: 07/17 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/apr2801.html

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada also opposed NAB AND NAB ORDINANCE UNDER MUSHARRAF'S MARTIAL LAW.



ISLAMABAD, Sept 12: A three-member bench of the Supreme Court admitted on Tuesday 15 constitutional petitions challenging the validity of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance for early hearing by a larger bench. Headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, it ordered that notices be issued to the Federation through the cabinet division and the federal law secretary and to the NAB chairman. Another notice was issued to the attorney-general under Order 27-A of the Civil Procedure Code as important questions requiring interpretation of constitutional provisions are involved. The petitions were filed directly before the apex court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. The provision confers original jurisdiction on the court if the matter agitated involves enforcement of fundamental rights and is of public interest.

The petitions have been filed by ousted premier and NAB convict Mian Nawaz Sharif, GDA leader Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, NAP president Asfandyar Wali Khan, PPP leaders Hakim Ali Zardari and Ms Naheed Khan, Dr Farooq Sattar of MQM, NAB accused Asif Saigol and Hussain Nawaz, former petroleum minister Anwar Saifullah Khan, PML lawyer Zafar Ali Shah, Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, ex-MNA Chaudhry Sher Ali, Punjab Bar Council member Pir Masood Chishti and Syed Iqbal Haider of Muslim Youth Movement. Advocates Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Aitzaz Ahsan Chaudhry, Mohammad Akram Sheikh, Dr Abdul Basit, K.M.A. Samdani, Supreme Court Bar Association president Abdul Haleem Pirzada, Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Zafar Ali Shah and M. Ikram Chaudhry and Mr Iqbal Haider pressed for the admission of petitions for regular hearing. Though not on notice, NAB prosecutor-general Farooq Adam Khan was present throughout the proceedings. AG Aziz A. Munshi and Senior Federal Minister Sharifuddin Pirzada also watched the proceedings for quite some time.

The admission order said the petitions have raised 23 questions as 'matters of first impression'. They are of great public importance involving fundamental rights as ordained by Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. The ordinance has been assailed for being repugnant to the principle of the separation of powers and the independence of judiciary, freedom of trade, business and profession, security of person, safeguard from arrest and detention, protection from retrospectivepunishment, inviolability of dignity of man, freedom of movement, equality of citizens and other basic rights. The order recalled that in the case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah and others versus Gen Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan, and others, the Supreme Court had observed that the 'validity of the NAB Ordinance will be examined separately in appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage'. The court made it clear that it would examine the question of validity of the impugned ordinance and not individual grievances raised by some of the petitioners directly or indirectly. However, the petitioners shall not be debarred from pressing their pleas through appropriate proceedings before competentcourts. The SC admission order shall not operate as stay of proceedings before NAB, accountability courts or any other court in relation to matters arising out of the impugned ordinance. REFERENCE: SC admits 15 pleas against NAB law: Larger bench to be formed Shujaat Ali Khan DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 16 September 2000 Issue:06/35 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/sep16.html

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada is also involved in Mehran Bank/ISI Scandal and accepted Bribe and Petition Vide Number (HRC 19/96) is still pending in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. One wonders where the hell is the Suo Moto Notice and Judicial Activism of Judiciary????



Now, as we approach the promised October elections, our press carries many a story about how the intelligence agencies are transferring and 'placing' officials all over the country, and how the agencies are harassing certain individuals for not toeing the official line. We also read reports about how the 'placed' aspiring legislators and their 'supporters', all renowned as shady characters, are even managing to 'influence' men in uniform to gain support. On July 3, the governor of Sindh, Mohammadmian Soomro (my 'nephew' - he very respectuflly addresses me as 'uncle'), transformed his learned and efficient education minister, Professor Anita Ghulam Ali, into an 'adviser' and also sent home his irrigation minister, Ali Mir Shah. He then swore in Syed Ejaz Ali Shah Shirazi as irrigation minister and Sardar Muqeem Khan Khoso as agriculture minister (water tap and land ownership/transfer controllers), Khan Mohammad Dahri as education minister (organizing teachers at polling stations), Mian Abdul Baqi as auqaf minister (money to spend and distribute), and Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim as minister of local government (the works). My 'nephew' could not explain who chose these 'fixers', who ordered him to swear them in, and who is their 'godfather'.

Nothing new. On April 25, 1994, this newspaper carried an editorial entitled 'Our secret godfathers', which opened up : "Two basic points emerge from General Aslam Beg's admission that in 1990 he took Rs 14 crores from the banker Younus Habib and that part of this money was spent by the ISI during the elections that year . . . . . ". And closed, saying ". . . it is time now for some sort of check on the rogue political activities of our intelligence agencies . . .". It was not time, and apparently it is still not time. In 1996, Air Marshal Asghar Khan filed a human rights petition in the Supreme Court against General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of army staff, Lt General Asad Durrani, former chief of the Inter Services Intelligence, and Younus Habib of Habib Bank and then Mehran Bank, concerning the criminal distribution of the people's money for political purposes (HRC 19/96). In this case, Lt General Naseerullah Babar filed an affidavit in court supported by copies of various documents and a photocopy of a letter dated June 7, 1994, addressed by Durrani to the then prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who, during her second term in office, appointed him as her ambassador to Germany, which reads:

"My dear Prime Minister," A few points I could not include in my 'confessional statement' handed over to the director, FIA. These could be embarrassing or sensitive. (a) The recipients included Khar 2 million, Hafeez Pirzada 3 million, Sarwar Cheema 0.5 million and Mairaj Khalid 0.2 million. The last . . . . . . . [illegible] someone's soft corner that benefited them. (b) The remaining 80 million were either deposited in the ISI's 'K' fund (60 m) or given to director external intelligence for special operations (perhaps the saving grace of this disgraceful exercise. But it is delicate information.) [Noted in the margin of this paragraph, by the writer in his own hand: "This is false. The amount was pocketed by Beg (Friends)"]

Asghar Khan - former Air Chief Marshall of the Pakistan Air Force, Chairman of the Tehrik-e-Istaqlaal political party, and a man renowned for his integrity and clarity - vociferously denounces Pak Army and intelligence agencies' interference in political process via distribution of cash to favored politicians. He explains how: (a) Army officers are obligated to obey only lawful commands of their superiors and should be prosecuted for bribery of politicians; (b) intelligence officials do not need a lawyer but only their conscience to decide which order are illegal; (c) there have never been any elections free from fraud since mid-70s; and (d) successive Pak governments have deliberately dragged ISI into domestic politics to suit their purpose. This interview was recorded in 2009 as part of "Policy Matters" program. REFERENCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r8-w5Cawrs [Courtesy: Kashif H Khan]

Asghar Khan: ISI Bribery of Pak Politicians -1/2

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r8-w5Cawrs

Asghar Khan: ISI Bribery of Pak Politicians -2/2

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOtna-6RZag&feature=related
Asghar Khan: ISI Bribery of Pak Politicians

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9varQhZWSUI
Asghar Khan: ISI's Role in Pak Politics -1/2

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u_4vZloT68
Asghar Khan: ISI's Role in Pak Politics -2/2

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVl2w1vb7mY&feature=related

"The operation not only had the 'blessings' of the president [Ghulam Ishaq Khan] and the wholehearted participation of the caretaker PM [Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi], but was also in the knowledge of the army high command. The last mentioned will be the defence of many of us, including Gen Beg (who took his colleagues into 'confidence' but that is the name that we have to protect). "The point that I have 'wargamed' in my mind very often is : what is the object of this exercise? (a) If it is to target the opposition, it might be their legitimate right to take donations, especially if they come through 'secret channels'. Some embarrassment is possible, but a few millions are peanuts nowadays. (b) If the idea is to put Gen Beg on the mat : he was merely providing 'logistic support' to donations made by a community 'under instructions' from the government and with the 'consent' of the military high command. In any case; I understand he is implicated in some other deals in the same case. (c) GIK will pretend ignorance, as indeed he never involved himself directly. (d) Of course, one has to meet the genuine ends of law. In that case let us take care of the sensitivities like special operations and possibly that of the army.

"It was for these reasons that I desperately wanted to see you before leaving. I also wanted to talk about my farewell meeting with the COAS [General Waheed Kakar]. In the meantime you must have met often enough and worked out what is in the best interest of the country. I keep praying that all these natural and man-made calamities are only to strengthen us in our resolve and not in any way reflective of our collective sins. With best regards and respects Yours sincerely, Asad" Filed also in the court is a note, attached to Durrani's letter written in his own hand, reading: "YH TT Peshawar A/C Sherpao For Election 5,00,000; Anwar Saifullah for MBL deposit 15,00,000; Farooq Leghari PO Issued 1,50,00,000. Another 1,50,00,000 paid through Bank. There are a host of other political figures who received funds like Liaquat Jatoi, Imtiaz Sheikh." Naseerullah Babar also filed in court a copy of a bank account sheet headed "G/L Account. Activity Report. Account 12110101 G. Baig (sic.)" The column heads read "Transaction, Date, Particulars, Debit, Credit." The numbered transactions took place between October 23, 1991, and December 12, 1993. The first transaction listed was "Cash-P.O. Karachi Bar Association A/C Gen. Baig (sic.), debit, 5,05,680" (advocate Mirza Adil Beg, Aslam Beg's nephew, the then president of the KBA, confirms that the KBA received the money).

In January 1992 USD 20,000 was sold @ 26.50 and 5,30,000 was credited to the account. Thereafter all debits: "Arshi c/o Gen. Baig (sic.) 2,90,000; Cash paid to Gen. Shab 2,40,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 [Aslam Beg's organization, FRIENDS, Foundation for Research on National Development and Security] ; Cash TT to Yamin to pay Gen. Shab 3,00,000 ; Cash TT to Yamin Habib 12,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash paid through YH 10,00,000 ; Cash Friends TT to Salim Khan 2,00,000 ; Cash 1,00,000 ; Cash Towards Friends 5,00,000 ; Cash Asif Shah for Benglow 35,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash TT through Yamin for Friends 1,00.000 ; Cash paid to Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim 2,00,000 [he confirms having received the money from General Beg as fees and expenses for defending him in the contempt of court charge brought against him - PLD 1993 SC310] ; Cash paid through TT to Yamin for Friends ; Cash paid to Fakhruddin G Ebrahim 1,28,640 [he confirms receipt for fees/expenses for contempt case] ; Cash Guards at 11-A 10,500 ; Cash TT for USD 240,000 Fav. Riaz Malik to City Bank (sic.) New York 68,76,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000; Cash Guards at 11-A 10,500 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 10,000; Cash mobile phone for Col. Mashadi 28,911 ; Cash TT fav. Qazi Iqbal and M Guddul 3,00,000 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 10,000 ; Cash TT to Peshawar 3,00,000 ; Cash deposited at Karachi A/C EC [Election Commission] 3,00,000 ; Cash Guards 24,000 ; Cash TT to Quetta 7,00,000 ; Cash mobile bill of Col. Mashadi 3,237 ; Cash TT to Peshawar Br. 4,00,000 ; Cash deposited at Karachi Br. 4,00,000 ; Cash Guards 11,520 ; Cash TT to Peshawar for EC 2,00,000 ; Cash TT to Quetta for EC 2,00,000 ; Cash Guards 5,760 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 5,000 ; Cash A/C Guards 8,640 ; Cash th. YH 2,00,000 ; Cash A/C Guards 5,760 ; Cash TT to Salim Khan 1,00,000."

The "host of other political figures who received funds" from an ISI account were revealed in the Supreme Court when Air Marshal Asghar Khan's petition was being heard. Inter alia, Nawaz Sharif received (in rupees) 3.5 million, Lt General Rafaqat [GIK's election cell] 5.6 million, Mir Afzal 10 million, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi 5 million, Jam Sadiq Ali 5 million, Mohammed Khan Junejo 2.5 million, Pir Pagaro 2 million, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada 3 million, Yusuf Haroon 5 million [he confirms having received this for Altaf Hussain of the MQM], Muzaffar Hussain Shah 0.3 million, Abida Hussain 1 million, Humayun Marri 5.4 million. During the hearing of the case, Aslam Beg, under oath, revealed the existence of a political cell within the ISI, whilst clarifying that though he was aware of the distribution of funds he was never personally involved. These documents and many others, filed in the Supreme Court, are a matter of public record. In this regard, reference should be made to paragraph 111, 'Corruption', of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the Proclamation of Emergency dated 14th, October, 1999 (approved for reporting), delivered by Chief Justice Irshad Hassan Khan and his eleven Brothers, sanctifying General Pervez Musharraf's takeover. It is a list presented by Attorney-General Aziz Munshi listing cases of corruption, some dating back to 1990, the lists of ISI payments, Babar's and Durrani's affidavits being amongst them. Should not all these corrupt, bribed political people who shamelessly accepted the people's money for their own political ends, and who have never denied having received such payoffs, not stand disqualified for life? Air Marshal Asghar Khan is still waiting to have his petition challenging the corrupt and clandestine use of public funds (pending since 1996) heard by the Supreme Court, as is also General Naseerullah Babar. They both have much to reveal. They are prepared to face the judiciary. REFERENCE: We never learn from history - 2 By Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 10August 2002 Issue : 08/32 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2002/aug102002.html

1 comment:

Javaid Bashir said...

I do not think these article do justice to A.H Pirzada a great Jurist and advocate. the author has tried to show that Mr. Pir has changed colors many timers. But has failed to prove his thesis. As a lawyer we have to accept different causes and plead cases or clients which we may not like.

Unless a conflict of interest exists we do not refuse to plead a case. Same is the case with A. H Pirzada. we can not blame him for accepting General Musharraf 's case or NRo case. Instead blaming him he should praise him.

To hold some professional responsible for changing his/her opinion.