Friday, December 17, 2010

Jang Group & Kamran Khan "Conspire" Against Every Elected Government.

ISLAMABAD: There have been no renewed contacts between of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Jamiat Ulemae Islam (JUI), which has abandoned the ruling coalition, and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) that is gradually but calculatedly distancing from the government, political sources say. “We have been in touch with the MQM, JUI and other parties, which are opposing the passage of the Reformed General Sales Tax (RGST) bill in the parliament, but our discussion has been confined to this specific issue alone,” a senior PML-N leader told The News on condition of anonymity. The PML-N leader said that there has been no fresh discussions of his party stalwarts (leader of the opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali being the main interlocutor) with the representatives of the MQM, JUI and other parliamentary parties on the heightened political temperatures especially the growing fragility of and cracks in the PPP government after the JUI’s departure and the MQM’s steady coldness with the ruling coalition. However, Chaudhry Nisar says the PML-N will neither become an obstacle in the collapse of the government nor will it provide props to sustain it. “Interactions with parliamentary parties have been a regular feature of the PML-N politics,” he said. “We will continue to pursue this policy.” Another PML-N leader said that his party had got a clear idea of the likely exit of the JUI that he believed would be followed by the MQM but it might take some time. President Zardari’s allies are leaving him one by one because of his own follies, bad governance and corruption, he said. REFERENCE: PML-N, JUI, MQM yet to move closer Friday, December 17, 2010

Intellectual Dishonesty of Kamran Khan (GEO TV) on Nawaz Sharif.


Friday, December 17, 2010, Muharram 10, 1432 A.H

ISLAMABAD: The Musharraf government prepared a money laundering reference against PML-N leaders Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mian Shahbaz Sharif in 2000 on the basis of a statement recorded by one of their trusted lieutenants, Senator Ishaq Dar, according to a court document seen by Dawn here on Thursday. Senator Dar’s handwritten statement, given before a magistrate back on April 25, 2000, had alleged that Sharif brothers used the Hudaibya Paper Mills as cover for money laundering during the late 1990s. The reference was prepared on the orders of then president Pervez Musharraf, but it was shelved after the Sharif brothers went into exile in December of the same year. The Musharraf government tried to reopen the reference in 2007 after Nawaz Sharif announced his return to the country. The confessional statement of Senator Ishaq Dar was recorded before a district magistrate in Lahore. He was brought to the court from a jail by Basharat Shahzad, who was then serving as assistant director in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). According to legal experts, the senator’s deposition was an `irrevocable statement’ as had been recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Senator Ishaq Dar has always been regarded as one of the closest aides of the Sharif family, and is now also a relative as his son is married to Nawaz Sharif’s younger daughter. However, the NAB record clearly shows that back in 2000 he had agreed to give a written statement against the Sharifs about their alleged involvement in money laundering. REFERENCE: ‘Sharifs used paper mill to whiten money’ By Azaz Syed Friday, 13 Nov, 2009

EXCLUSIVE: BBC's Documentary On Nawaz Sharif's Corruption


ISLAMABAD: A loan of Rs3 billion against the Sharif brothers remains outstanding despite a lapse of about ten years when the physical assets of four industrial units — Ittefaq Foundries, Brothers Steel, Ittefaq Brothers and Ilyas Enterprises — were surrendered to nine lending banks, who haven’t got a penny back since 1998. The Sharif brothers were lauded in the national press in 1998 for surrendering their physical assets to nine banks but in actual terms, these banks did not get a single penny back after one of their (Sharif’s) own directors moved the court and got a stay order against selling of these assets. The stay order in favour of Ittefaq Brothers remains effective till date. Meanwhile, the representatives and legal experts of these nine banks are said to have recently met at Lahore to decide a new course of action to recover the loans from the Sharif brothers who have been shown as “defaulters” of the banks. The National Bank of Pakistan is the worst affected bank with a stuck up loan of Rs1.5 billion. Earlier, in his capacity as Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif in a highly charged televised address to the nation, had announced to surrender all the physical assets of Itefaq Foundries, Brothers Steels, Ittefaq Brothers and Ilyas Enterprises to the nine banks, whom the Sharifs reportedly owed Rs3.09billion. The process of selling the Ittefaq Foundries was stopped when one of the relatives of Sharif Brothers moved an application in the Lahore High Court in 2005 and the matter is still pending with the courts without any payment to the concerned banks.

According to official documents available with The News, in 1998, the directors of Ittefaq Group offered to surrender these units to settle the claims of all the banks instead of making cash payments to settle their accounts. Nawaz Sharif as the prime minister had then announced to hand over these assets to the Lahore High Court to monitor the sale of assets of his units. The names of directors of Ittefaq Foundries are Mian Tariq Shafi, Mian Javed Shafi, Mian Abbas Shafi, Mian Riaz Miraj, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, Mian Yousuf Aziz and Mian Nawaz Sharif. Likewise, the directors of Brothers Steels included Mian Yousuf Aziz, Mian Yahya Siraj, Mrs Nusrat Shahbaz, Mian Naseem Tariq, Mian Memoona Idris, and Hussain Barkat. The directors of Ittefaq Brothers were Mian SHahbaz Sharif, Mian Mohamamd Idris and Mian Pervaiz Shafi.

According to the official papers, Shahbaz Sharif and Nawaz Sharif owed bank loan of Rs1.5billion to National Bank of Pakistan, HBL Rs717million, UBL Rs340million, MCB Rs239million, Ist Punjab Mudraba Rs110millino, Bank of Punjab Rs61million, ADBP Rs58million, PICIC Rs17million and ICP Rs8million. The papers reveal that when the assets of these four defaulting units were surrendered to the LHC, in a bid to settle their claims all the banks unanimously agreed to get the court order to this deal. The documents showed that while hearing this application under section 284, the Lahore High Court ordered to constitute a committee comprising 3 members, a representative of banks, a chartered accountant and an advocate being the court representative. The mandate of the committee was to take the possession of the said units of the Ittefaq Group, to protect and preserve their assets and to auction them through court procedure. Under the said committee a bid of Rs2.48billion was received which was about half a billion rupees less than the actual loan money. The bid was submitted to the court in 2005. However, the final court order for auction has not been yet issued till today following the petition filed by some of directors of the Ittefaq Group. In 2006, committee member Iqbal Haider Rehman after his appointment as additional judge Lahore High Court was replaced by Pervaiz Akthar Malik, advocate and Kamran Amin NBP, due to change of his assignment in the banks, was replaced by Mr Salaim Ansar. Now this committee comprised Salim Ansar, Khajwa Abdul Qadir and Pervaiz Akhtar Malik. The official papers show that since filing of the bid of Rs2.48billion with the court in 2005, duly accepted by all the banks and recommended by the committee, the matter was still stuck up at the Lahore High Court for an order and despite all efforts of the committee, no progress has been made. The documents show that several meetings of the creditor banks had been convened by NBP at Lahore where the legal experts other than the dealing councils of the banks were also invited to consider the alternative course of action to expedite this matter. However, legal complications have arisen to such an extent that no concrete solution of the problem could so far be unanimously adopted. Talking to The News, president NBP Ali Raza confirmed that a sum of Rs1.5billion was outstanding against the Sharif brothers as the loan was yet to be settled. He said the physical assets were surrendered by the directors of these units but the court had yet to give its approval to the bidding price of Rs2.4billion obtained in 2005. Talking to The News, PML-N spokesman MNA Ahsan Iqbal said that there was an understanding with the banks in 1998 and the physical assets were handed over to them as part of “settlement”. He said actually the Sharif brothers never got their loans written off and the matter was declared “technical default” after the banks were put under pressure during the second government of PPP to seek the payment of loans prematurely. He said this was a sort of “technical default” and the cases later landed in the court. REFERENCE: Rs3 bn loan outstanding since ’98 – Ahsan terms it ‘technical default’, no loan write-off ever sought Sunday, December 20, 2009 By Rauf Klasra

Kamran Khan & Shaukat Aziz discussing Saudi - Nawaz Sharif Deal.


Sharif Brothers, Brigadier Niaz, Musharraf and Saudi Arabia


Friday, December 17, 2010, Muharram 10, 1432 A.H

Guess what:) This news is filed by Rauf Klasra "a colleague of "Ehtisab Mafia of Mir Shakil ur Rehman i.e. Kamran Khan, Ansar Abbasi and countless other "Ayatullah Sadeq Khalkhalis" we have for TV Anchors: Jang Group & Veracity of Transparency International & IRI Survey. NICL scam: Behind-the-scenes deal uncovered Published in The Express Tribune, December 16th, 2010. Karachi stock brokers behind NICL scam: Niazi Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2010.

Hamid Mir always incite "Political Parties" for Clash, let read his reality

Just compare two articles on Altaf Hussain by same Hamid Mir to know as to lowlife this Hamid Mir is that in first article he almost declared that Altaf Hussain is a Saint and in the second article Hamid Mir declared that ALTAF HUSSAIN IS ANTI-PAKISTAN.

Same Hamid Mir had also said this on MQM, and I hope you will not agree with him.

Hamid Mir openly against MQM (Altaf's Speech in Dehli)

Ansar Abbasi is also very fond of igniting Political Turmoil and he often forget what he used to file earlier

ISLAMABAD: The MQM is keenly watching the situation arising out of the unexpected departure of the JUI-F from the coalition and if the decision is not reversed, the MQM would be encouraged to decide its future on similar lines. Senior MQM leader Dr Farooq Sattar said that the party’s Rabita Committee was meeting in Karachi on Wednesday evening to discuss the fast changing political situation. The JUI-F’s departure from the coalition, overall political situation and the attitude of the PPP towards the MQM, are the three main points to be discussed by the Rabita Committee. If the MQM follows the JUI-F’s footsteps, it would mean imminent collapse of the Gilani government. A PPP source claims that the government may opt to impose emergency if it loses the majority support.
However, this report has not been confirmed from any reliable source. In case Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani loses the majority’s support in the National Assembly, the PML-N would not save the regime from collapsing and instead it would support any new political initiative based on principles of promoting good governance, eradicating corruption and reviving the economy. The PML-Q has also indicated that it would let the Gilani regime fall. Most political players are, however, unsure if Maulana Fazlur Rehman would stick to his decision or not. Almost everyone, who has been approached regarding the JUI-F’s exit, wonders if Maulana could stay outside the government. Spokesmen of both the MQM and the PML-N are saying that they are closely watching the situation arising out of JUI-F’s shocker. Ahsan Iqbal is of the view that his party has no love lost for the Gilani regime, so the question for supporting the government from collapse does not arise. Iqbal said that the PML-N would not enter into any game of power politics but would support any political initiative based on principles of curbing corruption, promoting good governance and reviving the economy of the country in the best interest of democracy and the people. Mustafa Azizabadi, the London based MQM spokesman, said that the Muttahida was keenly watching the situation. He said his party would weigh different options. He sounded really bitter on what the PPP Sindh Home Minister Zulfikar Mirza had said about the MQM a day earlier in Karachi. The MQM, whose differences with the PPP, have never been settled despite their 32-month-old coalition, are finding it really difficult to survive as coalition after the MQM opposed the NRO in late 2009. The MQM took on the government for alleged breach of riverbanks by the PPP ministers in Sindh to save their properties and Muttahida’s opposition to the RGST furthered the gap between the coalition partners. The power politics of Karachi always served like fueling the fire but Zulfikar Mirza’s Monday’s speech was too harsh to be easily swallowed by the MQM leadership. Dr Farooq Sattar said that the Rabita Committee of the party was meeting on Wednesday evening to discuss the situation and decide the future line of action. In these situations, the PPP may try to woo the PML-Q but Q’s spokesman Kamil Ali Agha told ‘The News’ that his party would never support the Gilani government if a vote of no confidence was brought against it. He, however, believed whatever was happening was a pre-planned conspiracy to demolish the whole democratic system. “I don’t think that the stage of vote of no confidence will ever come as the PPP will succeed to take down the system with it,” Agha said. REFERENCE: All eyes on Maulana Fazl, Altaf Hussain, Ch Shujaat Wednesday, December 15, 2010 By Ansar Abbasi
Wednesday, December 15, 2010, Muharram 08, 1432 A.H

Jang Group of Newspapers, GEO TV, Salim Safi, Shaheen Sehbai, Rauf Klasra [now in Express Tribune] and Ansar Abbasi should be ashamed of theirselves before filing a Cock and Bull Table Story of Secret Cell and State Funded APP Journalists because it was the Jang Group of Newspapers which statrted giving undue attention to Brigadier (R) Imtiaz since July 2009. Intellectually Bankrupt: Shaheen Sehbai & Secret Cell in President House!

PML - N & Operation Cleanup against MQM in 1992

Imran Khan on MQM (GEO TV 2007)


PML - N & Operation Cleanup against MQM in 1992

Brigadier (R) Imtiaz Exposes Mehran Bank Scandal, IJI & Operation Cleanup 1992 Part 1

Brigadier (R) Imtiaz Exposes Mehran Bank Scandal, IJI & Operation Cleanup 1992 Part 2

Brigadier (R) Imtiaz Exposes Mehran Bank Scandal, IJI & Operation Cleanup 1992 Part 3

Brigadier (R) Imtiaz Exposes Mehran Bank Scandal, IJI & Operation Cleanup 1992 Part 4


“Meesaq-e-Pakistan” OK but with whom because it was the Government of Nawaz Sharif in 1992 which Launched Military Operation against MQM"

NOTE: Due to current Judicial Crisis created by GEO/JANG/THE NEWS INTERNATIONAL, many links of The News International which are quoted below are DEAD - The Jang Group has removed all such Links from their website to evade Legal Action from Judiciary. Also note the Dirty Role which is being played by the Jang Group's Correspondent Mr. Ansar Abbasi in the news filed by him.

ISLAMABAD: No matter who has authored the script of the ongoing Brig Imtiaz tamasha, engulfing the political arena, the establishment that includes the military-led intelligence agencies and the Pakistan Army have emerged as the main villains, presumably as the authors of the fiasco wanted. Nawaz Sharif and his party are uncomfortable; demand for Musharraf’s trial has been sidetracked at least for the time being; the MQM gets into a position where it believes that its stand is vindicated but the Jinnahpur controversy also created an opportunity for its opponents for a much open criticism of the party and its policies; the issues like the scrapping of 17th Amendment have now become more complex with the two leading parties setting up for a political confrontation after the PML-N finds the Presidency behind the current smear campaign against its top leadership; however, President Asif Zardari is least affected by this recently started political wrangling. It rather has favoured him by temporarily silencing the guns that were targeting him and the government from all around for their alleged misrule, on charges of corruption, the sugar scandal and the reported ruining of the state institutions. The PML-N, which is badly hurt by the revelations about the alleged provision of Rs3.5 million to its party chief Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif by former ISI chief Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani, is pointing its finger at the president to have been the architect of the get-Nawaz campaign. However, the Presidency has strongly refuted these charges but different presidential aides are issuing the kind of statements that apparently show the presidency is getting amused with the situation. However, what is interesting is the unanimity between all these warring political forces showing their abhorrence over the role of the establishment in country’s politics. But in a strange dichotomy except the PML-N, the other two major warring political forces — the PPP and the MQM — are not interested in proceeding against Gen (retd) Musharraf under Article 6 of the Constitution. As one scans through the debates that took place in different talk shows of various private television channels after the recent emergence of the Jinnahpur controversy, the establishment is found to be the target of all.

The MQM, which had been the most trusted supporter of Gen Musharraf during his nine years rule, says that its Quaid Altaf Hussain is not returning to Pakistan because of the establishment. The PPP, too, said that the military operators and intelligences agencies have not been adhering to the command of the civilian governments whereas the PML-N is of the view that it has repeatedly found the establishment and Army chiefs overstretching their mandate. While appearing as a guest in one of the talk shows, PML-N information secretary Ahsan Iqbal has said it has been a harsh reality in Pakistan that policy decisions on some specific security and international issues have not been taken with the consultation or consent of the civilian government. He quoted the Kargil issue as one example and urged upon the need of rationalising the power structure in such a manner that no step could be taken against the wishes of the democratic government.

He said the PML-N differed with former Army chief Gen (retd) Aslam Beg after he issued a statement on the Gulf war that did not match the government’s policy. He said similarly Gen (retd) Asif Nawaz exceeded from the mandate he was given before launching the military operation against criminals, dacoits and anti-social elements in Sindh in 1992. Another Army Chief Gen (retd) Jehangir Karamat, he said, was removed because of his statement on the setting up of National Security Council. He said the PML-N government differed with Gen (retd) Musharraf on the Kargil issue. Senior PML-N leader Khwaja Muhammad Asif was of the view that the military-led intelligence agencies have been extremely powerful and instrumental in the making and breaking of the government. On the issue of the military operation in Karachi and the target killings there, Khwaja Asif said the agencies were mainly responsible for that. He said in both the 1992-93 and 1995-96 operations in Karachi, these were the military intelligence agencies that had played the important role. Interestingly, it was Khwaja Asif, who admitted that had the agencies not been so powerful MQM Quaid Altaf Hussain would have now been in Pakistan. Khwaja Asif said Altaf Hussain’s apprehensions towards the intelligences agencies, are barring him to come back and lead his party, which according to the N-leader would serve the political culture better.

Khwaja Asif also pointed out that the present situation in the tribal areas, Balochistan, Northern Areas and in Southern Punjab is also the outcome of what the agencies did during the last 20-22 years. The PML-N leaders have been distancing itself from the 1992 military operation against the MQM and insisted that it was the Army which had overstepped. In return, the MQM leaders, too, were mainly complaining to the PML-N and its leader Nawaz Sharif over his silence and the failure to stop the 1992 military operation against the MQM. MQM leader Haider Abbas Rizvi endorsed Khwaja’s views and said Hakim Saeed was killed by the agencies but the MQM was blamed for his murder. He lamented that the MQM workers were killed in an extra-judicial manner; military courts were created to try Muttahida workers, who were punished illegally and in violation of the Constitution through summary trials by these courts. Rizvi said in the 1992 operation what he called the Haqiqi terrorists were riding in military jeeps during the Army’s operation against the MQM. “It was all planted,” he said, and lamented the then-prime minister could not do anything to stop the operation.

Wasim Akhtar, another MQM leader, said in one the private channel that it’s a pity that the largest political parties of the country are today still dependent on Army and America. Dr Nadeem Ahsan of the MQM said MQM workers do not want Altaf Hussain to come back. He said the MQM Chief’s life is facing threats from the enemies of Pakistan. When asked to name these enemies, he pointed to both internal and external forces. When further probed, Dr Nadeem Ahsan initially named the Taliban and later said, “There are some other forces too. You can also name establishment.” When asked if the MQM fears from the establishment, he said, “Yes”. PPP information secretary Fauzia Wahab, too, in a talkshow talked of the political influence of the ISI which, according to her, grew after the agencies exposure in the Afghan war against former Soviet Union. Wahab, who is generally considered as her master’s (President) voice, said during the Afghan war the ISI became very resourceful and developed new technologies, which the agencies has to use somewhere to prove its worth. Referring to the history and also finding it true in the present day Pakistan, she said one thing is clear that in Pakistan democracy never got strengthened and the civilian authority has never been maintained. She said in her view there does not exist any central authority. Fauzia Wahab also added the 1992 operation is the reflection of the fact that the military operators at that time were not ready to concede the supremacy of the civilian leadership. She, however, believed the military interventions can’t be stopped by hanging a dictator but by improving the performance of parliament and through the vision and greater assertion of the political leadership. Dr Firdous Aashiq Awan, another PPP leader, blamed the establishment for the PPP government’s “mistake” to launch operation in Karachi against the MQM in 1995-96. REFERENCE: Establishment — the main target in current fiasco Wednesday, September 02, 2009 Politicians point finger at Army, ISI for debacles; all except the president are losers By Ansar Abbasi

LAHORE: The much trumpeted 1992 operation clean-up in Sindh had actually been launched against the backdrop of the infamous ‘Major Kaleem kidnapping case’, when a serving Army major was abducted and tortured, allegedly by a group of activists belonging to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (which was then known as the Muhajir Qaumi Movement). While the MQM leadership has recently blamed former prime minister Nawaz Sharif for the 1992 operation and asked him to apologise for the atrocities committed during his tenure, it remains a fact that the MQM high command had held at that time the military leadership responsible for the action, saying it actually wanted to avenge the honour of Major Kaleemuddin. As a matter of fact, Major Kaleemuddin of the Field Investigation Unit (FIU) of the Army had been tasked to restore peace in the trouble-stricken Landhi area of Karachi. He was abducted on June 20, 1991, along with a few subordinates, while in civvies ñ the night when the MQM-Haqiqi led by Afaq Ahmed made an abortive attempt to take over Landhi offices of the Altaf-led MQM, called Muhajir Khel. This led to a bloody gun battle between the two MQM factions, killing many from both sides. However, the Haqiqi group was forced to flee after the Altaf group unleashed all its fire power in the gun battle. A few hours after the abortive attempt by the Haqiqi group, Major Kaleemuddin was abducted from the Landhi area by armed activists of the MQM, who allegedly took him to a torture cell and subjected him to ‘mistreatment’. The Major Kaleemuddin kidnapping case is still described by many in the establishment as the bedrock of the subsequent military operations carried out against the MQM under the Sharif and the Bhutto governments. Altaf Hussain and several other MQM leaders and workers were subsequently accused of being involved in the kidnapping episode and named in the FIR registered on June 24, 1991. Altaf left Pakistan in December 1992.

But there are different versions of what exactly happened to Major Kaleemuddin. Some of the MQM leaders had claimed after the incident that the abductors were under the impression that MQM-Haqiqi leaders Afaq Ahmed and Amir Khan – had returned to the port city at the behest of the agencies and that the major was present in Landhi to supervise the establishment-sponsored operation against them. During the court trial, many of the accused had claimed that since the major was in plain clothes, he was mistaken by them for a Haqiqi activist and subsequently roughed up. But as soon he had revealed his identity, the major was allowed to go. However, according to the prosecution, Major Kaleemuddin, along with three other Army officers, was patrolling the Landhi area in an Army jeep when 20 armed youths took them hostage after seizing their weapons. The Army men were taken to a place called Muhajir Khel in Landhi where they were allegedly tortured and kept for seven hours and rescued when the police reached the place. The accused charged with kidnapping the Army officers and torturing them included Altaf Hussain, Saleem Shahzad, Dr Imran Farooq, Safdar Baqri, Nadeem Ayubi, Ayub Shah, Aftab Ahmed, Ismail alias Sitara, Ashraf Zaidi, Sajid Azad, Ashfaq Chief, Javed Kazmi, Haji Jalal Asghar Chacha, Rehan Zaidi and Mohammad Yousuf.

Whatever the truth might be, the then-Army high command’s keen interest in the prosecution of the accused gave an impression as if the traditional martial pride of the Khakis – that nobody gets away with bashing up an Army officer ñ was at work. Gen Asif Nawaz had been the Corps Commander Karachi at that time who got promoted as the Army Chief in August 1991, right before the start of the military operation. A special court for suppression of terrorist activities (STA), led by Justice Rafiq Awan, began hearing of the Kaleemuddin kidnapping case in March 1993 and delivered judgment on June 9, 1994. The court had convicted Ashfaq Chief, Javed Kazmi and Haji Jalal and sentenced them to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment, besides imposing a fine of Rs 20,000 each under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Hudood Ordinance. All other accused, including Altaf Hussain, were declared absconders and sentenced to 27 years jail and a fine of Rs 30,000 each in absentia. Almost three years later, following the 1997 general elections and the subsequent decision by Altaf Hussain to join hands with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, all the convicted MQM leaders and activists challenged afresh their conviction and sentences before the Sindh High Court. Their appeal was heard by a division bench, which found the case as one ‘of almost no legal evidence’. Relying on the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1976, the bench upheld on trial in absentia as well as the right of the absentee accused to file an appeal. Dealing with evidence, the bench observed that the eyewitnesses’ account did not inspire confidence and the evidence of the complainant was, in particular, full of contradictions.

The bench, comprising Justice Nizam Hussain Siddiqui and Justice Abdul Hameed, noted that it is difficult to believe, a group of 15 or 20 boys could disarm four trained soldiers. Therefore, all the accused were acquitted and three convicts serving their term were ordered to be released immediately. But it is interesting to point out that after AQ Halepota, one of the counsels for the MQM leaders, concluded his arguments before the court, the then-advocate-general Sindh Shaukat Zuberi submitted that numerous omissions and contradictions had been made during the trial of Major Kaleemuddin’s kidnapping and torture case and that he would not support the convictions of the accused by the STA court. The verdict came hardly a week after the then-prime minister Nawaz Sharif had travelled to London to meet Altaf Hussain. To recall, the MQM and the PML-N had been coalition partners at that time, before finally falling apart following the assassination of Hakim Mohammad Saeed in Karachi. Major Kaleemuddin had subsequently challenged the acquittal of the MQM leaders and activists by the Sindh High Court. But the petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the apex court on August 13, 2007, mainly due to non-prosecution, as neither the petitioner nor his counsel had turned up. REFERENCE: MQM Shifts Blame for 1992 Operation From Military to Nawaz Sharif By Amir Mir The News, Daily Jang September 02, 2009  - Also, see the Urdu Edition (You’d miss that on, once again bias Jang has removed content) Also, see the Urdu Edition:

LAHORE: The present animosity between the Altaf-led MQM and the Sharif-led PML has more to do with the October 1998 murder of former Sindh governor Hakim Mohammad Said and the subsequent imposition of the Governorís Rule in the province by the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, rather than the 1992 operation clean-up, following which the two parties had mended fences and joined hands to form coalition governments in Sindh and at the federal level. The MQM is swinging between the PML and the PPP since the restoration of democracy in Pakistan in 1988, by joining almost every ruling coalition in Sindh. Having joined hands with then prime minister Benazir Bhutto after the 1988 elections, the MQM walked out of the PPP-led coalition in Sindh and at the centre in 1989. After the 1990 elections, the MQM teamed up with the Sharif-led PML, but left the coalition in 1992. After the dismissal of the second Benazir government in November 1996 and the subsequent holding of the 1997 general elections, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain had again joined forces against their common rival PPP.

On February 21, 1997, the MQM leadership signed a power sharing accord with new prime minister Nawaz Sharif and joined the coalition government at the federal level and in Sindh. As per the accord, Nawaz Sharif had agreed to hold a judicial probe into the deaths of ìhundreds of MQM workers in police custody or fake encounters besides granting compensation to the families of the deceasedî. Interestingly, the PML-MQM did not mention the 1992 military operation, for which the MQM now blames the PML. The first major development that followed the PML-MQM reunion was the Sindh High Courtís February 1997 decision to acquit Altaf Hussain and his 18 co-accused in the kidnapping and torture case of Major Kaleemuddin of the Field Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the Pakistan Army. The acquittal only became possible after Advocate General Sindh Shaukat Zuberi had submitted before the court that numerous omissions and contradictions had been made during the trial and that he would not support the convictions of the accused by a special court for suppression of terrorist activities.

On April 1, 1997, the PML-MQM coalition government in Sindh announced the formation of a compensation committee to pay compensation to the members of the affected families and their legal heirs ìwho had suffered during the period October 1993 to November 1997î. Once again, there was no mention of the year 1992 when the infamous operation clean up was launched by the Pakistan Army in Sindh. This was despite the fact that the operation clean-up had started in the rural areas of Sindh on May 23, 1992 and in the urban areas of the province on June 19, 1992. The operation had cost the government over Rs 4 billion since 45,000 military and para-military troops of the Corps V were deployed in Sindh to assist the civil administration in restoring peace. As a follow up to the PML-MQM power sharing accord of February 21, 1997, the Sharif government subsequently paid a hefty amount of Rs 500 million from the federal kitty as compensation to the families of 711 MQM activists who had either been killed or left disabled. However, the London-based MQM leadership now claims that around 15,000 MQM workers and supporters had lost their lives in the aftermath of the 1992 operation clean up. Interestingly, the MQM workers were not the only ones to have been compensated by the then Sharif government. A sum of Rs 200 million was also distributed as compensation money amongst 634 bereaved families of the Army, Rangers and the Police Jawans who had lost their lives between May 1992 and April 1998 in ìanti-terrorist operationsî carried out in Sindh.

To the amazement of many, the families of those killed (MQM-A workers) and those who had been blamed for their deaths (law enforcement agencies) were paid an equal compensation amount of Rs 300,000 each by the Sharif government. While the widows and other dependents of the army, rangers and police Jawans were given compensation money because they had lost their lives ìfighting terrorismî, the family members of the MQM-A workers were compensated for their ìextra-judicial killings by the law enforcement agencies.î But the most astonishing aspect of the whole episode was that the army had claimed a head money reward of Rs 5 million from the Sindh government for killing 368 desperados during the 1992 operation clean-up, including several MQM-A activists whose families had to be paid compensation money eventually. The PML-MQM coalition went smooth afterwards for almost a year, before some serious differences erupted between the two partners, making the MQM to quit the federal and Sindh governments in August 1998. Yet on September 20, 1998, the MQM resumed support to the PML government at federal level and in Sindh, but without joining the cabinets. However, their alliance came to an abrupt end following the October 17, 1998 murder of the former Sindh governor Hakim Mohammad Said, who was allegedly assassinated by MQM activists in Karachi. The main accused in the murder case was Zulfiqar Haider, a serving MPA of the MQM from the Sindh Assembly. On October 28, 1998, ten days after the murder and having received the initial inquiry report from the authorities, Nawaz Sharif accused the MQM legislator and seven other party activists of involvement in the Hakim Said murder and set a three-day deadline for Altaf Hussain to handover the killers, including the MPA, failing which he threatened to call-off the PML-MQM alliance. On October 31, 1998, following the MQM leadershipís refusal to meet the deadline, the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif imposed federal rule in Sindh, which was followed by a massive crackdown by the security agencies against the MQM, which led to a fresh round of hostilities between the two political parties whose leadership is at daggers drawn against each other even today. REFERENCE: The real cause of MQM-PML hostility Thursday, September 03, 2009 By Amir Mir

ISLAMABAD: No Mr Altaf Hussain, you are wrong. Your recipe to cleanse the Augean stables is flawed, unconstitutional and simply shocking. Your outburst negates the established principles of rule of law that is mandatory for justice and fair play in any society and for which we have been struggling since March 9, 2007. You have not only unmistakably invited ML but proposed dictatorial rule of one man that would be disastrous for my Pakistan. One’s despondency and disappointment from the Zardari-Gilani government to which Altaf Bhai’s MQM is an integral part is perhaps far more grave than what the MQM chief apparently claims. Undoubtedly the present regime is thoroughly corrupt and the worst example of bad governance. Time has also proved that Prime Minister Gilani is also helpless, hopeless, incompetent and lacks courage and is a mere burden on the system for his inaction and incapability to steer the country away from the challenges facing the nation. This is known to all that democracy is being used by the present rulers to give cover to their corruption, misrule and bad governance. Everyone knows that Zardari and the bunch of corrupt coterie surrounding him are on a suicide mission and have emerged as the greatest threat to democracy. The question that arises here is if, because of corruption, bad-governance and misrule of the rulers and regime, we should condemn democracy and let another dictator come, it would ruin everything. Targeting democracy would mean bowing down to whims and wishes of one man, moving against our own rights, abrogating Constitution and weakening institutions including independent judiciary and free media. It sounds strange that no-confidence against the system is coming from Altaf Hussain whose party is vital part of the corrupt federal as well as Sindh government. Being part of it, the MQM is bound to share the burden of all the wrongs being done by the Zardari-Gilani duo. Instead of targeting democracy, why don’t Altaf Bhai and his party hit the corrupt government and the corrupt rulers? The MQM, which has served as B-Team of General Musharraf during his nine-year dictatorial rule, should now serve democracy and as a first step get out of the coalition. The party can also exert pressure on the regime to behave by setting the conditions of good governance, across the board accountability and corruption free government if the PPP wants the MQM to stay in the coalition.

Following democratic norms, the MQM has the option of leaving the federal government. It would mean the immediate collapse of the Gilani regime. The PPP, which has just 126 members in the National Assembly and has made the government with the support of MQM, ANP, JUI(F), independents and others, can’t survive if it loses the support of 25 MQM MNAs. The collapse of the government could pave the way for re-adjustments of political divide within the National Assembly. It would mean forming a new government. Otherwise, we have mid-term elections. These are all democratic means to handle the kind of situation we are confronting today. Hatred against Zardari should not be allowed to turn into hatred against democracy. Just to recall Altaf Bhai, the present lot ruling the country had made its way into the corridors of power because of the NRO, which was promulgated and negotiated by the Generals. Therefore, Altaf Bhai, please let the cleansing be done by the system instead of the Generals, who have failed every time they ruled the country. Let’s start differentiating between democracy and government. We have the kind of rulers who have given us the sham democracy. Instead of reverting to the military rule we all should struggle for genuine democracy, genuine people who should serve people instead of serving the rulers. REFERENCE: MQM must push for a change within the system; Altaf Bhai should leave coalition first; force mid-term polls, not invite a dictator Tuesday, August 24, 2010 By Ansar Abbasi;-Altaf-Bhai-should-leave-coalition-first;-force-mid-term-polls-not-invite-a-dictator Wednesday, September 01, 2010, Ramzan 21, 1431 A.H

ISLAMABAD: In a major political development, the PML-N and the MQM have developed channels of interaction likely to be visible soon when the two parties would not press their respective privilege motions against each other in the National Assembly. However, there still exists a level of hesitation between the two sides to frankly and freely talk about future cooperation, which if matures at a later stage might rattle the Gilani regime. At this stage, both the parties do not have the kind of comfort level where they can discuss the issue of in-house change. Background interaction with some key members of these two political parties reveal that two influential senators, one from each party, are presently in touch with each other to cool down the tempers, which ran high of late after the controversial statement of the MQM Chief Altaf Hussain. A source said that both the parties were inclined not to press their respective privilege motions in the forthcoming session of the National Assembly that was requisitioned by the PML-N to discuss the flood and devastation caused by this natural calamity. “There is also a possibility of the two parties withdrawing their privilege motions,” the source said, adding that after the detailed interview of the MQM chief on Geo and his clarification that his statement did not mean to invite martial law, the controversy stands settled. There is also realisation on both sides that at this critical juncture when almost 20 million Pakistanis are affected by the floods, they should discuss the flood situation in the forthcoming session instead of getting involved into a verbal war of accusations and counter accusations against each other.

When asked about the future cooperation between the two sides for a possible in-house change, a senior MQM leader said that the party would not like to go for any such thing while staying in the government. The Karachi situation and the future of democratic system, according to the MQM leader, are their concerns. “We don’t want to do anything that may shake the system or lead to a deterioration in law and order situation in Sindh,” the MQM source said. However, the MQM is willing to weigh different options. The PML-N too is not showing any immediate sign of taking initiative for an in-house change but the kind of frustration and despondency the party has developed vis-‡-vis the Gilani government is expected to lead to some upheavals in the political arena. The PML-N and the MQM have been coalition partners in both terms of Nawaz Sharif as Prime Minister. However, the relations between the two parties touched all time low when in an APC called by Nawaz Sharif in London in 2007, a resolution was passed against the MQM for its alleged involvement in 12 May, 2007 massacre. REFERENCE: PML-N, MQM relations warming up Wednesday, September 01, 2010 By Ansar Abbasi

LAHORE: The decision to launch the infamous 1992 operation clean-up in Sindh was largely taken by the military establishment immediately after the retirement of General Mirza Aslam Beg as the Army chief and the elevation of the then chief of general staff General Asif Nawaz Janjua to his place in August 1991. General Janjua had been the corps commander Karachi for three years from April 1988 to March 1991 before being elevated as chief of general staff in April 1991 for a brief period, only to be made the 10th chief of army staff three months later on August 16, 1991. And the operation clean-up was launched shortly afterwards. A careful scanning of the Pakistani newspaper files between 1989 and 1992 show that a proposal to send in the Army to ‘clean up’ Sindh was first floated in 1989 when Ghulam Ishaq Khan was the president of the country, Benazir Bhutto the prime minister, General Aslam Beg the Army chief and Lt-Gen Asif Nawaz the corps commander Karachi. However, difference of opinion arose after Ghulam Ishaq and General Aslam Beg opposed the suggestion. It was during his tenure as the corps commander Karachi that Asif Nawaz shot to prominence. Sindh at that time wilted under the most violent period in its history. Ethnic battles between Sindhis and Mohajirs were a routine affair and Asif Nawaz was often asked by the civil administration to deploy his troops to impose curfew and break the civil strife.

On one such occasion, Lt-Gen Asif Nawaz had to personally come forward as a guarantor between two ethnic extremist groups to ensure a safe swapping of the hostages from both sides, who otherwise would have been killed. Therefore, he had floated a proposal to the PPP government in 1989 for carrying out two separate operations in urban and rural areas of Sindh against extremist elements in the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM) and Al-Zulfiqar Organisation as well as against criminals and dacoits who had been enjoying the protection of influential political personalities and landlords. However, Beg reportedly voiced his opposition to the proposal and simply dragged his feet by demanding Herculean powers from the federal government for the Army under Section 245 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, there were elements in the Bhutto government who argued that a genuinely impartial military operation, cutting across party and ethnic lines, as envisioned by Asif Nawaz, would shake the foundations of the entire political edifice. However, the ground work preceding the military operation in Sindh was eventually started in August 1991 soon after Aslam Begís retirement and Asif Nawazís elevation by Ishaq Khan. After taking Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif into confidence, the military high command had issued directives to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Military Intelligence (MI) to prepare secret reports on the activities of dacoits, criminals, terrorists as well as political elements patronising notorious elements in Sindh. A separate cell was formed within these agencies to focus on the activities of the Altaf-led MQM, but with precise directives that these reports should remain completely impartial and credible.

However, problems began to crop up when Prime Minister Sharif was informed by the intelligence agencies that some provincial ministers allied to his Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI), President Ishaqís son-in-law Irfanullah Khan Marwat, several prominent Pirs of Sindh, then chief Minister of the province Jam Sadiq Ali and some key members of the PPP and the Altaf-led MQM were all involved in criminal activities. Subsequently, the leaderships of different political parties were informed of these intelligence reports and asked to purge their parties of such elements as early as possible. In response, the PPP high command publicly severed its links with Al-Zulfiqar while Altaf Hussain deemed it fit to expel Afaq Ahmed and Amir Khan from the MQM. However, Nawaz Sharif was advised by his close aides that so many politicians from Sindh have been named in the intelligence reports as criminals that if they were rounded up, the Jam Sadiq-led coalition government would simply collapse; the PPP would seize power in Sindh and the PML-led government in Islamabad would be plunged into a serious political crisis. Sharif was also warned that any action against criminal elements of the Altaf-led party by the Army could prove counter productive, despite the fact that intelligence reports had described the MQM as “a state within a state”. Nonetheless, General Asif Nawaz Janjua was determined to move ahead with his plan of an operation clean-up in Sindh to cleanse the province of criminals. By that time, the infamous kidnapping and torture of Major Kaleemuddin by MQM henchmen had already taken place. In May 1992, a month before the operation was officially launched, the original plan was reviewed by the GHQ and it was decided that a direct clash between the Army and the MQM should be avoided.

Therefore, the MQM-Haqiqi was launched. But the intelligence move backfired and severely damaged the credibility of the Army. During a high-level troika meeting hardly two weeks before the operation clean-up, General Asif told Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that although many MQM, PML, PPP and Pagaro League members were on the criminal list, the Armyís first and foremost target would be dacoits in interior Sindh. However, as soon as the operation was launched, Nawaz Sharif was taken by surprise as the Army opted to raid the Nine Zero headquarters of the MQM in Azizabad to arrest dozens of its activists and leaders who were wanted for their involvement in criminal and terrorist activities. By that time, while sensing the gravity of the situation, Altaf Hussain had already fled Karachi for London. As pressure mounted on Nawaz Sharif by the component parties of the IJI, he decided to give a clear cut message to the Army by travelling to London to meet Altaf Hussain on June 19, 1992 when the operation clean-up was at its peak in Karachi and Hyderabad. And his move explicitly meant to distance himself from the operation clean-up of the Pakistan Army that was being directed against one of his important coalition partners in Sindh — the Altaf-led MQM. REFERENCE: General Janjua — the man behind 1992 operation Friday, September 04, 2009 By Amir Mir

Where many people term the appointment of General Pervez Musharraf as army chief in 1998 a big blunder by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif a top PML-N leader now claims that Musharraf was the best option available. ‘The prime minister made the final decision. I did support Musharraf to become the Chief of Army Staff… But the decision was based purely on merit given his professional track record,’ PML-N central leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, told DawnNews, in an interview. Critics blamed Chaudhry Nisar and his brother Lt Gen (r) Iftikhar Ali Khan, the then defence secretary, for persuading Nawaz Sharif to appoint General Musharraf as army chief. But Chaudhry Nisar, who is also the Opposition Leader in the National Assembly nowadays, did not have any regrets of favouring General Musharraf to the top slot. Asked whether the military coup of October 1999 was the result of that bad judgement, he observed they supported Musharraf to become the army chief not the Chief Martial Law Administrator.Chaudhry Nisar also justified the appointment of General Musharraf as Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Committee after the Kargil fiasco.He asserted the decision to appoint General Musharraf as chairman of the JCSC was made to boost the moral of the armed forces.He said the PML-N government did not want to act against the generals, who masterminded and executed Kargil operation. Not only General Pervez Musharraf himself, but many former close aides of Nawaz Sharif including Chaudhry Shujaat and Mushahid Hussain, already stated that Kargil operation was conducted with full consent of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.Chaudhry Nisar did not deny the ambition of attaining the top political office of the prime minister. ‘When you are in politics then you struggle. And whatever comes you take it. You take the good with bad. As and when situation arises you face it,’ he observed, when asked whether or not he wants to become the prime minister. He said whatever the case may be he would not make any categorical observation while sitting in a television interview. Reference: Sunday, April 26, 2009, 16:28

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 1
The Chief of Army Staff, General Asif Nawaz had begun to feel upset at many of Sharif's moves, most significant of them being his attempts to create rifts within the Army. Chaudhry Nisar Ahmad and Brig. Imtiaz, the former ISI chief, were even accused by the late General of threatening to turn him into another Gul Hasan, the army chief who was sacked by Z.A. Bhutto and bundled into a car by Ghulam Mustafa Khar and taken to Lahore by road. It is said that just when General Mirza Aslam Beg was about to topple Nawaz Sharif at the fag end of his tenure in 1991, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan agreed to name General Asif Nawaz as the new COAS, three months before he was to take over. Just when General Asif Nawaz was getting seriously worried about the Nawaz Sharif government, he died quite suddenly in January, 1993 Reference: Saga of intrigue and deceit by Shaheen Shebai - Dawn - 27.5.1993 / ISLAMIC PAKISTAN: ILLUSIONS & REALITY By Abdus Sattar Ghazali [Correction: Brigadier Imtiaz had never been ISI Chief rather he was IB Chief during Nawaz Sharif's First Government]

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 2
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Muslim League-N has urged the army to clarify its position on the appeal made by MQM chief Altaf Hussain to ‘patriotic generals’ to take ‘martial law-like action against corrupt politicians’. “Ask ISPR (army’s public relations department) to make a comment on it. I personally believe that the army should present its viewpoint,” Chaudhry Nisar, Leader of Opposition in National Assembly, said in reply to a question at a press conference on Saturday. Chaudhry Nisar said it would be in the interest of the army if it stayed away from politics. “Please, let the army do its job. It is in the interest of the army, country and all institutions as Pakistan’s future lies in democracy. Today, when they (army) have returned to their original work, don’t distract them.” The opposition leader said the federal government’s silence, too, was surprising considering that the Muttahida chief was actually talking about the rulers’ corruption. The PML-N has already submitted a privilege motion to the National Assembly secretariat in condemnation of Mr Hussain’s remarks. Like the MQM, he added, the PML-N was concerned over corruption, but the party favoured accountability through parliament. Chaudhry Nisar accused the Muttahida chief of “trying to divide the army and make it controversial” at a time when soldiers were busy in the war against terrorism.

In the past, Chaudhry Nisar recalled, the MQM was always critical of Rangers and the army’s role and raised “anti-army slogans” when Gen Asif Nawaz, Gen Jehangir Karamat and Gen Waheed Kakar were army chiefs. “However, when Gen Musharraf hid their misdeeds, the army became dear to the MQM,” he said. The opposition leader criticised the MQM for keeping silent when “its favourite army chief (an allusion to Gen Musharraf) made those people minister who had been facing corruption charges and were under the custody of National Accountability Bureau which was under the total control of the army”. “Why did you not question Gen Musharraf when he released NAB-affected people from jails and made them your colleagues in the cabinet?” the PML-N leader asked. Commenting on Mr Hussain’s controversial remarks, the PML-N leader reminded the MQM leadership that it was the army that had ‘exposed its style of politics based on murder and extortion”. He threatened to present the record of army about the MQM in parliament if it did not stop personal attacks on the PML-N leadership. REFERENCE: PML-N seeks army, govt’s response to MQM remarks By Amir Wasim Sunday, 29 Aug, 2010,-govts-response-to-remarks-980

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 3 [Article 6 as explained by Mr Haider Abbas Rizvi in National Assembly. He explains that “abettors” are also guilty of Treason]
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

Speech of Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM) Rebuttal to Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the Parliament 4

Opposition leader in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar said that former President Pervez Musharraf covered up the misdeeds of MQM’s Chief Altaf Hussain. While addressing a press conference in Islamabad, Ch. Nisar alleged that MQM’s 25 year politics revolves around intelligence agencies. Chaudhry Nisar criticized Altaf Hussain and said that a British passport holder should not give lessons of sympathy for Pakistan. He said that whatever happens in Pakistan and how grim the situation remains, Altaf does not leave his million pounds home in London. He asked that why did Altaf Hussain not oppose General Musharraf during his military rule? Musharraf was his favourite ruler. REFERENCE: Why didn’t Altaf oppose Musharraf?’ asks Ch. Nisar ISLAMABAD - 28th August 2010 By Umair Anwar

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. He announced that his party had decided to move a privilege motion on the issue and termed the MQM chief’s statement “part of a well-designed and well-orchestrated strategy”. Nisar blames judiciary for fake degree chaos By Amir Wasim Tuesday, 24 Aug, 2010

No comments: