Memory Loss of Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Mehran Bank Scandal & Barrister Akram Sheikh

ISLAMABAD: Opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has claimed that intelligence agencies were once again active for the downsizing of politicians. He expressed these views while answering questions from Hamid Mir in ‘Capital Talk’ of Geo News on Wednesday night.Nisar said that intelligence agencies are targeting not only politicians but also the media and the judiciary. He said that no intelligence official had contacted him directly but he is getting credible reports about the activities of intelligence officials against politicians. He pointed his fingers towards the intelligence agencies controlled by the Army. Responding to a question, he conceded that governance in Punjab also needed a lot of improvement. He agreed that the Supreme Court must reopen the Mehran Bank scandal case in which ISI distributed money among politicians in 1990. He said that cases registered against Asif Ali Zadari in late 90’s by the government of Nawaz Sharif were not baseless and he still thinks that there was a lot of truth in allegations levelled by former Senator Saifur Rehman against Zardari. He said that his party never confessed that cases against Zardari were not true. When Hamid Mir informed Nisar that he was a witness when Saifur Rehman apologized to Zardari for making fake cases against him, Nisar said that a few months back Saifur Rehman had contradicted that he had ever apologized to Zardari. REFERENCE: News Desk Intelligence agencies active again against politicians, judiciary, media Thursday, September 30, 2010 Shawwal 20, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=976&Cat=13&dt=1/4/2011


Chaudhry Nisar is suffering from acute memory loss because the Lawyer he hired is Barrister Akram Sheikh [A Lawyer of General (Retd) Aslam Beg who was involved in Mehran Bank] to contest the case against the NAB Chairman, Deedar Hussain Shah. - ISLAMABAD: Chairman Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan challenged the appointment of Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Justice (Rtd) Deedar Hussain Shah in the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Saturday. Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) leader Chaudhry Nisar filed the petition through Advocate Akram Sheikh. The opposition leader stated in the petition that Deedar Hussain Shah should be immediately stopped from working as Chairman NAB. Chaudhry Nisar challenges NAB chief’s appointment in SC Saturday, 16 Oct, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-chaudhry-nisar-challenges-nab-chief-appointment-qs-09

Here is the History with video Documentaries on Mehran Bank Scandal and Record of Barrister Akram Sheikh.

Kamran Khan exposes Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Supports General Pervez Musharraf and Kamran Khan also separates Sindh's Capital Karachi from Sindh [Keep it up].

ISLAMABAD: Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has held the judiciary responsible for the present state of ‘confusion’ on the issue of fake degrees. Addressing a press conference here on Monday, Chaudhry Nisar whose party was in the forefront of the movement for restoration of deposed judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, also challenged the judiciary to take cognisance of the statement of MQM chief Altaf Hussain urging army generals to take “martial law-like action” against corrupt politicians. “You always remain in search of issues to take suo motu notices. Now take action because a person has openly talked about abrogation of the Constitution in broad daylight,” the PML-N leader said, seemingly unhappy with the judiciary for some reasons as he did not explain under which law the judiciary could initiate such an action merely on the basis of a statement. REFERENCE: Nisar blames judiciary for fake degree chaos By Amir Wasim Tuesday, 24 Aug, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/nisar-blames-judiciary-for-fake-degree-chaos-480

Why do we forget that Lawyers Movement was basically a game to ease out Pakistan Army from the mess which was the creation General Pervez Musharraf and Military Establishment. CJ basically attained a lot from 2000 to 2007 [March to be precise]. I wonder how an Incommunicado CJ was issuing statement often published in The New York Times/Washington Post “during his days in Bastille” - [I still fail to understand that when CJ was sacked in March 2007, he and the press said the CJ is under house arrest and held incommunicado whereas the very next day Air Marshal [R] Asgher Khan “successfully” met him As per Daily Dawn dated March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428

"ISLAMABAD, March 11: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has demanded that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should hold open proceedings on the reference against him sent by President Gen Pervez Musharraf. This was stated by seasoned politician Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan after a meeting with Justice Chaudhry here on Sunday. The demand made by the suspended chief justice indicates that he is not ready to resign and is determined to contest the allegations levelled against him. - But one day earlier the CJ was held incommunicado - “There is no other way to describe the situation as no one is being allowed to meet him,” he said after police officials stopped him and other lawyers from going inside the chief justice’s residence. REFERENCES: Justice Iftikhar seeks open SJC proceedings: Asghar By Iftikhar A. Khan March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/2007/03/12/top1.htm CJ held incommunicado; lawyers slam ‘arrest’ By Nasir Iqbal http://archives.dawn.com/2007/03/11/top1.htm


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

If he was held incommunicado then how the hell Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan [a key Musharraf adversary] succeeded to meet with Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry? These Four artciles from Daily Jang and text after that will further expose the filthy character of General Retd. Chisti, General Retd Aslam Beg, Air Marshal Retd. Asgher Khan, General Retd Asad Durrani and last but not the least the Mother of All Trouble General Retd. Hamid Gul [after committing every crime mentioned in the book against innocent Pakistanis is now itching for Non-Sense Islamic revolution. REFERENCE: Cowasjee: Who can tolerate an independent judiciary? http://letusbuildpakistan.blogspot.com/2009/03/cowasjee-who-can-tolerate-independent.html

There was one person who was not seen but he and others were with CJ in all this AND now read what CJ had submitted in the court and also read as to how Ansar Abbasi is trying to save Kayani. [read every word of it]: Establishment VS Judiciary & Demented Pakistani Media. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-vs-judiciary-demented.html

Referring to the Zafar Ali Shah case, Barrister Ahsan recalled that the Supreme Court had prescribed limits not to touch the basic feature of the constitution because it was granting the right of amending the constitution on an emergency basis to a single person who was a dictator then. Articles 238 and 249 of the constitution also take away the right of the judiciary to strike down any constitutional amendment, he said, adding what the apex court could do on the petitions challenging the 18th Amendment was to suggest certain improvements after interpretation but not modifying it by itself. Barrister Ahsan accused the lawyers who used to appear before the Dogar court and PCO judges of advocating against the supremacy of the parliament, an accusation that was taken seriously by Advocate Akram Sheikh who alleged that Mr Ahsan had appeared for the independence of judiciary only once in his career by defending the chief justice against his suspension. Mr Ahsan appeared on behalf of the federal government in the 1996 Al-Jihad Trust case to oppose the independence of judiciary, said Mr Sheikh who is representing one of the petitioners who have challenged the 18th Amendment. Mr Ahsan also used to appear before the military courts, he alleged suggesting that he should not pelt stones while sitting inside a glass house. REFERENCE: Aitzaz, Akram spar over parliament By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 21 Apr, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/19-aitzaz,-akram-spar-over-parliament-140-hh-02

Mr. Mohd Akram Sheikh is a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan. He graduated with an LL.B from one of the most prestigious educational institutions: Foreman Christian College, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan in 1970. He subsequently attained postgraduate studies from Punjab University in 1972. To enhance his education, he then went to England and spent a year to complete his postgraduate studies at the Queens' Mary College, University of London, London. He started his legal career in 1973. Throughout his legal career, Mr. Sheikh has been involved in various critical cases which effected major changes in various areas of law such as Constitutional and Human Rights matters. He won the national and international admiration when he acted before the Supreme Court (1988-1990) in a famous case pertaining to "determination of the powers and relations between the Federal Government & the Province of the Punjab". He has introduced the provincial banking system, independent of the Federal regulatory system, which later resulted in the formation of one of the most successful banks, The Punjab Bank, Khyber Bank and other Banks. He has conducted the first case of floor crossing before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in (1989) and later, in 1993 acted as Senior Counsel in the famous case of "Dissolution of the National Assembly". Mr. Sheikh successfully challenged the establishment of Military Courts to try civilians on charges under anti terrorist laws in 1998 and has been a counsel in almost all landmark Constitutional cases. He has always been a very vocal Member of the Bar - fighting for Human Rights, rights of women and Independence of Judiciary. The "blind girl" (Safia Bibi) case conducted by him in 1983 which won him international acclaim. He has always been criticizing appointment of Judges on political basis and in violation of the principles of seniority and due to his very vocal criticism he has had to face contempt charges. REFERENCE: Profile:Barrister Akram Sheikh http://pakistanherald.com/Profile/Barrister-Akram-Sheikh-482

The Judges and Judiciary are quite fond of lecturing the Lawyers as to who should they plead or defend and who shoudn't be represented at all and while passing this most perverse comment the Judiciary conveniently forget that - "QUOTE" Whereas 1973 Constitution of Pakistan says; - nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Reference: 9. security of person. 10. Safeguards as to arrest and detention. PART II Fundamental Rights and Principles of Policy Chapter 1. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html "UNQUOTE" Recently the court also called Home Secretary. The court also scolded the Rasheed A Rizvi for pleading the case for Ahmed Riaz Sheikh. As per Daily Dawn - The court questioned Advocate Rasheed A. Razvi for pleading the case of Mr Sheikh while being the president of a bar association. The counsel replied that he strongly believed in the established principle that justice should not only be done but appear to have been done. REFERENCES: NAB chief to be jailed for defying court order: SC warns Updated at: 1245 PST, Monday, March 29, 2010 http://thenews.jang.com.pk/updates.asp?id=101739 SC irked by govt failure to implement NRO verdict By Nasir Iqbal Tuesday, 30 Mar, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/sc-irked-by-govt-failure-to-implement-nro-verdict-030 SC sends ex-FIA official to jail Updated at: 1358 PST, Tuesday, March 30, 2010 http://www.geo.tv/3-30-2010/61999.htm

No such question or rude remarks were passed against several Devil's Advocates like Qazi Anwar, Barrister Akram Sheikh, Athar Minallah [Former Spokesman of incumbet CJ na Former Minister of General Pervez Musharraf's Cabinet] Barrister Khalid Anwer [a Former Deputy of Notorious Martial Lawyers like Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, A. K. Brohi and last but not the least, the Maverick Abdul Hafeezz Pirzada??? Why this "Double Standard"????

Let me give a glimpse of Barrister Akram Sheikh [who is nowaday itching for the Supremacy of Judiciary over Parliament, Rule of Law, Constitution and bla bla bla] and one of his most Lethal and Valuable Client i.e. General [R] Mirza Aslam Beg who is involved in a worst kind of Corruption Scandal in Pakistan i.e. Mehran Bank Scandal. 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???? Read what General [R] Mirza Aslam Beg had to say about the Judiciary and Barrister Akram Sheikh was representing him.


ISLAMABAD, Feb. 24: Former army chief Gen Aslam Beg told the Supreme Court that he was not answerable to it regarding his actions as the chief of army staff and the sitting COAS is the only competent and proper person to look into the allegations or take action. He made this statement after the issuance of notice by the Supreme Court on the petition of Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan. The former air chief had filed a petition against the former COAS alleging that he had drawn Rs150 million from the Mehran Bank and had distributed the amount to different politicians before the 1990 elections. When the hearing started on Monday, Deputy Attorney-General Mumtaz Ahmed Mirza placed a certificate from the secretary ministry of defence stating that the ISI had not received any money. The counsel for Gen Beg, Mohammad Akram Shaikh, demanded that Gen (retd) Asad Durrani and General (retd) Naseerullah Babar should be summoned to the court for recording their statements. The three-member bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan and Justice Bashir Jehangiri, adjourned the hearing of the case till March 26. REFERENCE: Beg says he is not answerable to court Staff Correspondent DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 01 March 1997 Issue:03/09 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/01Mar97.html

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif – 6th January 2008 http://www.sharifpost.com/2008/01/06/dawn-news-tv-investigation-report/

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

Barrister Akram Sheikh provided his "services" to a Corrupt Ex-Army Chief of Pakistan i.e. General [R] Mirza Aslam Beg who was least bothered about the "Honour and Respect of Judiciary, another glimpse,


Former Army Chief General Mirza Aslam Beg in an interview on February 04, 1993 admitted that he had sent an emissary, then senate chairman Wasim Sajjad to the Supreme Court to warn the justices not to restore the national assembly. Two weeks later, Supreme Court charged General Beg with contempt of court. Beg met with army Chief Abdul Waheed Kakar and later appeared defiantly in the court and many witnesses ridiculed the judges. Supreme Court could not handle the fallout from its confrontation with even a retired army chief. Court finally convicted him of contempt but strangely did not give any judgment about the sentence. The same court even overturned its own decision after an appeal was filed. After a year of half hearted measures, on January 09, 1994 the court dropped all proceedings against general Beg. REFERENCE: Judicial Jitters in Pakistan – A Historical Overview Hamid Hussain Defence Journal, June 2007 http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007/05/judicial-jitters-in-pakistan-scholarly.html

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif – 6th January 2008 http://www.sharifpost.com/2008/01/06/dawn-news-tv-investigation-report/

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHVNIat-MGA&feature=related

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'.

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif – 6th January 2008 http://www.sharifpost.com/2008/01/06/dawn-news-tv-investigation-report/

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhdnSMezs1Y&feature=related

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:

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif – 6th January 2008 http://www.sharifpost.com/2008/01/06/dawn-news-tv-investigation-report/

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Xs3neyK10&feature=related

"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)"]

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif

DAWN News TV Investigation Report with Masood Sharif – 6th January 2008 http://www.sharifpost.com/2008/01/06/dawn-news-tv-investigation-report/

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX0ThVFgSlg&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



The petitioner, Asghar Khan, requested that Beg, Durrani and Younus Habib of Habib and Mehran Banks be named as respondents. The ISI requested that the hearing be in camera and the court agreed to the request in so far as proceedings regarding the legal position of the ISI were concerned. Hearings commenced in February 1997 and continued through the year. On November 6, the statements of Babar and Durrani were to be recorded, and Justice Shah recounts how his court was faced with the awkward question as to the law under which the ISI and its political cell had been set up. Beg's counsel, the weighty Akram Shaikh, after fulsome praise of the agency and its great achievements - greater than those of RAW, the KGB or MI-5 - explained how the political cell had been established in 1975 under the orders of the then prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The court asked the attorney general (Nawaz's lawyer Chaudhry Mohammed Farooq) to provide the relevant documentation as to the scope of the activities of the political cell and to clarify whether, under the law, part of its duties was to distribute funds for the purpose of rigging elections. The AG, of course, wriggled out of that one by stating that the matter was of such a 'sensitive' and 'delicate' nature that it could not be heard in open court. Asghar Khan's lawyer, Habibul Wahabul Khairi, countered by saying that as the entire matter had been aired in the press, with all the names involved fully listed, there was little left to warrant in camera proceedings, and besides, the people had every right to know how their money had been used and whether the use in question was permitted by law. The court, however, allowed the recording of Babar's and Durrani's statements and their cross-examination to be held in camera, which were done on November 19 and 20. That was the last hearing of this important case. Eight days later, on November 28, 1997, the Supreme Court was stormed by men of the government of Nawaz Sharif. A group of judges of the Supreme Court (whose intention for some months had been to oust Sajjad Ali Shah) via a series of orders issued by the Peshawar and Quetta benches forced him to step down as chief justice. Sajjad went on leave prior to retirement and Justice Ajmal Mian took his place. REFERENCE: We never learn from history - 5 By Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 31 August 2002 Issue:08/35 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2002/aug312002.html

Barrister Akram Sheikh used to support Notorious 8th Amendment [introduce by a Military Dictator General Zia in 1973 Constitution of Pakistan]


LAHORE, Nov. 21: Parliament has no power to summon any member of the superior judiciary, including the chief justice, for any reason or purpose under the Constitution of Pakistan, Supreme Court Bar Association outgoing President Muhammad Akram Sheikh said. Talking to Dawn on his return from Islamabad after a week of eventful Supreme Court proceedings, he said the position was entirely different under the Indian Constitution, which empowers parliament to impeach superior court judges. A judge guilty of misconduct in the eyes of the government in Pakistan can only be dealt with under Article 209, which provides for inquiry and adjudication by the Supreme Judicial Council. There is no corresponding provision in the Indian Constitution. But Indian parliament has used its power to impeach the superior court judges sparingly, probably only once. It was not exercised when Mrs. Indira Gandhi was unseated, or when certain constitutional amendments protecting her were declared ultra vires for being repugnant to the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, or even when corruption cases were started against leading parliamentarians. Mr. Akram Sheikh, who is appearing as amicus curiae in the contempt case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, said Article 68 is quite categorical in prohibiting Parliament from even discussing the conduct of any judge. How can it summon a judge when it cannot even discuss his conduct in his absence.

IMPEACHMENT MOVE: Mr. Akram Sheikh said the Supreme Court can stay an impeachment move against the president if it has no nexus with the grounds mentioned in the Constitution for the president's removal — incapacity or gross misconduct.

As in case of the repealed Article 58 (2) (b) envisaging the National Assembly dissolution by the president if the constitutional machinery breaks down, the superior courts can assume jurisdiction to examine whether the grounds mentioned in an impeachment notice or resolution have any nexus with the grounds mentioned in Article 47 of the Constitution, he said. Mr. Akram Sheikh affirmed that he always supported Article 58 (2) (b) and most other provisions of the Eighth Amendment as they provided for a system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court also upheld them as being in accord with the salient features of the Constitution — Islam, democracy and federal parliamentary system. About the Supreme Court restraint order to the president, who has power to consider and return a questionable bill adopted by parliament within 30 days, Mr. Akram Sheikh said the court can intervene when a matter is patently outside the legislative competence of parliament. It is better to nip an illegality in the bud rather than waiting for it to mature before striking it down. REFERENCE: Parliament cannot summon CJ: Akram By Shujaat Ali Khan DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:22 November 1997 Issue:03/47 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/22Nov97.html#parl

Barrister Akram Sheikh also loves "Boxing" with PML - NAWAZ GROUP.


ISLAMABAD, Nov. 18: Exchange of hot words between Privatization Commission Chairman Khwaja Mohammad Asif, PTV Managing Director Sen Pervaiz Rashid and Advocate Akram Sheikh led to a scuffle in the precincts of the Supreme Court when the contempt case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his colleagues came up before the court for hearing. It all began with an exchange of light taunts between the old buddies when in the heat of the moment their tempers snapped and they started hurling abuses at each other. Khwaja Asif gave two punches on Akram Sheikh's face. This left a scar on his face. "Take the picture", a baffled Akram Sheikh shouted at a photographer standing nearby. Some lawyers intervened and saved Akram Sheikh, who later raised the issue inside the court and narrated the whole story. He said he had invited Khwaja Asif and others to join him at tea. Akram Sheikh said he called Khwaja Asif a corrupt banker and also admitted to hurling an obscenity. He said he had decided not to lodged any formal complaint with the police. He, however, called upon the Chief Justice to take note of the violation of the sanctity of court. REFERENCE: Scuffle breaks out in Supreme Court precincts DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:22 November 1997 Issue:03/47 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/22Nov97.html

Swinging Mood of Barrister Akram Sheikh:)))


ISLAMABAD, April 18: Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid took oath as a permanent judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah described the event as a step towards the implementation of the SC verdict. The President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Akram Sheikh, a Muslim League lawyer, termed the appointment of Justice Nasir Aslam to the Supreme Court illegal, asserting that being the most senior judge he should have been appointed chief justice of the Sindh High Court under the SC judgement instead of Justice Mamoon Qazi. When his attention was drawn to a reported statement by Akram Sheikh alleging that the government was pressuring him for an agreement and to administer the oath to the newly-appointed judge, he said: Neither there has been any agreement nor I am the kind of a person who can be pressured. Asked whether the appointment of Justice Mamoon Kazi as the SHC chief justice was in line with the Supreme Court decision verdict, he said the appointment was all right as Justice Nasir Aslam had taken oath as a permanent judge of the apex court. Justice Sajjad Ali said the next step in the implementation of the apex courts judgement would be regularisation of the ad hoc judges in the High courts. REFERENCE: Nasir Aslam sworn in CJ denies any govt pressure Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 25 April 1996 Issue:02/17 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1996/25Ap96.html

LAHORE, Jan 23: Chief Ehtesab Commissioner Justice Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza heard submissions from two senior counsels about which records should be summoned from which departments in references against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Ehtesab Bureau Chairman Senator Saifur Rehman and others. Advocates Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Sharif Husain Bukhari said the references should be referred for investigation to an agency, which was not under the direct or indirect influence of the Prime Minister and the Punjab chief minister. In their opinion, Military Intelligence or the Federal ombudsman could be entrusted with the investigations, and the CEC was fully competent to call for its assistance. Akram Sheikh presented the case of the development of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's Raiwind farms (Jati Umra) at a cost of Rs630 million to Rs700 million of the public money. Mr Sheikh pointed out that because of the development of the area, its value had gone up to Rs600,000 to 700,000 a kanal while once it was possible to purchase a square of land for that Price. "The development of the area (at the public expense) has caused the nation a fortune, and it has made a fortune for a few individuals (of the ruling family)", Mr Sheikh said. REFERENCE: Independent agency should investigate, say counsel By Ashraf Mumtaz DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:30 January 1999 Issue:05/05 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/30Jan99.html

Barrister Akram Sheikh is also confused, in the Past and nowadays as well on Nataional Accountability Bureau.


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

He criticized the bad governance of the present government and said that all the problems could be resolved through good governance and by implementing the decisions of the courts but unfortunately current government is trying to use the Army chief against the courts. He said: “Army Chief General Kayani himself is not a controversial person but his recent meeting with Asif Ali Zardari and PM Yusuf Raza Gilani in President House was controversial because I think government tried to undermine Supreme Court through this meeting.” Responding to a question, he conceded that governance in Punjab also needed a lot of improvement. He said that cases registered against Asif Ali Zadari in late 90’s by the government of Nawaz Sharif were not baseless and he still thinks that there was a lot of truth in allegations levelled by former Senator Saifur Rehman against Zardari. He said that his party never confessed that cases against Zardari were not true. When Hamid Mir informed Nisar that he was a witness when Saifur Rehman apologized to Zardari for making fake cases against him, Nisar said that a few months back Saifur Rehman had contradicted that he had ever apologized to Zardari. REFERENCE: News Desk Intelligence agencies active again against politicians, judiciary, media Thursday, September 30, 2010 Shawwal 20, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/30-09-2010/Top-Story/976.htm

Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan also lie very shamelessly because his very own leader Nawaz Sharif said that cases were fabricated.

It is unfortunate that cases sans evidence were instituted during his tenure, but it is heartening that he (Nawaz Sharif) has revealed the truth without any fear or reluctance. Just have a look at some other words of Nawaz Sharif in the same interview. Sharif says: “I was not in favour of arresting Benazir Bhutto, but Saifur Rehman would insist upon her arrest. Ch Shujaat Hussain is witness to this fact that I wanted Benazir Bhutto to go abroad before being sentenced. In fact, I never wanted her to go to jail.” REFERENCES: Ghaddar Kaun? Author: Sohail Warraich – Nawaz Sharif opens up to Sohail Warraich in a big way READ THE BOOK sohail waraich – ghaddar kaun http://www.scribd.com/doc/2411542/sohail-waraich-ghaddar-kaun

http://www.dukandar.com/ghaddarkaun.html

ISLAMABAD: In another strange move, the PPP-led government has appointment Justice (Retd.) Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Geo News reported Friday. The decision was made at a consultative meeting chaired by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani here. Sources told Geo News that the meeting was by Federal Minister for Law and Justice Babar Awan and some other members of the federal cabinet. The meeting agreed to appoint Justice (Retd.) Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman NAB before the expiry of the period allowed for the purpose by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. According to sources, President Asif Ali Zardari has signed the summary proposing the appointment of Justice (Retd.) Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman NAB. The notification in this regard will be issued by tonight or tomorrow. Opposition leader in National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar had already rejected the name of Deedar Hussain Shah for the position of NAB Chief. Chaudhry Nisar referred to Deedar Hussain Shah’s election as MNA on PPP ticket in the past, thus, considering the latter ineligible for the position of Chairman NAB. The meeting Chaired by the Prime Minister also said that a strategy is all set to deal with the complications that might arise as a result of his appointment. The decision is bound to trigger fierce debate and controversy, as the government has apparently failed to engage the opposition in the process of consultation prior to the appointment of Chairman NAB, which has been made mandatory through the passage of 18th amendment bill. Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Pervez Rasheed talking to Geo News said in reaction to the latest development that the opposition leaders were not taken onboard in the decision of the appointment of Justice (Retd.) Syed Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman NAB. “We had no knowledge whatsoever in this regard, so it is going to be difficult for us to accept this decision,” he said. REFERENCE: S Deedar Hussain appointed Chairman NAB Updated at: 1758 PST, Friday, October 08, 2010 http://www.geo.tv/10-8-2010/72585.htm

Rafiq Tarar [PML-N and Former President of Pakistan] appointed “Syed Deedar Hussain Shah” - Deedar Hussain Shah also “enjoyed” the Company of CJ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudry:) ISLAMABAD, April 25: President Mohammad Rafiq Tarar on Tuesday appointed five judges to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. With the appointment of these judges, the strength of the Supreme Court judges, i.e. 17, stands completed. The newly-appointed judges include Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal, Chief Justice, Peshawar High Court; Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh; Justice Javed Iqbal, Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan; Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, judge, High Court of Sindh and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, judge, High Court of Sindh. These judges have been appointed to the SC from the date they respectively take upon themselves the execution of their offices as such judges. Following are the names of the judges of the Supreme Court according to their seniority: 1. Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, Chief Justice of Pakistan, 2. Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri, 3. Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar, 4. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed, 5. Justice Ch. Mohammad Arif, 6. Justice Munir A. Sheikh, 7. Justice Abdul Rehman Khan 8. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan, 9. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqi, 10. Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, 11. Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, 12. Justice Rana Bhagwan Das, 13. Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal, 14. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, 15. Justice Javed Iqbal, 16. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, 17. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.-APP - ISLAMABAD, Feb 2: The government elevated five judges to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. According to a notification, the president has appointed Justice Rashid Aziz, Chief Justice, Lahore High Court; Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Chief Justice Sindh High Court; Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice, Balochistan High Court; Qazi Farooq, former chief justice of Peshawar High Court; and Justice Rana Bhagwan Das, judge, Sindh High Court, judges of the Supreme Court. After the elevation of Justice Rashid Aziz Khan to the SC, Justice Mohammad Allah Nawaz has been appointed Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah has been appointed Chief Justice of Sindh High Court and Justice Javed Iqbal Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court. After these appointments, the number of SC judges has risen to 12, leaving five posts vacant. REFERENCE: Supreme Court judges’ strength completed Week Ending : 29 April 2000 Issue : 06/18 DAWN WIRE SERVICE http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/apr29.html Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:5 February 2000 Issue:06/05 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/05feb00.html#five

DG IB IQBAL NIAZI 1





http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1101006456&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20100723



Thursday, July 22, 2010, Shaban 09, 1431 A.H
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jul2010-daily/22-07-2010/u39505.htm

KARACHI, May 31: The Sindh High Court on Thursday acquitted all the nine accused in the Hakim Said murder case, setting aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to them by an anti-terrorism court on June 4, 1999. While allowing the appeals against conviction and sentence, the anti-terrorism appellate bench, comprising Justice Ghulam Nabi Soomro and Justice Ataur Rahman, held in its short order that the "appellants are acquitted and should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case". REFERENCE: Sindh High Court acquits all accused in Said murder case By Shamim-ur-Rahman 01 June 2001 Friday 08 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1422 http://web.archive.org/web/20010621211223/www.dawn.com/2001/06/01/top6.htm

MR. NAWAZ SHARIF AND ACCOUNTABILITY

A number of incidents during 1998-99 indicated a pattern of harassment and intimidation of individual journalists as the government was increasingly becoming intolerant. Imtiaz Alam, a Lahore-based journalist, complains of threat over the telephone and then of his car being set on fire in a mysterious manner the other day. Another Lahore journalist, Mahmud Lodhi, is picked up and held in illegal custody for two days. He was questioned about his involvement with a BBC team filming a documentary on the rise and wealth of the Sharif family. Hussain Haqqani is picked up in a cloak-and-dagger fashion and interrogated at a FIA Center in connection with charges vaguely to do with money embezzlement while he held government office. The residence of Idrees Bakhtiar, a senior staff reporter of Herald monthly and BBC correspondent in Karachi was raided by CIA police on Nov. 26,1998. REFERENCE: The Hegemony of the Ruling Elite in Pakistan (2000) by Mr. Abdus Sattar Ghazali CHAPTER: NAWAZ SHARIF'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PRESS http://www.ghazali.net/book3/ch7/ch7p3/ch7p3.html

DG IB IQBAL NIAZI 2


DG IB IQBAL NIAZI 3

KARACHI: Barring two brief stints under Major General (retd) Enayet Niazi and Khawar Zaman, the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) played second fiddle to former Ehtesab Czar Senator Saif-ur-Rahman in covert operations during which numerous respectable citizens were kidnapped, tortured and placed under illegal detention, an exercise never witnessed before in the country. Officials and business sources informed the News Intelligence Unit (NIU) that Saif-ur-Rahman operated mostly through a select group of FIA officials who danced to his tunes when Mian Mohammad Amin, Chaudhry Iftikhar Ali and Major (retd) Mohammad Mushtaq were heading the FIA. Major General Enayet Niazi and Khawar Zaman had, however, resisted Saif's attempt to use the FIA for illegal activities, a position that triggered their sudden transfer from the job.

These sources believed that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had first-hand information about Saif's involvement in the kidnapping of some of the very reputed citizens as he ignored strong complaints against this nasty operation even from his cabinet colleagues. For instance when the FIA sleuths kidnapped Farooq Hasan, owner of Hasan Associates, a renowned builder and developer of Karachi last year and locked him at a Saif-run safe house in Islamabad, former federal minister Halim Siddiqi had rushed to Nawaz Sharif to inform him about Saif's involvement in the kidnapping of a well-known Karachi businessman. Halim Siddiqi's pleas both to Sharif and Saif went unheeded as Hasan had to stay for about a week in Saif's dungeon and was only released when he signed a confessional statement that had been prepared by Saif's lieutenant at the Ehtesab Cell. Saif prepared confessional statement for Farooq Hasan relating to dealings of AES power plant with the Benazir government.

Throughout his confinement Hasan was physically abused, mentally tortured and was not allowed to sleep. Sources said during his arrest Hasan was also kept and interrogated at Saif's personal residence in Islamabad. Jamil Ansari, the Chief Executive of a famous trading and business group in Karachi, was kidnapped last year by the FIA while he was about to board a Karachi-bound flight from Islamabad. For the next four days Ansari's family in Karachi had no knowledge of his whereabouts. The case was soon brought to the knowledge of Nawaz Sharif, who conveniently ignored protest from an associate who thought that such daylight kidnappings of the business luminaries without any charges would bring the PML government into disrepute. Sources said that for more than a week, Ansari, a businessman, was questioned for his friendship with a ranking naval official. This week-long illegal detention under Saif's orders of the chief executive of a reputed firm had sent a shock wave in Karachi's mercantile community, but the Nawaz Sharif administration was not bothered.

DG IB IQBAL NIAZI 4


The FIA was also involved in the kidnapping of Shahzad Sherry, a well-known international banker, from Karachi. Like other victims, Sherry was also swiftly shifted to Islamabad, where he was locked at a government-run safe house. For several days Sherry was kept in illegal confinement and questioned by the former Ehtesab Bureau stalwarts including Senator Saif-ur-Rahman. Sherry was apparently also paying price for his friendship with certain naval officials. His detention also continued for several days before being released without bringing any criminal charges against him. Karachi-based Jamil Hamdani, another representative of an international bank, was kidnapped from his house in Defence Society Karachi last month and was forced to board an Islamabad-bound flight for an urgent meeting with Saif-ur-Rahman and his team. Sources said that Saif pointedly informed Hamdani about his disliking for his bank's interest in the privatisation of Habib Bank Limited. Jamil Hamdani was believed to be working on an international consortium that was interested in the management of overseas operations of Habib Bank. No apologies were offered after Hamdani was set free three days later by the Ehtesab sleuths who also warned him not to talk to the press about his ordeal. Saif's frenzy to get private citizens abducted through the FIA touched its peak last year when he used the federal agency to kidnap Arif Zarwani, a UAE national and a reputed businessman, from his friend's house in Defence Society Karachi. Zarwani, who had been arrested in an FIA-cum-police raid, was quickly flown to Islamabad, where he was handed over to Wasim Afzal, a close associate of Saif-ur-Rahman. The Ehtesab action created a stir in the UAE as Nawaz Sharif was personally told that Zarwani's kidnapping in Karachi had endangered his official visit next day to the UAE. Zarwani, who was apparently picked up for his ties with Asif Zardari, was freed from the Ehtesab clutches, two days later, only after he was forced to listen to a telephonic sermon from Saif who was then touring Europe.

DG IB IQBAL NIAZI 5


No reasons were given for Arif Zarwani's arrest nor any criminal charges were brought against him. Despite an official protest from the UAE Nawaz Sharif did not question Saif or the FIA for the kidnapping of a foreign national. In another case Ghulam Mustafa Memon, a well-known petroleum dealer and a former friend of Asif Ali Zardari, was kidnapped in an FIA action from his house in Defence Society, Karachi last year. During the operation the FIA sleuths ransacked his house. Memon, like other victims, was quickly flown to Islamabad where he was kept at a safe house for about a week. Mustafa Memon said that during the detention, he went through severe physical torture and mental harassment at the hands of senior Ehtesab officials including Khalid Aziz. At least a week later Mustafa was quietly released from Islamabad and no criminal charges were brought against him. Among others who made the hostage list of Saif-ur-Rahman was Naeemuddin Khan, a senior United Bank Limited (UBL) executive responsible for recovering Rs 1.2 billion loans from Saif-ur-Rahman's Redco Textile Mills. While using the FIA in the kidnapping of Naeemuddin Khan from his room at Karachi's Pearl Continental Hotel, Senator Saif is understood to have told the FIA that Naeemuddin was involved in money laundering. Without verifying the facts an FIA team barged into Naeemuddin's room in August this year and in the next few hours he was facing a Saif-ur-Rahman interrogation squad at an unspecified location in Islamabad.

Naeemuddin's ordeal ended after Nawaz Sharif listened to a strong complaint in this regard from National Assembly Speaker Illahi Bukhsh Soomro and ordered the bank executive's release. Sharif, however, refused to order any probe into the kidnapping of a bank executive who was being punished for his attempt to recover Rs 1.2 billion of loan from Saif-ur-Rahman. The Naeemuddin Khan episode also unveiled that Saif was using the Intelligence Bureau also to settle personal scores. Informed officials said that before being picked up by the FIA, Naeemuddin Khan was constantly followed by the IB agents while his personal and official phone was tapped for several months. The recording of his secret taping was provided to Saif-ur-Rahman. It is no more a secret that leading newspaper columnist and politician Hussain Haqqani had been kidnapped by the FIA sleuths along with his brother, an active service Army Colonel, during an evening stroll on direct orders from Saif-ur-Rahman early this year. Official sources said that it was at least three days after Haqqani's kidnapping that Saif-ur-Rahman ordered the FIA bosses to "produce" a case against him. Official sources confirmed Haqqani's account that he was beaten and kept awake during the first week of his arrest. Haqqani is of the few Saif victims whose captivity brought criminal charges, vehemently denied by Haqqani who said that the cases against him was the figment of Saif's imagination. The only Saif-sponsored kidnapping that did not have any FIA role was that of Najam Sethi, Editor, Friday Times. Sethi, who apparently served the longest term of illegal captivity, had been dragged out of his Lahore house by the Intelligence Bureau officials who later handed him over to the ISI, that kept him at one of its safe houses in Islamabad for about three weeks. Like all Saif-ordered kidnappings of various reputed citizens, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had fully supported the unlawful arrest of Najam Sethi, as it was later discovered that Sharif had personally asked Lt Gen Khawaja Ziauddin to keep Sethi in ISI custody. REFERENCE How FIA kidnapped notables to please Saif-ur-Rahman DAWN/The News International, KARACHI 6 November 1999, Saturday 27 Rajab ul Murajjab 1420 [INTERNET LINK IS DEAD]

"UNQUOTE"

The Pen Is Mightier... Pakistan's press is certainly freer than before though it labours under the shadow of the government.NAJAM SETHI MAGAZINE FEB 22, 1999 NAWAZ Sharif has never liked the press. He once said newspapers only cause trouble. When he was prime minister the last time (1990-93), he had a short fuse and gave the press a hard time. Numerous cases of vandalism by ruling party thugs against newspapers and journalists were reported across the country. Takbeer magazine's offices in Karachi were burnt down. A sedition case was lodged against the editor of The News in Islamabad for publishing a poem in the letters column which Sharif didn't like. And so on. I had a particularly nasty experience in 1992-93 because, apart from the investigative stories of corruption in government, Sharif didn't warm to a weekly satirical column about him in my paper. Armed thugs were sent to rough me up but I escaped their clutches. I was advised my safety couldn't be guaranteed if some ruling party loyalists decided to bomb my office. Income tax notices flew thick and fast. Anonymous phone-callers abused my wife and threatened rape and kidnapping. My paper survived only because Sharif was booted out of power a couple of months later. Pakistani politicians like Sharif who are originally products of martial law have a special love-hate relationship with the press. They adore it when in opposition and abhor it when in power. Their problem is that they cannot come to terms with a Pakistani press which has come to savour and guard its independence after forty years of censorship under various authoritarian regimes.

Pakistan's press is certainly freer today than ever before. But it continues to labour under the shadow of the government. One, the government controls the bread and butter of newspapers newsprint imports are banned except for the press but the government retains a tight grip over newsprint quota. Two, as the government is one of the biggest sources of advertising, the press can't afford to shrug off its main source of revenue. Three, the government can use its vast coercive apparatus to browbeat the press or muzzle it if it remains unrepentant. In the final analysis, therefore, the press in Pakistan is free only to the extent that the government in power respects the rules of democracy or the judiciary, as the custodian of fundamental rights in the last resort, is strong enough to resist encroachments on democracy. If the government is authoritarian and the judiciary weak or divided, the press is a prime target for repression.

Some of us have been shrieking murder since Sharif assaulted, divided and weakened the judiciary in 1997. With the judiciary out of the way, we reasoned, it was only a matter of time before the press would come under Sharif's heel. The worst has now come to pass. The Jang group of newspapers has become the focus of Sharif's unmitigated wrath. By lashing out at the largest media group, Sharif is sending a stern warning to the small fry. The siege of the Jang group is unprecedentedly vicious. Its bank accounts have been frozen, newsprint godowns sealed, hawkers harassed, journalists threatened, stiff income tax notices served and sedition cases lodged against three editors. All that remains is for the group's newspapers to cease publication, its owners to be arrested and its journalists packed off. The confrontation began like this.

A column by Irshad Haqqani, Lahore Jang editor, kicked up a veritable storm in Islamabad in July 1998. Haqqani wrote advisedly about the need to revamp the government's ad-hoc decision-making system and suggested the army might have a small but positive role to play in it within the parameters of the democratic system. Islamabad reacted angrily by freezing ads to the Jang group. Then came the proverbial straw which broke the government's back. In October, army chief Gen. Jehangir Karamat suggested a National Security Council to tackle the country's mounting difficulties. The Jang group ordered a telephonic survey of public opinion: an overwhelming majority were all for the proposal. Two days later, Karamat was sacked. On the third day, Sharif stood before the national assembly and blasted those who wanted to derail democracy. And ordered senator Saif-ur Rahman, a loyalist who runs the controversial Accountability Bureau, to teach them a lesson. Jang was number one on the good senator's hitlist.

We know the rest, thanks to the charming indiscretions of the senator, who was taped by the owner-editor of the Jang group, Mir Shakilur Rehman, when he brandished the threats. Among other demands, the government wants the Jang group to fire 16 top editors and reporters. Where does the press, and in particular the Jang group, go from here? Forward. There is no choice. Here was an Urdu newspaper whose editorial comment pages were often conspicuously tilted, as a matter of policy, in favour of the government. Indeed, a number of highly paid hacks blindly loyal to Sharif were put on its payrolls expressly to keep Islamabad happy. Yet it fell foul of an autocratic regime when it tried to steer a marginally less devoted path. Imagine what might happen to a more outspoken paper (like mine) if the Jang group were to bite the dust. Saif-ur Rahman claims he is only going after tax dodgers, not impinging on press freedom. This is a hollow, self-righteous claim.

BBC Documentary on Nawaz Sharif (PML - N) Corruption


The biggest tax dodger and loan defaulter is the senator's boss, followed by scores of fellow compatriots in the national assembly, including industrial robber-barons and feudal landlords who have scooted away with Rs 200 billion in public money, without as much as a scratch on their backs. The press is in for a rough time. It would do well to remember a fact of life. Governments are fated to come and go but the press is destined to go on forever. ( The author is editor of 'The Friday Times', a Lahore-based weekly ). REFERENCE: The Pen Is Mightier... Pakistan's press is certainly freer than before though it labours under the shadow of the government. NAJAM SETHI MAGAZINE FEB 22, 1999 http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?207042

"UNQUOTE"


"QUOTE"

EHTESAB (ACCOUNTABILITY)

Absolute power has corrupted our rulers absolutely. They have had their way since the demise of the Quaid-i-Azam. Corruption is a universal weakness and is hardly confined to Pakistan. But, whereas in other countries it is abhorred and severely proscribed and punished, we have allowed corruption to thrive and spread with total impunity. Today, it has pervaded the whole structure of our society, not excluding politicians, bureaucrats and even some sections of the army.[1] Rampant corruption has now reached its peak and has engulfed every segment of the society. Successive governments always made vocal claims and hollow promises to weed it out. But it all sounds false, as all these people were themselves involved in all types of corrupt practices. Pakistan's credit-rating has been lowered by several foreign agencies, and it has been labeled as the third most corrupt country in the world by Transparency International. However, our rulers believe that corruption is a necessary evil in the developing countries that provides incentive for developments.[2]

Corruption has been a perennial charge against all outgoing regimes and its eradication has been on the top of the agenda of all successive regimes. Unfortunately, the ground realities have only worsened in our country despite tall claims and promulgation of a heap of laws to arrest and contain corruption. It's not been the inadequacy of the laws but the failure to implement them, as well as the erroneous approach to contain corruption, which has thwarted every such attempt in the past 52 years.

The first statute, commonly known as PRODA, was enforced by the first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, in 1949. Later, General Ayub Khan, as chief martial law administrator, promulgated PODO in March 1959 which was then substituted by EBDO in August 1959. Under the government of prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Holders of Representative Offices Act and the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Act were passed in 1976. But no case was registered under these two acts which were later repealed by General Ziaul Haq who instead issued two presidential orders, commonly known as PPO No16 and PPO No17 (1977).

In September/October 1996 the then opposition under the leadership of Mian Nawaz Sharif and the then government of prime minister Benazir Bhutto tabled in Parliament their respective bills on accountability. These bills lapsed with the dissolution of the National Assembly. The caretaker government of Malik Meraj Khalid had promulgated the Ehtesab Ordinance (1996) which was replaced by a new act of parliament called the Ehtesab Act (1997). Even this Ehtesab Act was subsequently amended repeatedly by Nawaz Sharif through ordinances. The general elections in 1997 were held on the basis of the laws whereby defaulters of loans and utility bills were disqualified and every candidate was required to submit declaration of his assets not only at the time of election but also every year after becoming members of parliament. The Nawaz Sharif regime had deliberately allowed this law to lapse as it was made through an ordinance.

Since the tenure of the first prime minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, across-the-board accountability has remained the unanimous demand of all sections of the public and, after the dismissal of the Sharif government on October 12, 1999, it was once again a burning issue. Ironically, despite unanimity on this issue, the mode, manner, period and extent of the accountability to be undertaken has never been resolved decisively. In Pakistan, the word ‘accountability’ has only one meaning: to malign and persecute political opponents.

Ehtesab (Accountability) Law

The National Assembly, on May 29, 1997, amended the Ehtesab Ordinance to introduce major changes in the accountability process. The most significant amendment was the shifting of the starting date for accountability from the original 31st December, 1985 (when General Zia lifted the martial law) to 6th August, 1990 (when the first government of Benazir Bhutto was dismissed). The amendment also transferred the power of investigating charges of corruption from the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner to the Ehtesab Cell set up by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Although the amendment excluded the first Benazir government from the purview of accountability but the exemption for the 1985-90 period is significant since it was during this period that Mr. Nawaz Sharif, in his capacity as the Chief Minister of the Punjab, was strengthening and consolidating his industrial and political base. At the time of passage of the Ehtesab Law, there were reports that there were 167 cases of major loan default which include 107 cases involving top leaders of the PML(N) who got the benefit of huge write-offs and rescheduling during 1985-1990.

The transfer of the power of appointment of the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner from the president to the federal government reduced the office of the CEC to a mere post office. The real power was transferred to the accountability cell in the Prime Minister's secretariat. The head of the Cell, Senator Saifur Rehman Khan, was accountable only to the PM. The amendment also extended ex post facto legal sanction to the PM's accountability cell, which was under attack in a number of writ petitions in the Lahore High Court.

The original ordinance had empowered the CEC to initiate a case on a reference received from the appropriate government, on receipt of a complaint or on his own accord. Under the new amended law, if the CEC deems a reference necessary, he must refer it to the accountability cell for investigation. With all the accountability functions and powers concentrated in a cell functioning in his secretariat, the prime minister was able to keep a strict check not only on the opposition and the bureaucracy but on his own party-men also.

Ehtesab officials get SHO's power

The federal government, on Feb. 4 1998, amended the Ehtesab Act, replacing the name, "Ehtesab Cell", with "Ehtesab Bureau", and provided powers of an SHO to the chief of Ehtesab Bureau or any other official designated by him for the purpose of investigation. The amendments were introduced into the Ehtesab Act through a presidential ordinance, the first by President Rafiq Tarar.

The chief of Ehtesab Bureau or any officer designated by him enjoyed all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station. The chairman or designated officer were empowered to require the assistance of any agency or police officer. The amended law provided indemnity to officials of the Ehtesab Bureau on acts deemed to have been done on "good faith".

By amending Section 3 of the Ehtesab Act, the government had again brought in the original definition of "corruption and corrupt practice". In the original Ehtesab Ordinance, corruption by a government official was defined as "favours or disfavours to any person." Through a subsequent amendment in the original Ehtesab Ordinance of 1996, the words "any other person" was replaced with the words "his spouse or dependents." The government again restored the original meaning that any favour by a government official to other person other than his/her spouse or dependents would also fall in the definition of corruption, and he would be held responsible for that.

A reference made to the Ehtesab Bureau was to be treated as a report under section 154 of the Penal Code. After the reference of any case to the Ehtesab Bureau by the Ehtesab Commissioner, it would be an exclusive responsibility of the bureau to examine all the material, evidence and proof. No other agency had a power to look into the matter. For the purpose of inquiry into any matter referred to the Ehtesab Bureau, the chairman and the bureau had the powers of an officer in charge of a police station, including the power to ask any citizen to appear before it. Every government agency, police official or any other government official was bound to assist the Ehtesab Bureau in investigation.

After the amendment, the Ehtesab Bureau was also empowered to ask the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner to make a request to any court for the withdrawal of any case pending in a court. If the application was granted by the court, the case will be transferred to the Ehtesab Bureau. The Chief Ehtesab Commissioner had the powers at any stage of proceedings against an accused under the Ehtesab Act, to order the arrest of the accused..

The Bureau became an independent investigating agency with teeth of its own and therefore not dependent, as it formerly was, upon the powers of the FIA. This may be a sequel to the turf war between Senator Saifur Rehman's ehtesab machine and Ch. Shujaat Hussain's interior ministry, both of whom were vying for control over the FIA. The first and most striking change of course was to strip the original law of its neutrality and place the powers of investigation and prosecution firmly in the Prime Minister's Secretariat.

How FIA kidnapped notables to please Saif-ur-Rahman

Chairman of the Ehtesab Bureau, Senator Saif-ur-Rahman, used his power to harass political opponents and kidnapping leading businessmen. He operated mostly through a select group of FIA officials while Nawaz Sharif had first-hand information about Saif's involvement in the kidnapping of some of the very reputed citizens as he ignored strong complaints against this nasty operation even from his cabinet colleagues. [3]

For instance when the FIA sleuths kidnapped Farooq Hasan, owner of Hasan Associates, a renowned builder and developer of Karachi in 1998 and locked him at a Saif-run safe house in Islamabad, federal minister Halim Siddiqi had rushed to Nawaz Sharif to inform him about Saif's involvement in the kidnapping of a well-known Karachi businessman. Halim Siddiqi's pleas both to Sharif and Saif went unheeded as Hasan had to stay for about a week in Saif's dungeon and was only released when he signed a confessional statement that had been prepared by Saif's lieutenant at the Ehtesab Cell. Saif prepared confessional statement for Farooq Hasan relating to dealings of AES power plant with the Benazir government. Throughout his confinement Hasan was physically abused, mentally tortured and was not allowed to sleep. Hasan was also kept and interrogated at Saif's personal residence in Islamabad.

Jamil Ansari, the Chief Executive of a famous trading and business group in Karachi, was also kidnapped in 1998 by the FIA while he was about to board a Karachi-bound flight from Islamabad. For the next four days Ansari's family in Karachi had no knowledge of his whereabouts. The case was soon brought to the knowledge of Nawaz Sharif, who conveniently ignored protest from an associate who thought that such daylight kidnappings of the business luminaries without any charges would bring the PML government into disrepute. For more than a week, Ansari, a businessman, was questioned for his friendship with a ranking naval official. This week-long illegal detention under Saif's orders of the chief executive of a reputed firm had sent a shock wave in Karachi's mercantile community, but the Nawaz Sharif administration was not bothered.

The FIA was also involved in the kidnapping of Shahzad Sherry, a well-known international banker, from Karachi. Like other victims, Sherry was also swiftly shifted to Islamabad, where he was locked at a government-run safe house. For several days Sherry was kept in illegal confinement and questioned by the former Ehtesab Bureau stalwarts including Senator Saif-ur-Rahman. Sherry was apparently also paying price for his friendship with certain naval officials. His detention also continued for several days before being released without bringing any criminal charges against him.

Karachi-based Jamil Hamdani, another representative of an international bank, was kidnapped from his house in Defence Society Karachi in Oct. 1999 and was forced to board an Islamabad-bound flight for an urgent meeting with Saif-ur-Rahman and his team. Saif pointedly informed Hamdani about his disliking for his bank's interest in the privatisation of Habib Bank Limited. Jamil Hamdani was believed to be working on an international consortium that was interested in the management of overseas operations of Habib Bank. No apologies were offered after Hamdani was set free three days later by the Ehtesab sleuths who also warned him not to talk to the press about his ordeal.

Saif's frenzy to get private citizens abducted through the FIA touched its peak last year when he used the federal agency to kidnap Arif Zarwani, a UAE national and a reputed businessman, from his friend's house in Defence Society Karachi. Zarwani, who had been arrested in an FIA-cum-police raid, was quickly flown to Islamabad, where he was handed over to Wasim Afzal, a close associate of Saif-ur-Rahman. The Ehtesab action created a stir in the UAE as Nawaz Sharif was personally told that Zarwani's kidnapping in Karachi had endangered his official visit next day to the UAE. Zarwani, who was apparently picked up for his ties with Asif Zardari, was freed from the Ehtesab clutches, two days later, only after he was forced to listen to a telephonic sermon from Saif who was then touring Europe. No reasons were given for Arif Zarwani's arrest nor any criminal charges were brought against him. Despite an official protest from the UAE Nawaz Sharif did not question Saif or the FIA for the kidnapping of a foreign national.

In another case Ghulam Mustafa Memon, a well-known petroleum dealer and a former friend of Asif Ali Zardari, was kidnapped in an FIA action from his house in Defence Society, Karachi in 1998. During the operation the FIA sleuths ransacked his house. Memon, like other victims, was quickly flown to Islamabad where he was kept at a safe house for about a week. Mustafa Memon said that during the detention, he went through severe physical torture and mental harassment at the hands of senior Ehtesab officials. At last a week later Mustafa was quietly released from Islamabad and no criminal charges were brought against him.

Among others who made the hostage list of Saif-ur-Rahman was Naeemuddin Khan, a senior United Bank Limited (UBL) executive responsible for recovering Rs 1.2 billion loans from Saif-ur-Rahman's Redco Textile Mills. While using the FIA in the kidnapping of Naeemuddin Khan from his room at Karachi's Pearl Continental Hotel, Senator Saif is understood to have told the FIA that Naeemuddin was involved in money laundering. Without verifying the facts an FIA team barged into Naeemuddin's room in August this year and in the next few hours he was facing a Saif-ur-Rahman interrogation squad at an unspecified location in Islamabad. Naeemuddin's ordeal ended after Nawaz Sharif listened to a strong complaint in this regard from National Assembly Speaker Illahi Bukhsh Soomro and ordered the bank executive's release. Sharif, however, refused to order any probe into the kidnapping of a bank executive who was being punished for his attempt to recover Rs 1.2 billion of loan from Saif-ur-Rahman.

Leading newspaper columnist Hussain Haqqani had been kidnapped by the FIA sleuths along with his brother, an active service Army Colonel, during an evening stroll on direct orders from Saif-ur-Rahman in early 1999. It was at least three days after Haqqani's kidnapping that Saif-ur-Rahman ordered the FIA bosses to "produce" a case against him. Official sources confirmed Haqqani's account that he was beaten and kept awake during the first week of his arrest. Haqqani was of the few Saif victims whose captivity brought criminal charges, vehemently denied by Haqqani who said that the cases against him was the figment of Saif's imagination.

The annual 1997 Human Rights Report of US State Department said the Accountability Commission, established by the caretaker government and headed by a retired judge, had been overshadowed by an "accountability cell," headed by a close associate of the prime minister. This cell had been accused of conducting politically-motivated investigations of politicians, senior civil servants, and business figures, designed to extract evidence and, in some cases, televised confessions of alleged wrongdoers. The report gave the examples of televised confessions extracted from Salman Farooqi, secretary of commerce under Benazir Bhutto; Ahmed Sadiq, Benazir Bhutto's principal secretary; and Zafar Iqbal, chairman of the Capital Development Authority. It said most politicians and bureaucrats, who had been charged with corruption or other crimes, were out on bail. REFERENCE: Hegemony of the Ruling Elite in Pakistan BY ABDUS SATTAR GHAZALI

"UNQUOTE"

THE low-flying Senator Saifur Rahman who pilots the prime minister’s Ehtesab Cell has of late been at the receiving end of a lot of flak aimed at him by the Press. He says he expected it, and is prepared to counter any criticism, even that which can vaguely be substantiated. Brave words indeed! Last week I spoke to him about the many allegations made against him by various publications which, for their own reasons, seem desperate to prove that the Senator himself needed to be cleansed. AC: Every new-born democrat of ours, fascist at heart though he may be, claims that we cannot have democracy without accountability. From 1988 onwards those in power – Ghulam Ishaq, Benazir, Jatoi, Nawaz, Mazari, Moeen Qureshi, Farooq Leghari, Benazir again – could have started the Ehtesab process but did not, mainly because of their own individual greed for power and pelf. They did not want to rock the boat. At last, the Leghari / Meraj Khalid team put the process on the rails and now that Nawaz has got it going. Every right thinking citizen of this country should help him. Why did you accept this onerous ‘win-or-lose, you lose,’ position?

SR: Nawaz is my friend. He could hardly have asked any politician or bureaucrat to take on the job. He asked me. I have faith in him. I accepted. By and large, the people have supported me. I am prepared to answer any allegations obliquely or directly made against me in any of our more responsible publications. As a matter of fact, I would like to clarify some of the unsubstantiated charges that have been levelled against me.

AC: Is there any truth in the allegation that your present role as the Mian’s chief gunner is a bit of a cover, that you and the Mian intend doing business together, you ‘fronting’ for him?

SR: A baseless allegation. No joint ventures have been planned. As a matter of fact, our group of companies have decided not to bid for any public sector project in Pakistan as long as I head the Ehtesab Cell.

AC: It is said that your past businesses in Pakistan culminated with your having a dispute with the Customs Department involving some Rs900 million which still has to be resolved, and that you are counter-attacking Customs officers to ease your way out of the predicament. Is there any truth in this?

SR: Absolutely none. Can anyone produce any evidence to support this allegation? Of course, my companies have had the usual disputes and arguments with the Customs, just as have had all other business houses.

AC: Bank loans: Have you or any of your concerns defaulted?

SR: Our problems in Pakistan began when we were politically victimised by Benazir. The banks controlled by the government reneged on their contractual obligations. Our limits were cancelled without assigning any reason or giving us due notice. To this day, the banks have not been able to explain why they took such action. The operations of our textile businesses had to be suspended, the repayment schedules were affected. Some payments are overdue, we have sought redress, rescheduling. The matters are before the proper tribunals and are at present sub judice . The banks stand secured. We are solvent.

AC: Were you involved at all in the building of the Murree-Rawalpindi road project?

SR: No. The road was constructed by Saadullah & Brothers.

AC: Did Redco, or any of your other concerns, land any hefty government contracts at highly inflated rates during Nawaz’s first round as prime minister?

SR: None. Again, let those who make the allegations come forth with evidence.

AC: Are you at all involved in the recent cancellation of the Lahore airport expansion contract recently awarded to a concern known as JAPAK?

SR: I have no knowledge of the Lahore airport project, I have had no dealings with JAPAK and do not even know who owns or runs it.

AC: It is claimed that your younger brother, Mujeeb, is now in Seattle, wheeling-dealing for the purchase by PIA of two Boeings. Is he?

SR: My brother is not in Seattle. We have neither had nor have any dealings

with Boeing.

AC: Are you, or any of your concerns, about to land a Rs 700 million contract to fence the Lahore-Islamabad motorway?

SR: No. We will abide by our commitment. We will not bid for this or any other government business.

AC: ‘They’ say you are on friendly terms with such men as Salman Faruqui and that your pursuit of the ‘bad’ bureaucrats is just a hoax.

SR: Of course, I know Salman Faruqui, and many of his likes. As you all have, I too have heard and know much about them. But I am not ‘negotiating’ with anyone to let anyone off the hook who deserves to be hooked.

AC: What about senior bureaucrats Anwar Zahid, the PM’s Special Assistant and Chaudhry Iftikhar of the FIA? Are they helping you pursue your Ehtesab operation? Have they suggested making ‘deals’ with anybody?

SR: The first has no connection with my cell. The second being an FIA man, I obviously do have discussions with him on the process. After all, we are both working towards the same goal. But neither has proposed making any ‘deals’.

AC: Stories circulated or fabricated about your past are intriguing. One publication has claimed that you started ten years ago with a drug store at Mozang, that later you were a supervisor of expatriate labour working for a construction company in the Gulf and sleeping in a shed, that there you befriended Abdun Nasir, a rich Arab Sheikh, who enabled you to take off and make your pile.

SR: If all this was so, this rags-to-riches story true, would it not be to my credit? My father, a farmer of Sialkot, was also a pharmaceutical distributor. I went to Lahore, first to F.C. College to do my F.Sc. and then to Hailey College for my B.Com. Then I went to Qatar as a trainee executive in a German company. We built up our family businesses in the Gulf with partners such as Sheikh Abdur Rahman Al-Thani, a member of the royal family of Qatar, and Sheikh Sultan Bin Hamadan al Nahyan, of the royal family of the UAE. Our interests include textile spinning and weaving, construction, transport, cement and so forth. The group’s head office is in Doha. I do know Sheikh Abdun Nasir, but we have never been business associates.

AC: There was a letter about you in Dawn on May 15, written by Syed Kausar Ali Shah of Lahore, who stated: “It would be graceful of him if he volunteered to face accountability for the rapid rise of his own construction firm in controversial circumstances. This would vindicate his position and clear his credentials for accountability.” Your reaction?

SR: I am willing to face the process. Would I have taken on the job otherwise? Let any man of any credibility question me, privately or publicly, as it may suit him.

AC: The same letter writer is “concerned about the manner in which 91 senior bureaucrats, the majority of whom command general respect, have been suspended from service and publicly humiliated without justification.” What are your views?

SR: As can be appreciated, the tentacles of the suspended are long and widespread. Naturally, they, their relatives, friends, associates and dependants are unhappy. What does “general respect” mean? Whatever it be, I would say that generally the people have applauded this action.

AC: As compared to bureaucrats, you have so far netted very few politicians. Why?

SR: The evidence against the politicians is coming in and is being sifted. You are a businessman, you tell me, could the country have been robbed to the extent it has been by the politicians and their partners without the connivance or collusion or compliance of the bureaucrats? Could they not have stopped or impeded the Corruption? Corruption is easier to detect than to prove. As you yourself said during your TV interview, “Chor receipt nahin choortay.” And if everyone who has been touched is innocent as he claims to be, then who has robbed the country? My comment: If all that Saifur Rehman has said is to be believed, he has emerged as white as driven snow. For the doubters, it is open season. He says, shoot him down if you can. REFERENCE: Ehtesab – 2 Ardeshir Cowasjee D A W N W I R E S E R V I C E Week Ending : 24 May, 1997 Issue : 03/21 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/24May97.html

Former Chief Justice Supreme Court of Pakistan, Syed Sajjad Ali Shah narrating details as to how Mian Nawaz Sharif and PML - N had attacked the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 1997.

Nawaz Sharif (PML - N) Attacked Supreme Court 1


Nawaz Sharif (PML - N) Attacked Supreme Court 2


Nawaz Sharif (PML - N) Attacked Supreme Court 3


Nawaz Sharif (PML - N) Attacked Supreme Court 4


Nawaz Sharif (PML - N) Attacked Supreme Court 5


"QUOTE"

The Friday Times, Editorial by Najam Sethi, Feb. 15, 2001 - The Sunday Times of London has recently published a story that damns politicians and state institutions alike in Pakistan. The report suggests that an official of the Intelligence Bureau was ordered in 1998 by the head of the Accountability Bureau, Mr Saif ur Rehman, to tap the telephones of Justice Abdul Qayyum of the Lahore High Court (illegal order by politicians, illegal implementation by IB). The IB official later pocketed the tapes and decamped to London, eventually handing them over to the British newspaper. If true, the conversations between Justice Qayyum and Saif ur Rehman, Khalid Anwar (then law minister), Mrs Abdul Qayyum and others are fascinating because they reveal the political bankruptcy of the system and those who are elected or nominated to make it work. The tapes suggest that Justice Qayyum was bullied by the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his minions into convicting former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and her spouse Asif Zardari for corruption in 1998. This means that - irrespective of the substantial evidence laid against the two accused - the trial wasn`t conducted entirely in a free or fair manner as required by law. Ms Bhutto shrieked as much during and after the trial but critics, including TFT, dismissed her allegations against Justice Qayyum as inconceivable. Hence when the review petition comes up for hearing before the Supreme Court on February 26, the court will be hard put to choose between acquitting the couple or ordering a fresh trial. If it clings to a third option - upholding the verdict - it risks being tarred by the same brush.

The role played by each of the actors merits comment. Nawaz Sharif ordered Saif ur Rehman to bug the judge and Mr Rehman had no qualms in barking compliance to the head of the IB who did likewise to his subordinate staff. Everyone acted illegally down the chain of command. Mr Rehman, in particular, stands out like a sore thumb. He is earlier known to have boasted that the ``judges were in his pocket``. Apparently, Mr Sharif also leaned on the then chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Rashid Aziz, to advise Justice Qayyum to do the needful or else. The Supreme Judicial Council needs to take a careful look at this allegation.

The law minister, Khalid Anwar, acted in a deplorable manner. What is wrong with asking a judge to hurry up, he asks. Nothing, if this is done in open court and in a transparent fashion. But it is immoral it if it is done amidst dire threats brandished by officials at the Prime Minister`s behest. Mr Anwar also claims that his government never authorised the IB to wire-tap the judges. Nonsense, says former chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah, who reports that when a bug was discovered on his phone, Mr Anwar advised him not to make an issue of it. We might also recall that this is the same gent who, as President Farooq Leghari`s council in 1996-97 in the Bhutto dismissal case before the Supreme Court, cited phone tapping of judges by the Bhutto regime as a major justification for her government`s ouster. Finally, there is the judge in the dock. By all accounts, a most competent and learned man, indeed one on whom undue reliance has been thrust by politicians and judges alike in politically sensitive or legally complex cases. But the tapes have compromised his position. He could try and ride out the vicious gossip or he could call it a day and quietly fade away. If he chooses the first route, the law would require him to face the Supreme Judicial Council and explain his situation.

One last matter. The timing of the revelations - just before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Benazir Bhutto`s review petition - and the dubious role of the IB Deputy Director (how has he suddenly acquired a conscience?) is thought to cast doubts about the veracity of the tapes and the allegations flowing from them. Not so. The tapes are authentic enough. If they weren`t, every one of the alleged culprits would have tripped over the others to sue the Sunday Times for millions of pounds in criminal defamation and the judges involved would have hauled up everyone in sight for gross contempt of court. Nor should it matter whether the spook in question received a hefty cheque or a promise of some lucrative posting in the future for allowing his conscience to get the better of him. The fact is that Ms Bhutto has cunningly exploited the counter-evidence at her disposal for maximum effect like a true politician who may be down but refuses to be out. This case could have far-reaching repercussions. It might give Ms Bhutto a new lease of life. It might stiffen the resolve of lawyers and politicians to agitate for democratic revival and accountability. And it might embolden the judiciary to redeem itself by standing up a little bit to the government. REFERENCE: Democracy in Pakistan: The Missing Link? The Friday Times, Editorial by Najam Sethi, Feb. 15, 2001 http://www.chowk.com/interacts/4948/1/0/a

"QUOTE"

Sethi, whom we'll meet in a moment, is the co-founder and editor of The Friday Times, a fiercely independent English-language newsweekly in Lahore, Pakistan . Dalrymple had taken issue with Levy's assertion about the kidnappings in his review: [T]here are numerous occasions where Lévy distorts his evidence and actually inverts the truth. While seeking to prove that the ISI and al-Qaeda were jointly responsible for abducting Daniel Pearl, for example, he cites three precedents in which journalists were "kidnapped in Pakistan by ISI agents suspected of being backed up by al-Qaida." In reality, in two of the cases he cites—Najam Sethi and Hussain Haqqani—both were arrested by the regular Punjab police as part of a campaign by Pakistan 's last civilian prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, to intimidate the press. The case of the third journalist, Ghulam Hasnain, remains a mystery: he was picked up for a day and then released. He has never identified the agency that arrested him; but no connection has ever been shown—or, up to now, even suggested—with al-Qaeda. Lévy's misuse of evidence here is revealing of his general method: if proof does not exist, he writes as if it did. The ISI has been involved in many dubious activities, but there has never been any suggestion that it has abducted Westerners, least of all an American. This record is important evidence against any direct link between the ISI and Pearl 's abduction rather than the reverse. (Murder in Karachi ,New York Review of Books , Dec. 4, 2003 ). In the most recent exchange of letters, Levy modifies his original claim slightly, responding to Dalrymple as follows:

How does one best defend the interests of this "other Pakistan ": by multiplying the intellectual contortions meant to prove that Pakistan 's military-mullah complex is not implicated in the kidnapping of journalists such as Najam Sethi, Hussain Haqqani, Ghulam Hasnain, and Daniel Pearl? Or by speaking clearly, and by taking a clear position in favor of those who, like them, fight for free and truthful journalism in Islamabad and Karachi ?

Obviously, Levy takes himself to be doing the latter.

Shortly after the publication of Dalrymple's review, I had an email exchange with Najam Sethi on precisely the issues discussed in Levy's book and Dalrymple's review, asking him (Sethi) to clarify at length and in print what had really happened to him during his kidnapping. He wrote me the following detailed note, giving me permission to publish it; it is unchanged except for minor modifications of paragraphing, grammar, and punctuation. The “Prime Minister” referred to throughout the note is Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's last civilian prime minister, deposed in 1999 by General Pervez Musharraf. I've retained Sethi's somewhat pejorative-sounding (or is it affectionate?) references to “General Mush” as well:

My case was quite bizarre. An armed posse of the Punjab Police and the IB [Intelligence Bureau] smashed its way into my bedroom at 2:30 am on May 8th, 1999, beat up my wife and me, gagged me, blindfolded me, handcuffed me and dragged me away. I was in their custody for many hours. Then I was handed over to the ISI. The ISI kept me in a safe house first in Lahore and then in Islamabad . It investigated everything, found that the treason charges against me were trumped up politically by the Prime Minister (PM) and then confidentially told me that it was under pressure from the PM to court martial me. But it said that Gen Mush [sic] was against the idea of any military involvement in my case and was telling the PM that the civilians should handle it.

In due course, the ISI actually protected me from the IB which wanted to take me away for a few days and "fix" me at the behest of the PM and Saif ur-Rehman. The ISI general in charge of my case was Major General Ghulam Ahmad (deceased now) who came to see me in the ISI safe house three times and initally told me that he was giving me a clean chit of health because he would not be party to any wrongdoing. It was the ISI's clean chit of health that persuaded the Supreme Court (SC) to put pressure on the civilian government to release me. But within a day of releasing me, the government lodged a case of treason in a civil court against me and tried to arrest me again; but Justice Mamoon Qazi of the SC stepped in and judged that I could not be arrested in any case without the government's first showing the evidence against me to the SC. When I was released, I told the BBC in an interview that the ISI was largely responsible for my well-being.

Incidentally, the so-called "anti-Pakistan" speech that I was supposed to have made in India, which was the basis of the charge against me, was the same speech that I had made at the National Defence College in Islamabad earlier on the basis of which I had duly received a formal letter from the NDC commending me for having obtained the "highest marks ever" from the NDC for a presentation before the college.

The real reason why I was arrested by Nawaz Sharif had to do with a BBC documentary in which I had taken part, exposing the corruption of the PM. I was interviewed by the BBC in Pakistan two days before I left for India . The IB found out and informed the PM. Saif ur-Rehman called me and asked what I had told the BBC. I told him: "everything." "Negative or positive?" he asked. "Is there anything positive in your regime?" I replied. "We will get you," he warned.

That was that. They used the India thing to try and silence and discredit me so that my BBC testimony would be rejected by the people. Then they took the BBC to court in London for potential libel and threatened to close down its operations in Pakistan if the film was shown to Pakistani audiences. Then a “settlement” took place between the two parties--the BBC film was subsequently shown in the UK but never in South Asia . Before showing the film in the UK, the BBC asked me whether I wanted to censor or edit my statements against the PM in the film in view of what had happened. I said “no.” Everything I said was on the record and should be shown.

When Saif ur-Rehman was arrested in 1999 after the coup, he got his wife to phone me and ask for my "forgiveness." Later, Shahbaz Sharif called from exile and claimed he had never been a party to my ordeal and apologised on behalf of the Sharif family. Nawaz Sharif's son Hussain met me in London two years [later] and also apologised. Other members of that government have also apologised. But Nawaz is still silent.

Nonetheless, I remain committed to the view that military rule is not good for the country and that Gen Mush [sic] must compromise with the mainstream PPP and PMLN despite the many faults of their leaders. And I remain opposed to the continuing political role of the ISI in the internal and external affairs of Pakistan . In short, I propose a truth and reconciliation process in the national interest. This is the truth. Well, I wouldn't argue with that. Whatever one thinks of the larger issues discussed in Bernard-Henry Levy's book and that is a complicated affair beyond the scope of anything I've said here Sethi's note demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is Levy who is guilty of intellectual contortions here, not his critic. The evidence is indisputable: Najam Sethi was not kidnapped by the ISI; he was effectively rescued and released by them. Anyone committed to clear speech and truthful journalism ought at this point to be able to acknowledge that. We may still not be certain of who killed Daniel Pearl but, for whatever it's worth, we can at this point be quite sure who didn't kidnap Najam Sethi. REFERENCE: Who Kidnapped Najam Sethi?By Irfan Khawaja dated 3-15-2004 http://hnn.us/articles/3968.html

"UNQUOTE"

ISLAMABAD, March 18: Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed has revealed that Osama bin Laden had offered to buy loyalties of legislators to see Mian Nawaz Sharif as prime minister. In an interview appearing in the magazine of an Urdu newspaper on Sunday, Qazi Hussain Ahmed said that Osama had visited the JI headquarters Mansoora and wanted to strike an agreement with the Jamaat but the suggestion was declined by him. Excerpts of the interview were published by the newspaper on Saturday. Qazi said he had met Osama several times in the past.However, the JI on Saturday clarified that meetings between the JI amir and Osama in Peshawar and Lahore were held in days when the Al Qaeda leader was staying in Peshawar. Recalling political events that took place when Mr Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League and JI were components of the then Islami Jamhoori Ittehad, Qazi said Osama was a big supporter of IJI and Nawaz Sharif and wanted to see him Pakistan’s prime minister.

Nawaz Sharif Osama Bin Laden Khalid Khwaja Connections 1



Nawaz Sharif Osama Bin Laden Khalid Khwaja Connections 2


Nawaz Sharif Osama Bin Laden Khalid Khwaja Connections 3

“Bin Laden was prepared to pay for buying parliamentarians’ votes to achieve this objective,” said Qazi Hussain Ahmed, who also heads the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal. He said a delegation sent by Osama had visited him in Peshawar and conveyed that they wanted cooperation from JI but “we declined the request”. In a statement issued on Saturday, a JI spokesman said that excerpts from interview were published in the daily and presented on a private TV channel in such a manner that they were creating confusion in the minds of people.— PPI. REFERENCE: Osama offered to buy votes for Nawaz: Qazi March 19, 2006 Sunday Safar 18, 1427 http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/19/top10.htm

I read this headline on, THE NEWS website, Tension between Zardari, Shahbaz mounts over jailed chief editor of The Frontier Post''. This makes no sense that Rehmat Shah Afridi is still in prison, I was expecting from ANP Govt in pukhtoonistan to react on this issue but I don't understand muteness of ANP leadership, although on ANP web site I did send a message to Chief Minister, I would like to ask all the writers on this forum to send messages to CM on the following website of ANP(http://www.awaminationalparty.org/news/)and express your solidarity with The Frontier Post Chief Mr. Afridi who is in prison because he was punished for expressing his views and he was educating Pakhtuns through his newspaper. His confinement is politically motivated. The drugs were planted on vehicle he was in. Similar to innumerable judicial murders and crimes to suffocate voice of Pathans. The literate class of people in Pakistan is the only hope, which can place a check & balance on these bureaucrats corrupt politicians. Its about time this class should pick their pens. Its really amazing that criminals and thugs involved in suicide attacks can be easily released in Pakistan but someone like Mr. Afridi stays in prison. Two face Nawaz Sharif and his brother who are responsible for declaring Pakistan a failed state ran out of country but did not have courage and principles to face jail, attacked Supreme Court and insulted judges but now wants to be champions of judiciary and free press.

Rehmat Shah Afridi [Frontier Posts] Exposes Nawaz Sharif (PML-N)'s Corruption 1



Rehmat Shah Afridi [Frontier Posts] Exposes Nawaz Sharif (PML-N)'s Corruption 2

I agree with Mr. Asif Ali Zardari who bitterly asked: "Where are the champions of the press freedom today? Rehmat Shah Afridi was arrested and booked in a fake drug smuggling case on political grounds. He spent nine years in jail just for writing the truth and now he is seriously ill but some people still want to take their revenge. "Champions of the press freedom should be ashamed of themselves that for nine years some one in their ranks is in prison but they are not saying a word. Rehmat Shah Afridi was punished because he disclosed that Nawaz Sharif received Rs. 150 crore from Osama bin Ladin in the Green Palace Hotel, Madina, with the pledge that the amount would be used for furthering the cause of Jihad in Afghanistan and helping the Mujahideen and exposing the deeds of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Instead he (Nawaz) put the whole amount in his pocket. Nawaz Sharif got annoyed with Afridi when he was chief minister of Punjab in 1986.Frontier Post Chief disclosed in his newspaper that Nawaze sold the commercial land between UCH and Kalma Chowk in Lahore to his relatives for meager Rs. 400 per marla.

Rehmat Shah Afridi [Frontier Posts] Exposes Nawaz Sharif (PML-N)'s Corruption 3



Rehmat Shah Afridi [Frontier Posts] Exposes Nawaz Sharif (PML-N)'s Corruption 4

After that, he distributed plots in NWFP, Punjab and Balochistan among his colleagues and opponents to get their political support. He published all this in his newspaper along with proofs, which further infuriated Nawaz Sharif. Rehmat Shah Afridi used his personal links to thwart the "no-confidence motion" against Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and asked the members of National Assembly from Punjab, FATA and NWFP to use their vote in favour of Benazir Bhutto. Mr. Afridi did so as it was in the interest of the country at that time. Nawaz Sharif once threatened him that they would rule the country for 20 years and that he (Rehmat Shah) could not harm him through publishing news items against them. This proves all cases against The Frontier Post chief were false and baseless. Detention of Rehmat Shah Afridi is no more justified. Rehmat Shah Afridi had been arrested in a fake and bogus case because the then government was not happy with his bold editorial policy. The PPP government's pro-media and democratic credentials have already been enhanced by the proposed anti-PEMRA bill in parliament. It should now do the honourable and just thing by ordering the immediate release of Rehmat Shah Afridi and winning hearts and minds all round. REFERENCE: Prisoner of conscience M Waqar New York Thursday, May 22, 2008, Jamad-i-Awal 14, 1429 A.H. http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=le&nid=360&ad=22-05-2008 ASLO READ: REFERENCE: Rehmat Shah Afridi’s case unique in country’s legal history By Abid Butt Friday, June 04, 2004 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-6-2004_pg7_48