Friday, November 26, 2010

Who The Hell "Follow The Law In Pakistan", Anyway?

ISLAMABAD: Opposition Leader Ch. Nisar while expressing concerns over 11 missing prisoners from Adiala Jail says that country’s spy agencies abduct prisoners with impunity. Talking to newsmen after condoling the demise of PML-Q leader Mushahid Hussain Syed’s father, Ch. Nisar said that no body is above the law and it is very serious issue that such incidents are taking place during a democratic government tenure. Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) would raise the issue of 11 missing prisoners from Adiala Jail in next National Assembly session, he added. Agencies abducting prisoners with impunity: Nisar Updated at: 2200 PST, Friday, November 26, 2010

About the same LAW ABIDING Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Rauf Klasra [Now Express Tribune] writes...


Myth busted: Chief justice also got a plot

Justice Chaudhry allotted plot soon after 2002 elections
The accountability body of the Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), has received an official report from the Housing Ministry that shatters an eight-year-old perception that the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) has never been given a piece of land by the government.
CJP Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was allotted a one-kanal plot during former President General Pervez Musharraf’s reign – which he owns to date in Islamabad’s residential sector G-14/4.
Though it was recently reported that a number of judges – including several former chief justices of Pakistan such as Riaz Ahmed Sheikh, Ajmal Mian, Irshad Hassan Khan and others – had been allotted plots in Islamabad since 1996, Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was the only name not seen in the lists.
It was also widely disseminated through the media that the incumbent chief justice had not been given a plot. However, an allotment to the CJP was made soon after the 2002 general elections – which took place after the Supreme Court had endorsed the October 12, 1999, coup and gave sweeping mandate to General Pervez Musharraf to amend the Constitution. A list compiled by the housing ministry of plot allotments to bureaucrats, judges and journalists spread over hundreds of pages, available with The Express Tribune, shows that Justice Chaudhry, then a Supreme Court judge, was given a one kanal plot on Dec 18, 2002 – six days after his 54th birthday.
The official documents further reveal that the then CJP Sheikh Riaz Ahmed was also allotted a plot on Dec 17, 2002, while two judges of the Lahore High Court, Justice Faqeer Mohammad Khokar and Justice Mumtaz Ali Mirza were also allotted plots in G-14 on the same day.
The report about the allotment of plots was submitted by the housing ministry after the Public Accounts Committee chairman Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had issued directives to furnish a list of all those who were allotted plots in Islamabad since 1996.
Interestingly, Nisar did not seek a list of such allotments from 1991 when Nawaz Sharif, his party’s chief, had first become the prime minister. He also did not direct the ministry of defence to submit a list of land allotted to military generals who have been regularly getting agricultural land in the fertile areas of the country, the Seraiki region in particular, at a rate of under Rs180 per acre.
One official was of the opinion that Nisar did not issue such instructions as he has a military background himself. His father was recruited during the colonial period and his brother Lt. Gen. Iftikhar Ali Khan served as defence secretary during Sharif’s government.
However, the papers presented before the PAC reveal that, unlike the other 15 judges of the SC, Justice Chaudhry did not take a second plot in Islamabad. This despite the fact that under the revised policy of the government, approved by then prime minister Shaukat Aziz, he and his colleagues were entitled to two plots. CJ Chaudhry also did not apply for a plot under the curious recent scheme of the “Prime Minister Assistance Package”, meant exclusively for judges – unlike the 17 other judges of the Supreme Court who got plots through this scheme.
The present government is said to have also offered to allot a second plot to the CJP – but he has declined the offer. At the time of his refusal, it was widely reported in the media that he did not own any plots in Islamabad – a ‘fact’ that has now, given the official list of the housing ministry, been rebuffed. REFERENCE:

Myth busted: Chief justice also got a plot Rauf Klasra Published in The Express Tribune, November 25th, 2010.

Yesterday's (Capital Talk 25 Nov 2010) carried lot of "Sanctimonious Lectures" by Hamid Mir, Irfan Siddiqui, Ansar Abbasi, Arif Nizami, Mohammad Malick and Nazir Abbasi on Rule of Law, Judiciary, Civil Society, Free Press, Clean, Good Governance and bla bla bla!!!!



Ansar Abbasi Praising General Musharraf's Martial Law Regime's "Alleged Reforms" when Ansar Abbasi used to be a Correspondent in Daily Dawn, Mr. Ansar Abbasi's Tribute to General Pervez Musharraf & Martial Law in DAILY DAWN [11 YEARS AGO]. he never mentioned even a single time that Impsoing Martial Law is Treason and Violation of Article 6 of 1973Constitution of Pakistan

As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan



6. (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

ISLAMABAD: The newly appointed Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq was deputy to the late attorney general Chaudhry Muhammad Farooq when the latter during the Nawaz Sharif’s tenure wrote to the Swiss authorities to open cases of corruption against Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir Bhutto and others. According to a source, Maulvi Anwarul Haq has servedas a deputy attorney general under Chaudhry Muhammad Farooq and was a member of the late attorney general’s team, which helped Farooq to prepare a letter that was sent to Swiss authorities with the request to open cases of corruption against Asif Ali Zardari and others. The source said the otherwise reputed Anwarul Haq, who took oath under General Musharraf’s 2007 PCO, had been made a judge of the Lahore High Court during the Nawaz Sharif tenure on the recommendations of the then chief justice Ajmal Mian and received the fullest support of Chaudhry Muhammad Farooq. In a twist of fate, Maulvi Anwarul Haq was appointed the attorney general on Tuesday in the middle of the ongoing tense situation between the judiciary and the executive over the question of once again writing to the Swiss authorities to get the Swiss cases against President Asif Ali Zardari reopened. Over four months back the Supreme Court declared the NRO void ab-initio and besides passing other directions, had also ordered the government to write to the Swiss authorities to get the corruption cases reopened. Following the promulgation of the NRO, the cases were closed by the Swiss authorities, who were approached by Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum, who served as the attorney general during 2007-08. According to the Supreme Court, Malik Qayyum had acted without any lawful authority.

Despite the clear orders of the Supreme Court and its repeated reminders, the government does not seem willing to implement the apex court order. Because of the government’s failure to write to the Swiss authorities as per the direction of the Supreme Court, the previous Attorney General Anwar Mansoor has recently resigned and held the Law Minister Babar Awan responsible for blocking to the implementation of the SC’s judgment. Interestingly now after a lapse of almost 12 years, Maulvi Anwarul Haq is faced with a strange situation where the government would expect him to question the legality of the letter that was written to the Swiss authorities by his attorney general in 1997-98, whereas the Supreme Court would continue to desire that its judgment should be implemented in letter and spirit. Of late the Law Ministry has reportedly told the Supreme Court that the letter written to the Swiss authorities in 1997-98 by the then attorney general had no legal authority. Although the Sindh High Court has already declared the said letter as valid several years ago, it is yet to be seen what Maulvi Anwarul Haq would do in this particular case, which has today become a bone of contention between the judiciary and the executive. REFERENCE: Will new AG change his stance? Wednesday, April 21, 2010 By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the judicial commission on judges’ appointment. Talking to media outside Supreme Court, President SCBA Qazi Anwar said that Hamid Khan, Rashid A Rizvi and he himself will appear before the court. He said the present assembly is not constitutional making body but a legislation making institution. Qazi Anwar said the Indian Supreme Court had also declared constitutional amendments as void. Replying to a question about Aitizaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmad Kurd, he denied to give the reply and said lawyers community from Chitral to Karachi stands behind them. REFERENCE: SCB challenges judges commission Updated at: 1545 PST, Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010, Jamadi-ul-Awwal 06, 1431 A.H



High treason.

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason. REFERENCE: The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.

In his petition, the senator, on whose petition the Supreme Court had earlier validated the Oct 12, 1999, military coup by Gen Musharraf, also challenged a provision in Section 3 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973, which required the federal government to move a reference for any proceedings under high treason and said this provision was against Article 6 of the Constitution, which does not demand such condition. The petition also asked whether former army chief (Gen Musharraf) did not commit breach of his constitutional oath through his Oct 12, 1999, military coup in disregard of the Constitution and, if faith and allegiance to Pakistan means upholding the Constitution which embodies the will of the people, does it not amount to treason. - The armed forces, the petition alleged, were not only ridiculed but insulted by exploiting them only for personal gains. They were made to climb the wall of the prime minister’s house on Oct 12 and used to maintain Gen Musharraf in his extra-constitutional usurpation of power, the petition alleged. To relinquish the office of Chief Executive in accordance with the Supreme Court’s May 12, 2000 judgment, means that Gen Musharraf should have surrendered the command of the armed forces to the then Prime Minister, Mir Zafraullah Khan Jamali, after holding the general elections, but by not doing so, Gen Musharraf disobeyed and violated the order of the apex court, the petition contended. - Sayed Zafar Ali Shah submitted that General (R) Pervez Musharraf used force against the elected prime minister, overturned the entire political and democratic system, he acted against the integrity and security of the country and was liable to be punished under Article 6 of the constitution of 1973 read with Section 2 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973. REFERENCES: SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST SC moved for Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 By Sohail Khan dated Sunday, August 23, 2009 SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST

Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report [Daily Dawn Feb 2000] 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: Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report

2 – Chaudhry Iftikhar named new CJ [Daily Dawn 2005] By Our Staff Reporter ISLAMABAD, May 7: President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday appointed Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court, as the next chief justice. He will assume the office on June 30 after retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, on June 29. “The notification has ended speculations of appointment of a junior judge as chief justice in violation of the seniority principle settled under the 1996 Judges case,” commented a senior Supreme Court lawyer on condition of anonymity. Justice Chaudhry will reach the superannuation age of 65 years in 2012, which will make him one of the longest serving chief justices in the judicial history of Pakistan. He will serve as chief justice for over seven years. Earlier Justice A. R. Cornelius and Justice Mohammad Haleem served as chief justice for eight years from 1960 to 68 and 1981 to 89, respectively. Justice Chaudhry was elevated as a judge of the apex court on February 4, 2000. He has performed as acting chief justice from January 17 to 29, 2005. He holds the degree of LLB and started practice as an advocate in 1974. Later he was enrolled as an advocate of high court in 1976 and as an advocate of Supreme Court in 1985. In 1989, Justice Chaudhry was appointed as advocate-general of Balochistan and elevated to the post of additional judge in the Balochistan High Court in 1990. He also served as banking judge, judge of Special Court for Speedy Trials and Customs Appellate Courts as well as company judge. He served as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court from April 22, 1999 to February 4, 2000. He was elected the president of the High Court Bar Association, Quetta, and twice a member of the Bar Council. He was appointed as the chairman of the Balochistan Local Council Election Authority in 1992 and for a second term in 1998. Justice Chaudhry also worked as the chairman of the Provincial Review Board for Balochistan and was appointed twice as the chairman of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society, Balochistan. Presently he is functioning as the chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court Buildings Committee. Reference: Caudhry Iftikhar named new CJ By Our Staff Reporter May 8, 2005 Sunday Rabi-ul-Awwal 28, 1426
As per a report by International Crisis Group "REFORMING THE JUDICIARY IN PAKISTAN" dated 16 October 2008:


Pakistan’s higher judiciary has repeatedly validated military interventions and sanctioned constitutional amendments that have fundamentally altered the legal and political system. Attempting to explain its failure to protect the constitution through the “doctrine of state necessity”, the judiciary has relied on the dubious argument that the army’s intervention could be justified because of the pressing need for political stability. This doctrine was first developed in three cases in 1955 in the Federal Court, as the Supreme Court was then known, to justify the extra-constitutional dismissal of the legislature by a titular head of state.11 Drawing on the precedent of those decisions, the Supreme Court validated General Mohammed Ayub Khan’s 1958 declaration of martial law, General Mohammad Ziaul Haq’s 1977 coup and General Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 coup. While these Supreme Court judgments gave military regimes the trappings of legality, repeated military interventions have hampered the growth of civilian institutions and moderate political parties and forces. The centralisation of power in a Punjabi-dominated army has also strained centre-province relations in a multi-ethnic, multi-regional state, even as the military’s use of religion to justify political control has undermined the security of Pakistani citizens, particularly women and religious and sectarian minorities. REFERENCE: Reforming the Judiciary in Pakistan Asia Report N°160 16 October 2008


Some courageous judges, such as Supreme Court Justices Dorab Patel and Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim,15 have refused to sanctify authoritarian interventions, and preferred to resign rather than undermine constitutionalism and the rule of law. By legitimising military rule and intervention, most have, however, abdicated their duty to uphold the law. Following Musharraf’s coup, the Supreme Court was purged of judges who might have opposed the military’s unconstitutional assumption of power. Judges were required to take an oath to Musharraf’s Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), 1999, superseding the oath they had sworn at their induction to the 1973 constitution.16 On 26 January 2000, thirteen judges, including Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and four other Supreme Court justices, were removed for refusing to do so. The reconstituted Supreme Court was composed of judges who willingly accepted the military’s directions. They included Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who was elevated to the Court in January 2000 and appointed chief justice by Musharraf in 2005. The judges took their oath of office under the PCO 1999, which omits the reference to their duty to “protect, uphold and defend” the 1973 constitution. On 21 May 2000, this bench upheld the legality of Musharraf’s coup under the doctrine of state necessity. The Supreme Court also authorised the army chief to amend the constitution, albeit within the bounds of its federal, democratic and parliamentary character. The Court also concluded that those judges who had been sacked following the PCO oath had lost any right to challenge their removal due to the passage of time. By placing personal survival over the rule of law and constitutionalism, these judges allowed another dicta tor to implement sweeping changes that expanded the military’s political powers and hold over the state. REFERENCE: Reforming the Judiciary in Pakistan Asia Report N°160 16 October 2008

Like Zia’s Eighth Amendment, Musharraf’s Seventeenth Amendment, passed by a rubber-stamp parliament in December 2003, enshrined all executive orders and changes made under military rule.21 The Seventeenth Amendment gave the president, the titular head of state, the power to dismiss elected governments and parliament and also transferred from the prime minister, the head of government, key appointment powers to the president including appointments of governors, the three service chiefs and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Musharraf’s constitutional distortions weakened civilian institutions. By sidelining secular democratic forces, the military government also enabled right-wing religious parties to fill the vacuum. In dismissing legal challenges to Seventeenth Amendment, the Supreme Court shirked its responsibility to protect constitutional rule. REFERENCE: Reforming the Judiciary in Pakistan Asia Report N°160 16 October 2008


And now read and lament at the audacity of the "Alleged Judiciary" asking Twenty Questions on "Disappeared Persons and What not" after all these years of sordid track record mentioned above????

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that it has the authority under the Constitution to serve notices on the secret agencies as no one is above the law. “The apex court has wider jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and Article 185 of the Constitution to issue notices pertaining to public importance cases,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked while heading a three-member bench of the apex court, hearing a case of 11 missing prisoners of Adiala Jail, allegedly abducted by the intelligence agencies. Other members of the bench include Justice Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday.Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, who advocated on behalf of the spy agencies that the heads of the secret agencies could not be made respondents in a constitutional petition, withdrew his stance after the court passed critical remarks on report from spy agencies regarding prisoners who went missing from the Adiala Jail. The AG on Wednesday had submitted a reply with the Supreme Court’s Registrar office on behalf of the intelligence agencies’ chiefs stating that 11 missing prisoners of Adiala Jail were not in the custody of these agencies.

In their reply, the heads of intelligence agencies also statedthat they (heads of spy agencies) or the intelligence agencies could not be made respondents in the constitutional petitions. They said the petitions filed by the legal heirs of the missing prisoners or other missing persons were not maintainable. The court asked the AG as to under which law the secret agencies are functioning in Pakistan, for which they could not be made party to any case. Anwarul Haq replied that there was no any specific law under which the secret agencies were functioning, adding that under Section 29 of the Civil Procedure Code, notices could be issued to the Federation. He further stated that even either by name or by designation, the heads of the intelligence agencies could not be issued notices. At this the chief justice said that Civil Procedure Code is subordinate legislation while the apex court under Article 184(3) and 185 of the constitution has wider jurisdiction and could issue notices to anyone. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said that the apex court served notices on secret agencies as it was authorised for the same. The chief justice further told the AG that even the replies submitted by the intelligence agencies did not carry the signatures of the heads of the intelligence agencies. The CJ further asked the attorney general that various important points have been raised in response from the sensitive agencies; and such objections do have far-reaching ramifications.

‘“Prima facie you know Mr attorney general about the evidence in the case and being a high law officer, it’s your responsibility to assist the court and resolve the matter amicably,” the chief justice said. Attorney General Anwarul Haq said that the court could give its judgment. Justice Iftikhar said that no one is above the law and the court wants to resolve the matter instead of opening the Pandora’s box. Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday observed that in certain state affairs cases, judgment could not be passed but one has to perform wisely. “If you want to create clash among the institutions which you did, you have to think about it,” Justice Ramday told the AG, adding that it seems the learned AG was not cautious of its implications. Justice Ramday further said that it was the prime responsibility of the state to provide protection to its people, adding that the only issue before the court was to know the whereabouts of the missing 11 prisoners. “Move in spirit and try to resolve the issue instead of generating it,” Justice Ramday asked the AG. The attorney general sought some time in order to go through the replies submitted by the Home Secretary Punjab and DCO Rawalpindi through Additional Advocate General Punjab Khadim Hussain Qaiser. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry stressed on the replies of the then Home Secretary Punjab, Commissioner RPO and District’s DCO for the case and issued notices to them for filing their replies till December 13. The court also directed that copies of the replies submitted by the Home Secretary Punjab and DCO be provided to the petitioner’s counsel. The chief justice directed the petitioner’s counsel to make full preparation for arguing the case as the replies of the secret agencies had raised vital questions regarding respondents and adjourned the hearing till December 13. REFERENCE: Agency officials are answerable to court: CJ Friday, November 26, 2010 By Sohail Khan ALSO REPORTED IN DAILY DAWN No laws to govern spy agencies, SC told From the Newspaper Yesterday By Nasir Iqbal

But again “Ansar Abbasi” Forget this:)

On Thursday, February 05, 2009; 2:44 AM….In the Urdu daily Jang of February 2, 2009 there was a column titled “Would Altaf Hussain participate in long march ?”, by the famous journalist Mr. Ansar Abbasi known for his research and investigative journalism. This column was a direct response to MQM’s Quaid Mr. Altaf Hussain’s address to MQM’s rabita committee in London on Jan 27, 2009. During the address Mr. Altaf Hussain put a simple question to Mr. Nawaz Shareef vis-à-vis PCO judges. that “what does the Charter of democracy’s article 3, clause (a) & (b) says about those judges who took oath under the PCO and if Mian sahib can answer this question then MQM too would diligently work with them towards the enforcement of Charter of Democracy.”. But in case Mian Nawaz fails to answer the question then it will be morally binding on him and an obligation to reconsider his decision to participate in long march. Principally & professionally speaking the answer should have come from Mian Nawaz Shareef. Alas it never came; nevertheless Mr. Ansar Abbasi took upon himself to issue a rejoinder. Peoples Party’s Shaheed Chairperson Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Shareef put their signatures on the Charter of Democracy (COD) comprising of 7 pages, 4 important topics and 36 articles in London on May, 14, 2006. But here we will only talk about the relevant points brought up by Mr. Ansar Abbasi, explained and deliberated upon in the aforementioned column. Mr. Abbasi says that COD’s article 3(a) explains the procedure for appointment of new judges and that Article 3(b) addresses the already appointed judges of higher courts with relevance to their oath taken under PCO.

Indeed this is true that Article 3 (b) addresses the oath taken by superior courts judges under the PCO and this is exactly said in the COD that “No judge shall take oath under PCO and nor shall he take any oath whose language stands at odds with the 1973 constitution’s defined language for oath of judges”.

Let’s read the exact text of the relevant Article from the COD. Under Article 3(a) it says “The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following: (i). The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.”

Ansar Abbasi in his column translates it as “The recommendations for the appointment of judges for the superior courts shall be undertaken through a Commission. This commission will comprise of following individuals.

1) The Commission’s chairman shall be a Chief Justice, who has never previously taken oath under PCO”. Mr. Ansar Abbasi himself mentions that “according to this Article Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) Chief Justice cannot become the chairman of this commission which has been entrusted with the task of making recommendations for the appointment of new judges. And for this any chief justice who in past did not take oath under PCO stands eligible to become chairman of this commission”. Our question to Mr. Ansar Abbasi when he openly admits that according to COD’s Article 3(a) Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) CJ cannot become chairman of the commission that will make recommendations for the appointment of judges to superior courts and is not eligible for the task then how can he according to Article 3(a) be eligible to hold the highest and honorable office of the superior court? Knowing this reality in its totality and fully well would it be right and legal to demand his restoration?

A very amusing point that MR Ansar Abbasi brings forth with regards to Article 3(a) in his column; it says “this sub-article has nothing to do with the current judges and that few people according to a well thought of plan are interpreting Article 3(a) in such a way so as to make the restoration of Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial and create confusion in common people”. But after explaining Article 3(a) he says “the authors of COD after much thought did not use the word “The Chief Justice” of Pakistan but used “a chief justice” since they knew that the chief justice of that time and those who will follow as chief justice will be those who took oath under the 2001 PCO”.

Quite strikingly Mr. Abbasi accepted the fact that in May 2006 this particular Article in the COD was specially included for the chief justice in office at that time and his brother justices who had taken oath under PCO so that Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry and other justices who took oath under General Pervez Musharraf’s PCO will stand disqualified for appointment as superior court judges. Moreover this is absolutely true that on May 14, 2006 when Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed and Mian Nawaz Shareef signed the COD, both the leaders had no clue and nor did the senior leadership of two parties knew anything or for that matter the leaders of lawyers movement had any idea that on march 9 a reference would be filed against Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry the sitting chief justice of Pakistan, that on November 3 General Musharraf would again impose emergency in the country and that judges would again be required by him to take new oaths under the PCO. As for making Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial, it is those parties who are dragging him into political rallies and processions that are to be blamed. As a justice Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry deserves the respect and protocol that comes with the office. Sadly & with due respect the chief justices and judges of superior courts are not only and strictly prohibited from public appearances, attending or endorsing political rallies and agendas, but even barred from attending private functions of such nature. But the honorable justice thought it right to go ahead with attending political rallies and processions and let the exalted office of chief justice go to the street and let himself become a spectacle on top of being controversial.

PML (N) leadership came up with the ludicrous argument that PCO’s mention in the COD is with reference to those judges who took oath on November 3, 2007. The question is that when the signatures were being put on charter of democracy on May 14, 2006 it was way before November 3, 2007, then whether PML (N) leadership got the premonition that on November 3, 2007 judges will take oath under the PCO? As per Ansar Abbasi if Article 3(a) of COD has no relevance with current judges or of any consequence to them then who are these particular PCO judges mentioned in the COD, since before January 2000 the PCO came in General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law in 1977 and none of those PCO judges from General Zia’s time were present in the judiciary of 2007. Accordingly it proves that in the COD announced on May 14, 2006 the very mention of PCO refers to the PCO of General Musharraf introduced in January 2000 and those who took oath on it.

The fact is that in the COD the issue of judges taking oath under PCO has been dealt with utmost seriousness and in Article 3(a) clause (2) with reference to procedure for appointment of judges in superior courts that it clearly says commission that makes recommendations for the appointment of judges, its members shall be Provincial High Court Chief Justices who have never taken oath under PCO. In case the criteria are not met then it will be senior most judges who will be members of the commission and those who have never taken oath under PCO. If in January 2000 there had been no PCO by General Musharraf and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his brother justices not taken oath under the PCO and provided constitutional protection to General Musharraf’s dictatorship, then it is our firm belief that in COD the mention of judges who took oath under PCO and their appointment would not have been mentioned as an Article in order to disqualify them. But on the contrary this would not have been an issue at all.

Mian Nawaz Shareef, Qazi Husaain Ahmed, Imran Khan and their like minded political leaders, lawyers, Ansar Abbasi and others of same thought look down on the current Supreme Court Chief Justice Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar and judges appointed under the PCO after the emergency of November 3, 2007 and don’t spare a moment in maligning them and consider them unconstitutional. Mian Nawaz Sharif has taken the extreme position of not recognizing them and has not hesitated in using derogatory and uncouth language such as “anti-state elements”, “traitors” and ”anti-Pakistan” and keeps using it in public. We have one question to all the above mentioned personalities and with all due respect we ask if Mr. Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and other judges taking oath under PCO on November 3, 2007 in their eyes was a serious and punishable crime then Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s oath on January 4, 2000 under General Musharraf’s first PCO too falls in the category of a serious and punishable crime. Then why do they present this one judge who committed the same unconstitutional act as a hero and the other as a traitor? Was General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 was correct and in accordance with the constitution of Pakistan? If this is true then the Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman would not have said no to taking oath under PCO and would not have said that we have already taken oath under the constitution of Pakistan and therefore we will not take a second oath under the PCO. These were the true heroes of judiciary those who demonstrated strength of character and were brave enough to not to take oath under PCO and instead submitted their resignations. This most important chapter in Pakistan’s legal history went unnoticed by Mian Nawaz Shareef and by the leadership of PML (N) who are always at the forefront of all kinds of foul and malicious attacks on Supreme Court. Rather they never came out on streets at that time, nor protested or bothered to become champions of judiciary. Nor did the lawyers who are ardently campaigning for restoration of deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and equate it with freedom of judiciary ever bothered to come out at that time and launch protests. Neither did Mr. Ansar Abbasi custodian of the pen and freedom of expression bothered to come out and lodge angry protests and columns. The sad irony is that lawyers and those political leaders who are at the forefront of long marches, waving angry fists and raging in fury never bothered to come out for Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman. Not even a mild protest or statement from these lawyers was registered or launched in favor of these true heroes of judiciary. Why this dual approach and where was the civil society then? And what were the prominent members of ex-servicemen’s society doing at that time or were they hiding in some hole? Where was their sense of democracy at that time? Had Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry taken the honorable and brave step of siding with the judges who refused to take oath under General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 then MQM too would have been at his side, as MQM’s demand and stand is principled, MQM questions as to why is only the restoration of the Nov 2 2007 judges being demanded & why not the judges who refused to take oath under PCO in 2000 and are true heroes who stood up like true men and should all be restored.

MQM strictly adheres to the principled stand that if Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s taking oath in 2000 under General Musharraf’s PCO is acceptable and correct according to Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like-minded then how is that judges who took oath on November 3, 2007 under General Musharraf’s second PCO could be illegal ? If one judge who took oath under one PCO is judiciary’s hero, protector and flag bearer of the constitution and considered champion of law then how is it so that another judge who took oath under second PCO can be declared as the villain of judiciary ? and one who abrogated constitution ? If the oath taken on November 3, 2007 by judges was wrong then how is that oath taken earlier in 2000 under the first PCO by General Musharraf by justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was legit and right in the eyes of law ? Asking to restore judges appointed under the first PCO and taking out long marches in their support and when it comes to judges who took oath under second PCO showing utter and abject disregard , calling them as unconstitutional and demanding for them to be removed is nothing short of blatant dichotomy in the character and logic of those who are espousing Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration. If the PCO of January 2000 was right and legit then how that is the PCO of November 3 2007 was wrong and illegal? If the second PCO was wrong and illegal then how can the first PCO be declared as right and legit?

Ansar Abbasi and his like minded political and religious leadership, members of legal community curse and accuse General Musharraf for breaking the constitution, twice introducing PCO, keeping both President & Army Chief offices, fighting elections in uniform and distorting the constitution of the country. Alongside they also demand the restoration of the judiciary of November 2, 2007. Basically they want the restoration of the judiciary whose Chief Justice was Iftikhar Chaudhry. For those with short memories let me remind them with great respect that General Musharraf’s takeover on October 12 1999 and his non-democratic step and his chief executive’s position was validated under doctrine of necessity by whom? In 2000 General Musharraf was allowed to postpone elections for two years by whom? Again in 2002 and in 2005 General Musharraf had both the offices of Chief of Army Staff as well as President and a constitutional writ that was filed against it in Supreme Court was rejected by whom?

Yet again on September 28th 2007 who gave permission to General Musharraf to fight elections in uniform? Was it the Dogar Judiciary as cynically put by Nawaz Shareef or was it the judiciary of November 2, 2007 that rejected the constitutional writs against General Musharraf regarding his Chief of Army Staff uniform, these writs according to Article 184(3) were declared as non maintainable and rejected by whom?

If Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his like minded friends and cronies call General Musharraf a dictator and usurper then who gave sanctuary and constitutional protection to this dictator’s extra-constitutional steps?

In due consideration and full acknowledgement of these facts and in light of this evidence Mr. Ansar Abbasi should sincerely ponder and seriously reflect as to whom is the true violator of the Charter of Democracy? Whether it is MQM or was it Nawaz Shareef and his political allies and confidantes who in demanding the restoration of PCO judges are standing accused of violating their own charter of democracy? If Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded political friends think and view the COD as that sacrosanct document that if its is not practiced then the entire judiciary, parliamentary system and democracy can be declared as non constitutional and can lead to the turning of tables on democracy and its lynching then principled approach and scruples tell us that if one has faith in COD then one should not talk of restoration of an individual who took oath under a dictator’s PCO, someone who provided full protection to the dictators extra constitutional transgressions. And if one only wants to talk out loud on the COD and not to practice it in spirit , then those who talk out the loudest on the COD should instead of long march go to the Constitution Avenue in Islamabad and burn this COD in the presence of public and in their court and to stop fooling people and pray for their forgiveness.

Would Mr. Ansar Abbasi exhibit moral courage to seek nation’s forgiveness for supporting Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry a person who took oath under General Musharraf’s PCO, a person who provided constitutional protection on many occasions to General Musharraf’s extra-constitutional steps? MQM’s leader Mr. Altaf Hussain sacrificed his party’s interest in lieu of the sensitive national security situation, the perils that democracy is facing today and for its survival in Pakistan. But is that what Mr. Ansar Abbasi would like to see that we put the entire country at stake for one person’s ego arrogance and his employment? Would MR Ansar Abbasi like to sacrifice the entire country, throw democracy in tailspin and put it to the torment of long marches, shutter-down strikes, chaos and lawlessness in these perilous times? Is MR Ansar Abbasi ready to back a long march and sit-downs that aims to destabilize the elected parliaments and to rock democracy’s boat and only to lead to have it trampled under some new dictator’s boots? Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded friends will for the sake of democracy have to select between an individual and our country’s democratic system. Is Mr. Abbasi he ready to do it? REFERENCE: A Riposte to Ansar Abbasi By Mustafa Azizabadi Member – Central Rabita Committee & In charge Central Media cell. MQM


The Pakistani government must investigate the torture and killings of more than 40 Baloch leaders and political activists over the past four months, Amnesty International said today. Activists, politicians and student leaders are among those who have been targeted in enforced disappearances, abductions, arbitrary arrests and cases of torture and other ill-treatment. The violence takes place against a backdrop of increasing political unrest and Pakistan army operations in Balochistan, south western Pakistan. “The Pakistani government must act immediately to provide justice for the growing list of atrocities in Balochistan,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director. “Baloch political leaders and activists are clearly being targeted and the government must do much more to end this alarming trend.” Among the latest victims of the ongoing violence are Faqir Mohammad Baloch and Zahoor Baloch, whose bodies were discovered in the district of Mastung on 21 October 2010. Faqir Mohammad Baloch, a poet and member of the Voice of Missing Baloch Missing Persons, was abducted on 23 September. Zahoor Baloch, a member of the Baloch Student Organization-Azad was abducted on 23 August. According to media reports, both received a single bullet wound to the head at point blank range and showed signs of being tortured. REFERENCE: PAKISTAN URGED TO INVESTIGATE MURDER AND TORTURE OF BALOCH ACTIVISTS 25 October 2010

Violence continues unabated in Pakistan’s strategically important and resource-rich province of Balochistan, where the military government is fighting Baloch militants demanding political and economic autonomy. President Pervez Musharraf’s government insists the insurgency is an attempt to seize power by a handful of tribal chiefs bent on resisting economic development. Baloch nationalists maintain it is fuelled by the military’s attempts to subdue dissent by force and the alienation caused by the absence of real democracy. Whether or not free and fair national and provincial elections are held later this year or in early 2008 will determine whether the conflict worsens. Instead of redressing Baloch political and economic grievances, the military is determined to impose state control through force. The killing of the Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti by the army in August 2006 was followed by the incarceration of another, Sardar Akhtar Jan Mengal, who has been held on terrorism-related charges without due process since December. Law enforcement agencies have detained thousands of Baloch nationalists or those believed to be sympathetic to the cause; many have simply disappeared. With the nationalist parties under siege, many young activists are losing faith in the political process and now see armed resistance as the only viable way to secure their rights. REFERENCE: Pakistan: The Forgotten Conflict in Balochistan 22 Oct 2007

Relying also on divide-and-rule policies, the military still supports Pashtun Islamist parties such as Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s Deobandi Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) in a bid to counter secular Baloch and moderate Pashtun forces. The JUI-F is the dominant member of the six-party Islamist alliance, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), Musharraf’s coalition partner in the provincial government since October 2002. It is also a key patron of the Afghan Taliban. Using Balochistan as a base of operation and sanctuary and recruiting from JUI-F’s extensive madrasa network, the Taliban and its Pakistani allies are undermining the state-building effort in Afghanistan. At the same time, U.S. and other Western support for Musharraf is alienating the Baloch, who otherwise could be natural partners in countering extremism in Pakistan. Although the military has retained control through force, it is fast losing the campaign to win hearts and minds. The insurgency now crosses regional, ethnic, tribal and class lines. Musharraf appears oblivious to the need to change course if the insurgency is to be contained and political stability restored. Islamabad has yet to implement any of the recommendations on Balochistan’s political and economic autonomy made by a Senate (upper house) committee in November 2005. The federal government has also disregarded the Balochistan provincial assembly’s unanimous resolutions against unpopular federal development plans. The government’s inadequate response to the cyclone and floods that devastated the area in June and July 2007 has further worsened alienation. Although the crisis in Balochistan is assuming threatening dimensions, it is not irremediable provided the national and provincial elections are free and fair. The restoration of participatory representative institutions would reduce tensions between the centre and the province, empower moderate forces and marginalise extremists. In the absence of a transition to meaningful democracy, however, the military’s strong-arm tactics are bound to further fuel the insurgency, at great cost to the Baloch people and Pakistan’s enfeebled federal framework. REFERENCE: Pakistan: The Forgotten Conflict in Balochistan 22 Oct 2007

President Pervez Musharraf and the military are responsible for the worsening of the conflict in Balochistan. Tensions between the government and its Baloch opposition have grown because of Islamabad’s heavy-handed armed response to Baloch militancy and its refusal to negotiate demands for political and economic autonomy. The killing of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti in August 2006 sparked riots and will likely lead to more confrontation. The conflict could escalate if the government insists on seeking a military solution to what is a political problem and the international community, especially the U.S., fails to recognise the price that is involved for security in neighbouring Afghanistan. Tensions with the central government are not new to Balochistan, given the uneven distribution of power, which favors the federation at the cost of the federal units. The Baloch have long demanded a restructured relationship that would transfer powers from what is seen as an exploitative central government to the provinces. But Musharraf’s authoritarian rule has deprived them of participatory, representative avenues to articulate demands and to voice grievances. Politically and economically marginalised, many Baloch see the insurgency as a defensive response to the perceived colonisation of their province by the Punjabi-dominated military. REFERENCE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pakistan: The Worsening Conflict in Balochistan 14 Sep 2006


PAC inquiry into NLC scam to go ahead
From the Newspaper
November 25, 2010 (2 days ago)
By Khawar Ghumman
nisar file 5431 PAC inquiry into NLC scam to go ahead
Talking to Dawn, Chaudhry Nisar said: “We have no problem if the GHQ carries out its own inquiry, but that can’t marginalise the inquiry being carried out by the PAC of the National Assembly that is the highest forum of the land as far as parliamentary accountability is concerned. – File photo
ISLAMABAD: The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, says he will go ahead with his committee’s probe into affairs of the National Logistics Cell (NLC) despite army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s decision to conduct a separate inquiry into the matter.
Talking to Dawn, Chaudhry Nisar said: “We have no problem if the GHQ carries out its own inquiry, but that can’t marginalise the inquiry being carried out by the PAC of the National Assembly that is the highest forum of the land as far as parliamentary accountability is concerned.
“The committee is going to place facts on the table on Dec 10 and 11 as I promised and will come up with our recommendations.”
Corruption in the NLC is an important issue because billions of rupees had gone down the drain, Mr Nisar said. Answering a question, the Leader of Opposition said the committee had gone through different inquiry reports conducted at three forums.
“Now we are very clear of this whole issue. It is as transparent as sunlight. The committee is going to take a decision based on facts and the facts are there in black and white.”
About the PAC having taken a bit more time in coming to a conclusion, he said that since three inquiries had been conducted one after another the committee decided first to go through their reports before making its final recommendations.
The first inquiry was carried out on the directive of the PAC by the Planning Commission. While the PAC was discussing the PC’s report, the committee came to know that a consultant has been hired by the new management of the NLC to prepare a fresh report on the issue. Initially, the consultant’s report was not presented before the committee. However, with some effort “we did manage that”, he said.
After going through these two reports, when the committee was about to make its final recommendations, it came to know that a chartered accountancy firm of the country had also done a report on the NLC which related not only to one particular scam, but the whole lot of scams committed under one director general of NLC. Then the committee asked for the third report of which its members were not aware and decided to make final recommendations after going through the three reports.
Now the question is what made the army’s top brass to conduct a new inquiry when the PAC was seized with the issue for well over two years and that had been intensely discussed in the media.
The NLC is a subsidiary of the planning commission and its sitting secretary appears before the PAC as principal accounting officer for mandatory settlement of its accounts.
When asked whether the army chief could order such an inquiry, Planning Commission Secretary Ashraf Hayat said: “According to my understanding it is a follow-up of earlier inquires, but it can best be explained by them (army people).”
Despite repeated attempts, ISPR Director General Maj-Gen Athar Abbas could not be contacted for his comments.
According to facts presented before the PAC in its various meetings, during 2004-2008 the top administration of the NLC heavily invested in the stock exchange in complete violation of government rules. They not only borrowed money from commercial banks on high mark-up rates, but also spent pensioners’ money on the business.
In return, heavy commissions were received from companies though the money had been invested in the market.
In the process they invested well over Rs4 billion in stock exchange and suffered a loss of nearly Rs1.8 billion.
According to the present NLC Director General, Major General Junaid Rehmat, the body was paying Rs2.7 million a day on account of mark-up on loans illegally obtained for investing in the stock market.
According to the inquiry reports, five ex-employees of the NLC — three retired generals and two civil servants — have been declared responsible for the losses incurred during 2004-2008.
These employees are: two retired Lt-Generals, Khalid Munir Khan and Mohammad Afzal Muzzafar, who served as officers in-charge in the NLC from January 2005 to June 2005 and from June 2005 to October 2008, respectively; Director-General of NLC Maj-Gen (retd) Khalid Zaheer Akhtar (July 2002 to January 2008), Director Finance and Accounts Najibur Rehman (October 2002 to April 2007) and Chief Finance Officer Saeedur Rehman (June 2004 to October 2008). Mr Saeedur Rehman is at present serving as member finance with the CDA.

ISLAMABAD: A nine-year-old Rs 25 billion scam of the Musharraf regime has returned to haunt his three favourite ex-Army Generals, who administered the Pakistan Railways in 2001, former ISI chief Javed Ashraf Qazi, Saeeduz Zafar and Hamid Hassan Butt. A 20-member special parliamentary committee of the National Assembly, formed by Speaker NA Dr Fahmida Mirza on April 22, 2008, investigated the lease of PR’s hundreds of acres of land of Royal Palm Golf and Country Club, Lahore, to a private party. It has now recommended to the government to register criminal cases against these ex-generals and confiscate and auction their property to recover the losses before cancelling the deal. These generals were summoned by the committee to give their side of the story but they failed to convince the members of their innocence. This is the major finding of any parliamentary committee since the return of democracy in 2008. The special committee has recommended immediate termination of the contract signed in 2001 and appointment of a new ad hoc committee for the interim period. It recommended fresh leasing of the Royal Palm Golf Course in an open auction so that maximum revenue could be generated for the Pakistan Railways, which according to its calculation might exceed Rs 40 billion. This correspondent had exposed this scam in 2001 when it had landed in the Public Accounts Committee, after Auditor General of Pakistan had claimed that the then army generals were not ready to hand over the secret documents of the deal signed with their favourite party, where the father-in-law of General Pervez Musharraf’s son used to work as a consultant. The then railways minister Javed Ashraf Qazi had “condemned” this correspondent for filing this story.

The committee has also recommended prosecution of all the four members of the executive committee of the Railways who had executed this deal with the patronage of these Army generals, and confiscation of their property too. The parliamentary inquiry report, which took more than two years to complete, has now revealed that the contract was achieved through fraud, cheating and misrepresentation. The parliamentary inquiry team headed by MNA Nadeem Afzal Chann submitted its report in the National Assembly on Friday. Other members of the team included Tariq Tarar, Tariq Shabir, Nasir Ali Shah, Nauman Islam Sheikh, Fauzia Wahab, Noor Alam Khan, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq , Abid Sher Ali, Raja Mohammad Asad Khan, Abdul Majeed Khanan Khail, Malik Bashir Awan, Haji Rozud Din, Pervaiz Khan, Sheikh Waqas Akram, Marvi Memon, Arbab Zakaullah, Engineer Shaukat Ullah, Gulam Murtaza Khan Jatoi, Iqbal Mohammad Khan and the minister for railways.

The report said its members discussed and investigated the matter of allotment of Railways land to the Royal Golf and Country Club, Lahore, on nominal price and recommended legal action against those held responsible. The committee members have found the then minister for railways Lt General Javed Ashraf Qazi, former secretary and chairman Railways Lt General Saeeduz Zafar, ex-general manager Railways Major General Hamid Hassan Butt and former secretary railways Khursheed Alam Khan responsible for this faulty deal, which according to the committee caused Rs 40 billion loss if calculated on the current market price.

The 25-page inquiry report available with The News said, “We (members) strongly feel that the contract was secured by the present lessee through deceit and fraud in connivance with the then high-ups of the Pakistan Railways and is not in accordance with the approved terms or the advertised terms. It is illegal and void, especially in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision on the privatisation of Pakistan Steel Mills.” The report said the deal was signed in indecent haste the day the executive committee approved the terms and conditions of the deal. The officials and three retired generals who appeared before the committee failed to explain how the entire work, such as approval of the deal, preparation of contract documents and signing of the same, were managed in one day. “It appears that it was actually a private contract between those retired generals and the lessee,” the report said.

It said the inclusion of Phase-II in the deal was also illegal, not based on any expression of interest and was not mentioned in the advertisement. It was to be completed within five years but eight years have lapsed and no revenue has accrued to the Pakistan Railways. The reasons of the delay given by the party are baseless. The Phase 111 is also illegal, it added. The report said the revenue share of the golf course should be from gross revenue, including everything as approved by the executive committee. According to the Railways record, the lessee has repeatedly committed defaults and its contract is liable to be terminated on this sole ground.

The replies given by Railways ex-employees, ex-chairman and lessee are not satisfactory and did not address the issues at all. The lessee has been occupying the land meant for Phase-II and III without paying any rent. The committee calculated a net present value of the land, which substantiates that it was a very poor deal. The committee agrees with the opinion of the DG Audit Railways that even if we accept the value of the land to be Rs 3.2 billion as was claimed by General Hamid Hassan Butt in his deliberations before the Committee members, even in that case the Railways shall suffer a loss Of Rs 25 billion due to this deal because the rent is not calculated according to the Railways code of engineering which provides that the annual rent should not be less than 15 per cent of the market value of the land. The contract is therefore detrimental to public interest, the committee observed.

This correspondent called General Javed Ashraf Qazi to get his point of view. His wife attended the call on his mobile phone and said he was out for dinner. Meanwhile, talking to The News General (retd) Saeeduz Zafar said he was not in a position to give a comprehensive statement, as he had not read the report yet. But he defended himself and said many important legal issues were involved and this contract was awarded after doing proper homework and following the laws of the land. General Zafar claimed that it was wrong to assume that all those who were running the Pakistan Railways in 2001 were directly responsible. He said a special committee comprising railways officials was set up to monitor the whole process and ensure transparent award of the contract. He confirmed that he was summoned by the special committee to give his side of the story. General Saeed claimed that this deal was also put before the Public Accounts Committee in 2006 and its members did not find anything wrong in it. He pointed out that a Senate body too had probed the deal and it too failed to find any flaws in it. REFERENCE: Three ex-Army generals found guilty of Rs 25 bn scam By Rauf Klasra Saturday, October 02, 2010 Shawwal 22, 1431 A.H.

No comments: