ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council hearing a Reference under Article 209 of the constitution against Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has noted with grave concern that the electronic and print media is engaged in media trial on a subjudice matter whose proceedings are being held in camera and are not to be reported except as directed/authorized by the Council. This was stated in a statement issued by Mohammad Ali registrar and secretary Supreme Judicial Council here on Tuesday. Therefore the Supreme Judicial Council cautions the electronic and print media to refrain from indulging in media trial and in this behalf directs the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad to advise the electronic and print media not to arrange or produce talk shows and other similar programmes concerning issues pending before the Council. The SCJ is committed to upholding the freedom of press and information and the right of every citizen of the State Bank of Pakistan to be kept informed of the proceedings of the Reference through the media. In this regard an appropriate mechanism is being put in place so that the people are kept informed and updated of the proceedings.
Chief Justice Pakistan's son Dr Arsalan with Kamran Khan on GEO TV (2007)
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8P-VmGvEucMr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry appeared before the Council today and filed an application challenging the constitutionally of the Council, notice of which has been ordered to be issued to the elarned Attorney General for Pakistan and the Referring Authority thourgh Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division Government of Pakistan and the proceedings have been adjourned till Friday at 3:00 pm. On request made by Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, a penal of lawyers comprising Ch Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ali Ahmed Kurd, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir A Malik Advocate Supreme Court and Tariq Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court has been allowed to represent him in the proceedings. Ch Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by the panel argued the case. The Council to ensure transparency and fair procedure in the matter, directed the Attorney General for Pakistan to ensure that the respondent will have access to his counsel. REFERENCE: SCJ concerned over media trial on sub judice matter of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry Wednesday March 14, 2007 (0414 PST) http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?171855
And the same "Judiciary"“As per reports telecast tonight on several TV Channels including AAJ, GEO & ARY, alleging that the Government is considering to withdraw the notification/executive order dated 16.03.2009 of restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and other Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts. Some newspapers have already reported this issue as well. Earlier on, few months ago, a similar statement was made by one of the high constitutional office holders in the Parliament. “As the news item was flashed by other TV channels, some channels have also telecast denial today (14.10.2010) from the Government, saying that there is no truth behind the said news. - The apex court had taken suo motu notice of media reports that the government was contemplating withdrawing the order. “Come out with the truth [about] who is responsible for spreading such rumours as the SC has observed that media reports were based on facts,” the chief justice asked Attorney-General Maulvi Anwarul Haq. “A clear-cut policy statement must be submitted by Monday.” REFERENCE: Pre-emptive strike Published: October 15, 2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/62865/deposed-judges-issue-may-resurface/ Govt cannot undo restoration order: SC By Zahid Gishkori Published: October 16, 2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/62930/sc-begins-hearing-of-withdrawal-of-judges-notification/
During the course of the proceedings, the acting AG informed the SC that despite the court’s orders, some TV channels were still conducting talk shows on the NRO. The chief justice again directed TV channels not to conduct talk shows on the NRO which is sub judice. “TV channels should not debate the matter which is sub judice: otherwise, we would issue an order in black and white in this regard,” the CJ remarked. REFERENCE: Court unhappy with NAB By Sohail Khan Thursday, December 10, 2009 SC concerned over Swiss case record’s safety Enquires about Zardari’s $47m http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25997 According to a news report in The Nation on 8 December 2009: The Chief Justice advised the media not to discuss the matter with regard to NRO in television programmes until the case was disposed off. However, he said media could report the proceedings openly. By: Zahid Gishkori | Published: December 08, 2009 http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/08-Dec-2009/NRO-a-law-paving-way-for-reconciliation-with-corruption-CJ ٹی وی مباحثوں میں این آراوکیس پربات نہ کی جائے،چیف جسٹساسلام آباد (جنگ نیوز) عدالت عظمیٰ کے چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری نے ذرائع ابلاغ سے کہا ہے کہ وہ قومی مفاہمتی آرڈیننس (این آر او) کے بارے میں درخواستوں کی سماعت کے دوران ٹی وی مذاکروں اور مباحثوں میں این آر او پر بات نہ کریں تاکہ تعصب کا تاثر پیدا نہ ہوتاہم ٹی وی چینلزاوراخبارات کو یہ اجازت ہوگی کہ وہ اس کیس کے حوالے سے رپورٹنگ کریں۔ پیر کو 17 رکنی بینچ کی سربراہی کرتے ہوئے چیف جسٹس نے کمرہ عدالت میں موجود ذرائع ابلاغ کے نمائندوں کو مخاطب کرکے کہا کہ ہم کوئی حکم جاری نہیں کر رہے۔ ذرائع ابلاغ این آر او بارے درخواستوں کی سماعت کی رپورٹنگ کرے لیکن جب تک مقدمہ زیر سماعت ہے اس وقت تک ٹی وی مذاکروں اور مباحثوں میں اس پر بات کرنے سے احتراز برتا جائے۔ (Jang)
ISLAMABAD, March 26: Taking strict notice of the March 11 violence-ridden strike in Karachi and other parts of Sindh, the Supreme Court on Saturday asked two provincial leaders of the People’s Party to explain why they should not be charged with committing contempt for allegedly ridiculing a court ruling and instigating people against it. The contempt notices were issued against former senator and general secretary of the PPP’s Sindh chapter, Taj Haider, and the party’s provincial media coordinator, Sharjeel Inam Memon, under Article 204 of the Constitution relating to contempt of court and Section 3 of the Contempt of the Court Ordinance, 2003. They were asked to appear before the Supreme Court on Friday. Composition of the bench will be announced later. The notice asked Mr Memon also to explain to the court why he should not be disqualified as member of the provincial assembly for alleged utterances against the judiciary under the Constitution’s Article 63(1g) relating to disqualification for being convicted by a court or defaming or ridiculing the judiciary, and Article 113 relating to qualification or disqualification for assembly membership. Notices have also been issued to Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, who under rules acts as a prosecutor in contempt matters, as well as to the advocate general of Sindh, Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jehangir and vice-chairman of the Sindh Bar Council. REFERENCE: Two PPP leaders issued contempt notices by SC By Nasir Iqbal | From the Newspaper March 27, 2011 (2 days ago) http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/27/two-ppp-leaders-issued-contempt-notices-by-sc.html"QUOTE"
184. Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II is involved have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article. REFERENCE: PART VII The Judicature Chapter 2. THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part7.ch2.html The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/
[204 Contempt of Court.
(1) In this Article, "Court" means the Supreme Court or a High Court.
(2) A Court shall have power to punish any person who,
(a) abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court;
(b) scandalizes the Court or otherwise does anything which tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt;
(c) does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the Court; or
(d) does any other thing which, by law, constitutes contempt of the Court.
(3) The exercise of the power conferred on a Court by this Article may be regulated by law and, subject to law, by rules made by the Court.]. REFERENCE: PART VII (contd) The Judicature Chapter 4: General Provisions Relating to The Judicature http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part7.ch4.html The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/
"UNQUOTE"
ISLAMABAD, May 14: The Supreme Court on Friday acquitted all the ruling party legislators who were indicted on the charges of contempt of court for attacking the court building when proceedings against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were underway. The three-member bench which decided the case on Friday observed that though flagrant contempt of court was committed but showed its inability to convict the accused as the people had not given specific evidence against them. The court deplored that people had not come forward to give evidence nominating specific persons involved in the violence. The case was initiated by the court itself in early 1998 under its suo motu jurisdiction. "We would like to observe that it is very unfortunate that people have not come forward to give evidence nominating specific persons involved in rowdyism/violence that had taken place in and around the Supreme Court premises and building on 28-11-1997." The court had indicted seven persons including six PML(N) legislators after marathon inquiry proceedings. They were MNA Tariq Aziz, MNA Mian Munir, MPA Chaudhry Tanvir Ahmed, MPA Chaudhry Akhtar Rasool, MPA Akhtar Mehmood, MPA Sardar Nasim and Shahbaz Goshi, a young Muslim League activist. The bench consisted of Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Munawar Ahmed Mirza, and Justice Abdur Rehman Khan. However, there is no mention of Senator Saifur Rehman against whom oral as well as documentary evidence was in abundance. Number of witnesses had informed the court that they had seen him directing the police not to stop the mob from entering into the court room. The close circuit cameras had also shown him leading the crowd towards the court room where the then chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah was presiding over a bench. REFERENCE: Storming of SC building: PML MPs acquitted for lack of evidence Rafaqat Ali Week Ending : 15 May 1999 Issue : 05/20 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/15May99.html#stor
Commentary of "Mr. Ardehsir Cowasjee, a noted columnist of Daily Dawn on the Attack on Supreme Court by Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)"
"QUOTE"
On October 28 1999, Orakzai filed an application "for immediate hearing of Cr. Appeal No.162 of 1999, inter alia, asking - "That while the rowdies and vandals who hurled abuses at the court in the most vulgar language and called the Chief Justice of Pakistan a 'kutta' right inside the principal seat of this Court are still enjoying their time and roaming around freely ... That the said appeal relates to the most serious and contumacious of contempt ever committed in the judicial history and is prior in time to other contempt matters pending before the Court as well as raises issues far more serious than other cases ... . Therefore, this appeal be given the due priority guaranteed by the Constitution and the Rules of this Court." REFERENCE: Storming of the Supreme Court By Ardeshir Cowasjee 31 October 1999 Sunday 21 Rajab 1420 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/991031.htm
NRO: Nawaz Sharif, Judiciary & Charter of Democracy - Part 1
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKlDuqCRX-c
"18. Now, with the suspension of the PML (N) government and the new government in power, government functionaries and law enforcers will feel free to give evidence, as may certain members of the PML (N) itself. There will be no apprehension that the administration will coerce and intimidate witnesses. For this reason, it will be in the interest of justice and of the institution of the judiciary that Criminal Miscellaneous Application 27/98 be heard by the Supreme Court de novo . "19. It is accordingly prayed that the honourable court set aside the judgment of the three members Bench and direct that the case be heard de novo . " On November 18 a letter was sent to Attorney-General Aziz Munshi, attaching a copy of the affidavit and stating, inter alia : "You are the first law officer of the people and they are justified in their assumption that you will plead that the case be heard de novo." Munshi delivered. Seven hundred and twenty-two days after the Court was stormed, thirty-eight days after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his ruling party were deposed, the Supreme Court sent a notice to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, president of his own Muslim League group and former head of government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. REFERENCE: Storming of the Supreme Court By Ardeshir Cowasjee 21 November 1999 Sunday 12 Shaban 1420 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/991121.htm
NRO: Nawaz Sharif, Judiciary & Charter of Democracy Part 2
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ar_ypDNf8
"23) At 0700 on the morning of November 28, Lt-General Rana, then heading the ISI, informed COAS General Jehangir Karamat that a mob had been organized to raid the SC whilst the contempt case against prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, was being heard. You, I, and the world at large know well the sordid details of the demeaning and shameful events that followed on that day of November 28, 1997. "May I suggest, now that the storming case has been reopened, that in addition to those already summoned, President Tarar, Shahbaz Sharif, Saifur Rehman, former CJP Sajjad Ali Shah, former President Leghari and Lt-General Rana, all be called to give evidence. "The Court was stormed two years ago on November 28, 1997. The verdict in the contempt case, acquitting the few insignificant members of the storming party who had been charged, was given on May 14, 1999, over 500 days later. We must hope that the rehearing of this case will be completed expeditiously." REFERENCE: Storming of the Supreme Court By Ardeshir Cowasjee 28 November 1999 Sunday 19 Shaban 1420 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/991128.htm
NRO: Nawaz Sharif, Judiciary & Charter of Democracy Part 3
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbB5kLQApi0
NRO: Nawaz Sharif, Judiciary & Charter of Democracy Part 4
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3oFWno7sVI
7) That whatever is stated above is true and correct." We must be thankful to providence for small mercies, and our honourable judiciary should be thankful to journalist Shahid Orakzai for his persistence. Three chief justices later and a thousand days down the road from the November 28, 1997, storming of the supreme court, Orakzai and his tenacity have enabled the court to restore, to some extent, its damaged image. Seven of the hundreds of stormers have been convicted and now that the second investigation ball has been lobbed to a superintendent of police, it is just possible that a few Untersturmfuehrers will be convicted equally swiftly. This is certainly not the end of the story. REFERENCE: Storming of the Supreme Court By Ardeshir Cowasjee 01 October 2000 Sunday 02 Rajab 1421 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20001001.htm
NRO: Nawaz Sharif, Judiciary & Charter of Democracy Part 5
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAvuIJ0UG2M
NRO: Nawaz Sharif, Judiciary & Charter of Democracy Part 6
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFnjajKzYfE
"Also on the matter of contempt and on the need for courts to maintain their dignity and authority, Lord Denning quotes from his judgment in the case of Balogh v St Albans Crown Court (1975 1 QB 73). "The judges should not hesistate to exercise the authority they inherited frm the past. Insults are to be treated with disdain - save where they are gross and scandalous. Refusal to answer with admonishment - save where it is vital to know the answer. But disruption of the court or threats to witnesses or to jurors should be visited with immediate arrest. Then a remand in custody and, if it can be arranged, representation by counsel. If it comes to a sentence, let it be such as the offence deserves - with the comforing reflection that, if it is in error, there is an appeal to this court ....". "In the case of the Welsh students, the Court was invaded on February 4, they were sentenced on Februarty 4, the appeal was heard on February 9 and decided on February 11. All within the space of one week." REFERENCE: The storming of the Supreme Court - II By Ardeshir Cowasjee 08 October 2000 Sunday 09 Rajab 1421 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20001008.htm
The 23-page report sent to the Supreme Court was incomplete, and largely a complaint about the inability of the investigating officers, due to the non-cooperation of the government, to interview any of the leading masterminds behind the planning and execution of the storming. Coincidentally, on March 19, Farooq Leghari addressed an audience here in Karachi at a seminar organized by the Helpline Trust. He very frankly and openly spoke out, with no holds barred, about how one main aim of both the second governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, during both of which he was president of the Republic, was to get the better of the judiciary and put the judges in what they considered to be their rightful place.His reminiscences and recollections of his presidential period were recorded. He unequivocally stated that they both intended to do whatever they could do to "subjugate the judiciary and to do away with the concept of the supremacy of the rule of law".
The 23-page report sent to the Supreme Court was incomplete, and largely a complaint about the inability of the investigating officers, due to the non-cooperation of the government, to interview any of the leading masterminds behind the planning and execution of the storming. Coincidentally, on March 19, Farooq Leghari addressed an audience here in Karachi at a seminar organized by the Helpline Trust. He very frankly and openly spoke out, with no holds barred, about how one main aim of both the second governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, during both of which he was president of the Republic, was to get the better of the judiciary and put the judges in what they considered to be their rightful place.His reminiscences and recollections of his presidential period were recorded. He unequivocally stated that they both intended to do whatever they could do to "subjugate the judiciary and to do away with the concept of the supremacy of the rule of law".
Leghari related how on the night of November 27/28, 1997, Nawaz Sharif accompanied by COAS Jehangir Karamat, National Assembly Speaker Ilahi Bakhsh Soomro, Senate Chairman Wasim Sajjad, and Law Minister Khalid Anwer came to see him and advised him to denotify Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and appoint Ajmal Mian in his place.The cassette recording is being forwarded to the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The case is still open and it is very necessary that the Supreme Court examine former President Farooq Leghari under oath and finally come to a conclusion as to the part played in the whole sordid episode by the leaders of a government in power, by certain judges of the court itself, by the then sitting Senator Rafiq Ahmed Tarrar who now occupies Aiwan-e-Sadar, and by leading members of the legal fraternity.The very least that the law can do is to disqualify Nawaz Sharif, his entire cabinet, and all others belonging to whatever pillar of the state, who were responsible for masterminding, engineering, and storming the Supreme Court, from holding any office for at least ten years. Do we want such elements to rule over us again or to hold any positions of power? No country can prosper or progress unless law and order is enforced and prevails. REFERENCE: Leghari and the storming By Ardeshir Cowasjee 08 April 2001 Sunday 13 Muharram 1422 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20010408.htm
THE judgment holding no man guilty of having stormed the Supreme Court on November 28, 1997 and of obstructing the course of justice has awoken and angered many, some of whom have acted and written. That these highly critical writings have been printed in our press is most encouraging indeed. The file is thickening. We have read, inter alia, The Nation's editorial of May 16, 'SC contempt case,' Iftikhar Ahmad's letter 'Storming of the supreme court' (The Nation, May 17), Javed Jabbar's letter 'Contempt of the people' [The Nation, May 18], Anwar Ahmad's column 'An opportunity lost' [The News, May 24] and the APNEC-PFUJ statement quoted therein, Dr Ijaz Ahsan's column 'End of the rule of law' [The Nation, May 25].
The question raised is how come not one man was identified by the court when familiar faces were so prominently shown on the BBC and CNN filmed reports, were plastered all over the pages of our own press, and caught on the court's own CCTV cameras? Those on camera were called and testified to the effect that they were all indeed there, inside and outside the court building, but their role was to persuade the faceless stormers (fallen from the skies?) to disband and disappear. If all these men were there simply to beg the stormers to leave, who was it that led the stormers in? That was for the court to investigate under the powers vested in it under Article 187 of the Constitution: "The Supreme Court shall have power to issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document." Apart from this, the initial enquiring judge, Justice Abdur Rahman Khan, in his report of 18/2/98 recommended to the Chief Justice: "It is considered appropriate that the honourable Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of the Court to initiate contempt proceedings for the outrageous incident of 28/11/97. The Bench so constituted can adopt such measures and take such actions as it may deem necessary to identify the concerned persons."
The video cassette sent by me to the court contained footage of the BBC recordings of the riots that took place at the gates of the Supreme Court and inside its premises, plus footage taken from certain of the court's CCTV cameras. The request that recordings made by all the cameras installed in the court be shown in open court and provided to those wishing to identify others present that day was denied. Hussain Haqqani, "former Special Assistant to Punjab Chief Minister Nawaz Sharif (1988 -90), former Press Assistant to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (1990-92), High Commissioner of Pakistan to Sri Lanka (1992-93), Press Assistant to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1993-94), former Secretary to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (1994-95)," in his written statement filed in the Court on May 4, 1998, solemnly swore "that having held the above mentioned positions, I am well aware how the governments and political parties of this country organize demonstrations and rallies and am of the opinion that the storming of the Supreme Court was the result of an orchestrated and organized plan by the ruling party." REFERENCE: The arbiters of justice By Ardeshir Cowasjee 30 May 1999 Sunday 14 Safar 1420 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/990530.htm
In order to survive, the people desperately feel the need for an independent judiciary, particularly with the government we now have. Those who try to help the judges regain their dignity and status are generally regarded as fools and asked the simple question: "Well, you may want to do something for the judges, but do the judges want to be independent enough to rule against the government?" Take the FCA case. For some reason or other, stress was laid on the production of a list of those who withdrew or remitted foreign exchange between May 11 and 28, 1998. That does not matter one iota, for by law people were free to remit whatever they liked during this period. What was to be revealed to the Court and to the people of Pakistan were the names of the powerful people in government, the culprits, who sent out money in between the time the embargo was declared on May 28 and the returns submitted to the State Bank the next morning. The Governor of the State Bank has a list of these people, but the court did not ask for it.
Another worrying aspect is the appointment of judges. Three eminent additional judges of the Lahore High Court, Justices Saqib Nisar, Asif Saieed Khosa and Mian Zafar Yasin, recently completed their statutory probationary period of one year, and were recommended by the CJ of the LHC and the CJP as being suitable for confirmation as permanent judges. The law ministry processed their cases and the prime minister advised the president to confirm them. They had to be confirmed "in the absence of very strong reasons to be recorded by the President/Executive which may be justiciable". President Tarar refused to confirm them, stating that the first two are young (both are over 40 and constitutionally eligible) and that the third's rate of disposal of cases was poor. Would the CJ of the LHC and the CJP have recommended confirmation? "Strong reasons"? REFERENCE: Arbiters of justice - 2 By Ardeshir Cowasjee 20 June 1999 Sunday 05 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1420 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/990620.htm
The indefatigable old warrior of our skies is wounded, as sorely wounded as any father of 81 years of age who has tragically lost his eldest son, himself a father, under the most mysterious and peculiar of circumstances, a son endowed with much talent and intelligence with a future before him even brighter than his past. For this great tragedy that has struck him, his endearing wife, and his family, we can but express our most sincere condolences. As an old-time officer and a gentleman to his fingertips, as an honest man of moderate means, and as a man who genuinely wished to do good by the poverty-stricken, uneducated of this country, there was no way, no way at all, that Air Marshal Asghar Khan could succeed as a politician of Pakistan, given the environment, the atmosphere that prevails and the mindset of the majority. On July 15, The Nation printed a column written by the air marshal on 'The anatomy of politics', the first of a series he intends to write on the subject. He recounted how in the era of Field Marshal Ayub Khan he spearheaded a movement with the intent to have Zulfikar Ali Bhutto released from jail. When he was released, Bhutto suggested that Asghar join him in his campaign to destroy Ayub Khan. What would be Zulfikar's programme and policy once Ayub was removed, Asghar asked. Zulfikar, unabashed and completely frank, answered 'My programme is to fool the people. They are fools, and I know how to make a fool of them. Join me and we will rule for twenty years. No one will be able to remove us.' Not being familiar with politics and politicians in those early years, a naive Asghar was genuinely shocked and his response was that he would oppose Bhutto and his politics as best as he could. Mehran Bank Scandal 1
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4G3hoGHYCE
But the main thrust of his column was the human rights petition filed by him in the Supreme Court (HRC 19/96) against the retired COAS General Mirza Mohammad Aslam Beg, the former ISI chief retired Lt General Asad Durrani and Younis Habib of Habib and Mehran Banks, relating to the disbursement of public money and its misuse for political purposes, which is still pending hearing by the court. The case was initiated by the air marshal after Benazir Bhutto's interior minister, another retired general, Naseerullah Babar, had disclosed in the National Assembly in 1994 how the ISI had disbursed funds to purchase the loyalty of politicians and public figures so as to manipulate the 1990 elections, form the IJI, and bring about the defeat of the PPP. REFERENCE: We never learn from history By Ardeshir Cowasjee21 July 2002 Sunday 10 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1423 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020721.htm
The "host of other political figures who received funds" from an ISI account were revealed in the Supreme Court when Air Marshal Asghar Khan's petition was being heard. Inter alia, Nawaz Sharif received (in rupees) 3.5 million, Lt General Rafaqat [GIK's election cell] 5.6 million, Mir Afzal 10 million, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi 5 million, Jam Sadiq Ali 5 million, Mohammed Khan Junejo 2.5 million, Pir Pagaro 2 million, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada 3 million, Yusuf Haroon 5 million [he confirms having received this for Altaf Hussain of the MQM], Muzaffar Hussain Shah 0.3 million, Abida Hussain 1 million, Humayun Marri 5.4 million. During the hearing of the case, Aslam Beg, under oath, revealed the existence of a political cell within the ISI, whilst clarifying that though he was aware of the distribution of funds he was never personally involved. These documents and many others, filed in the Supreme Court, are a matter of public record. In this regard, reference should be made to paragraph 111, 'Corruption', of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the Proclamation of Emergency dated 14th, October, 1999 (approved for reporting), delivered by Chief Justice Irshad Hassan Khan and his eleven Brothers, sanctifying General Pervez Musharraf's takeover. It is a list presented by Attorney-General Aziz Munshi listing cases of corruption, some dating back to 1990, the lists of ISI payments, Babar's and Durrani's affidavits being amongst them. Should not all these corrupt, bribed political people who shamelessly accepted the people's money for their own political ends, and who have never denied having received such payoffs, not stand disqualified for life? Air Marshal Asghar Khan is still waiting to have his petition challenging the corrupt and clandestine use of public funds (pending since 1996) heard by the Supreme Court, as is also General Naseerullah Babar. They both have much to reveal. They are prepared to face the judiciary. REFERENCE: We never learn from history-2 By Ardeshir Cowasjee 04 August 2002 Sunday 24 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1423 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020804.htm
Mehran Bank Scandal 2
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLWYgTP3sjs&feature=related
During the hearing of the Supreme Court case, General Babar filed an affidavit recording that Rs.140 million was collected by the political cell of the ISI from Younas Habib at the instance of General Beg, the then COAS. When the then head of the ISI, Lt General Asad Durrani, was approached, he provided certain details in an affidavit, but approached the then prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, asking her to 'shelve' the case. The affidavit was obtained by Rahman Malik of the FIA who was sent to Germany, where Durrani was then the Benazir-appointed ambassador, with stamped papers for him to sign. In the affidavit, Durrani confirmed that he had received instructions from COAS General Beg to provide 'logistic support' for the disbursement of donations made by certain 'businessmen of Karachi' to the IJI election campaign of 1990, and was told that the operation had the blessings of the government. The former attorney-general of Pakistan, Iqbal 'Groovy' Haider, representing General Babar in the Supreme Court, informed the court that the money was distributed not to political parties but to political individuals. It was common knowledge, he said, that the ISI was involved in politics. Lt General Hameed Gul, a former ISI chief, was on record as having boasted that it was he who created the IJI, and another ISI chief, Lt General Javed Nasir, had taken credit for creating the MQM Haqiqi. Air Marshal Asghar Khan's pending petition involving illegal payoffs and corruption during the run-up to one of our previous elections should be heard now by the Supreme Court before the next round of elections. It will then be up to our honourable election commission to ensure that if any of the personalities involved in the ISI payoff and Mehrangate scandals are filing to stand once again for election to our assemblies they are disqualified from so doing.
Mehran Bank Scandal 3
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvIEyezgG84&feature=related
This human rights petition has apparently been consigned to the Supreme Court morgue (for whatever reason). The air marshal has consistently written to all our successive chief justices of Pakistan asking that the case be heard, but nothing has happened. The last chief justice to show any interest in hearing the case was Sajjad Ali Shah who prematurely retired in December 1997 after having lost his battle with prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Since then, no chief justice has responded to the air marshal's repeated requests. We must hope that the next request that is being made this coming week will not be ignored by Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed, who, in 1994 was the federal law secretary and undoubtedly remembers the SROs he issued in this matter. REFERENCE: We never learn from history-3 By Ardeshir Cowasjee 11 August 2002 Sunday 01 Jamadi-us-Saani 1423 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020811.htm
"At no stage did I ever suspect that the amount so donated was out of the funds allegedly embezzled by Mr Yunus Habib while serving in the Habib Bank. "The manner in which my involvement is being projected in the print media and the unwarranted comments being passed by some politicians is a crude attempt to tarnish my image since I have entered politics. This is a deliberate machination of vested groups who are against politics of sobriety and consensus and want to undermine my efforts to democratically create new leadership from amongst the poor and the middle classes. "Such sinister designs will ultimately boomerang and expose those very elements who are hatching this conspiracy and feel threatened because of my commitment to a positive change. The process of accountability must take its course with objectivity to punish those who are defaulters but not to make political capital for selfish objectives and vituperative language."
Mehran Bank Scandal 4
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5N4gmdIItM&feature=related
Now, all that is being advocated is that Asghar Khan's petition, now resting in the morgue of the Supreme Court on Constitution Avenue in our capital, be taken up before October so that the matter can be heard and finished, and if any of those on the lists of recipients are found to have been guilty of malpractice and corruption, they can be disqualified from standing for election. Imran Khan has conveyed, through his partyman, Dr Arif Alvi, that he is making an application to the Supreme Court requesting that he be made a party to the petition (anyone can apply to join as the matter involves human rights which affect us all). On August 10, 2002, Asghar addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, its subject "HRC No.19/96, Air Marshal (R) Mohammad Asghar Khan versus General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg." It reads: "I should like to draw you attention to my letter MAK/12/5 addressed to your predecessor on April 8, 2000 requesting that the above case may please be reopened. I have received no reply to this letter and elections are due on October 10, 2002. "Many of the people who are guilty of misconduct will, if the case is not heard, be taking part in the elections and the purpose of those elections will thus be defeated. I would request an early hearing and decision in this case." The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, upon whom I had the pleasure of calling on Friday, July 16, whilst he was at Karachi, realizes the urgency of the matter and is considering the Air Marshal's request for an early hearing. REFERENCE: We never learn from history-4 By Ardeshir Cowasjee 18 August 2002 Sunday 08 Jamadi-us-Saani 1423 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020818.htm
Mehran Bank Scandal 5
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2uzMAuKvN4&feature=related
The Herald, the monthly magazine of this newspaper's group, in its issue of April 2000, published a report by Mubashir Zaidi ('Forging democracy') which made a mention of Asghar Khan's petition: "The case has since been heard and on October 11, 1999, just a day before the military overthrew the 'heavily mandated' Sharif government, the sitting chief justice, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, announced that he had reserved judgment on the ISI case." Justice Siddiqui, the presiding judge, now off the bench as he did not take the oath under the January 2000 PCO, confirms that he did make such an announcement. Before he could write his judgment, General Babar saw him in his chamber and prevailed upon him to send notice to and examine Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and others mentioned on the lists before announcing his judgment. In the interest of justice, he ordered that the desired notices be issued. Thereafter, the case was apparently 'morgued'. Asghar Khan on several occasions reminded Saiduzzaman's successor, the new Chief Justice, Irshad Hasan Khan (now our chief election commissioner), and requested him to take up the case but he received no response. Justice Khan was far too busy attending to more vital affairs.
Mehran Bank Scandal 6
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLnMe2FrNgw&feature=related
Mehran Bank Scandal 7
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQu47mG50qA&feature=related
So, the important issues remain unresolved. Those accused of the giving and taking of the people's money for illegal and unlawful purposes (unless the relevant ISI law states otherwise) are prima facie guilty, but they have not been convicted and are free to rig and contest elections, possibly be elected and will be again allowed to rob the nation. Should the givers and takers not be brought to book and disqualified? There is still time. There is one lesson we should learn from history. The last time we had free and fair elections was in the days of General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan, as a consequence of which we lost half our country. We must ensure by whatever means we can command that the free and fair elections which are scheduled to be held in October do not result in the loss of the remaining half. REFERENCE: We never learn from history-5 By Ardeshir Cowasjee 25 August 2002 Sunday 15 Jamadi-us-Saani 1423 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20020825.htm
"On April 25 1994, this newspaper carried an editorial entitled 'Our secret godfathers', which opened up : 'Two basic points emerge from General Aslam Beg's admission that in 1990 he took Rs.14 crore from the banker Younus Habib and that part of this money was spent by the ISI during the elections that year .....'. And closed, saying '... it is time now for some sort of check on the rogue political activities of our intelligence agencies ...'. It was not time, and apparently it is still not time. "In 1996, Air Marshal Asghar Khan filed a human rights petition in the Supreme Court against General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of army staff, Lt-General Asad Durrani, former chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence, and Younus Habib of Habib and then Mehran Bank, concerning the criminal distribution of the people's money for political purposes (HRC 19/96). In this case, Lt General Naseerullah Babar filed an affidavit in court supported by copies of various documents and a photocopy of a letter dated June 7 1994, addressed by Durrani to the then prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who during her second term in office, appointed him as her ambassador to Germany, which reads in part :
"The operation not only had the 'blessings' of the president [Ghulam Ishaq Khan] and the wholehearted participation of the caretaker PM [Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi], but was also in the knowledge of the army high command. The last mentioned will be the defence of many of us, including Gen Beg (who took his colleagues into 'confidence' but that is the name that we have to protect).
"The point that I have 'war-gamed' in my mind very often is : what is the object of this exercise?
"(a) If it is to target the opposition, it might be their legitimate right to take donations, especially if they come through 'secret channels'. Some embarrassment is possible, but a few millions are peanuts nowadays. (b) If the idea is to put Gen Beg on the mat : he was merely providing 'logistic support' to donations made by a community 'under instructions' from the government and with the 'consent' of the military high command. In any case, I understand he is implicated in some other deals in the same case. (c) GIK will pretend ignorance, as indeed he never involved himself directly. (d) Of course one has to meet the genuine ends of law. In that case let us take care of the sensitivities like special operations and possibly that of the army. "It was for these reasons that I desperately wanted to see you before leaving. I also wanted to talk about my farewell meeting with the COAS [General Waheed Kakar]. In the meantime you must have met often enough and worked out what is in the best interest of the country. "I keep praying that all these natural and man-made calamities are only to strengthen us in our resolve and not in any way reflective of our collective sins." Could it be that the judiciary is failing us? REFERENCE: We never learn from history - 6 By Ardeshir Cowasjee31 October 2004 Sunday 16 Ramazan 1425 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20041031.htm
Mehran Bank Scandal 8
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Jn23WDzV8&feature=related
Mehran Bank Scandal 9
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMguS8yw8G0&feature=related
Hearings commenced in February 1997 and continued through the year. On November 6, the statements of Babar and Durrani were to be recorded. The Court, under Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, was faced with the awkward question as to the law under which the ISI and its political cell had been set up. Beg’s counsel, Akram Shaikh, after fulsome praise of the agency and its great achievements – greater than those of RAW, the KGB or MI-5 – explained how the political cell had been established in 1975 under the orders of the then prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The Court asked the Attorney-General (Nawaz’s lawyer Chaudhry Mohammed Farooq) to provide the relevant documentation as to the scope of the activities of the political cell and to clarify whether, under the law, part of its duties was to distribute funds for the purpose of rigging elections. The AG, of course, wriggled out of that one by stating that the matter was of such a ‘sensitive’ and ‘delicate’ nature that it could not be heard in open court. Asghar’s lawyer, Habib Wahab ul Khairi, countered by saying that as the entire matter had been aired in the press, with all the names involved fully listed, there was little left to warrant in-camera proceedings, and besides, the people had every right to know how their money had been used and whether the use in question was permitted by law.
Mehran Bank Scandal 10
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TPd1FVhzos&feature=related
Mehran Bank Scandal 11
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4O-bVaEl4c&feature=related
The court, however, allowed the recording of Babar’s and Durrani’s statements and their cross examination to be held in camera , which they were on November 19 and 20. Seven days later, on November 27, 1997, the Supreme Court was stormed by Nawaz’s goons and shortly thereafter Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was sent home. We heard no more about this petition, filed, for once, truly in the national interest, until The Herald, the monthly magazine of this newspaper’s group, in its issue of April 2000 published a report by Mubasshir Zaidi (‘Forging democracy’) which made mention of it : “The case has since been heard and on October 11, 1999, just a day before the military overthrew the ‘heavily mandated’ Sharif government, the sitting Chief Justice, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, announced that he had reserved judgment on the ISI case.”
Mehran Bank Scandal 12
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkC_Es86CAw&feature=related
Mehran Bank Scandal 13
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfLFm1ldl8&feature=related
Almost three years later, after a deafening silence from the Court, on August 10, 2002, Asghar Khan addressed a letter to the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, Sheikh Riaz Ahmed, its subject “HRC No.19/96, Air Marshal (R) Mohammad Asghar Khan versus General (R) Mirza Aslam Beg.” It read : “I should like to draw you attention to my letter MAK/12/5 addressed to your predecessor on 8 April, 2000, requesting that the above case may please be reopened. I have received no reply to this letter and elections are due on 10 October, 2002. Many of the people who are guilty of misconduct will, if the case is not heard, be taking part in the elections and the purpose of those elections will thus be defeated. I would request an early hearing and decision in this case.” Again, nothing happened. The case has remained morgued amidst thousands of pending cases lying with the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Now, in this election year of 2007, and before this round of ‘free and fair’ elections takes place, before the ISI and its sister agencies once more get into the act, and before the main actors depart from this world, will the reinstated Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, take up the Retired Air Marshal’s petition and see it to its finality. It is of vital importance to the future political scenario as it should incriminate and disqualify many an aspiring public representative hoping to lord it over this nation yet again. And will the stalwarts of the Supreme Court Bar Association please help the retired Air Marshal – he needs legal representation. arfc@cyber.net.pk. REFERENCE: We never learn from history – 6 By Ardeshir Cowasjee August 05, 2007 Sunday Rajab 20, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20070508.htm
IT is not for us to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence , as it works in ways which are often strange. As of now, the future of this country can only be left to divine Providence which has its methods of bringing to retribution those who seek to acquire power in order to amass pelf, and those who tread the wicked ways. And, strangest of all, its stick makes no sound. Let us think. Had the ‘agencies’ (we cannot dignify them by the appellation of ‘intelligence’) and their cohorts not masterminded the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the rendering of him as non-functional, or the sending of him on forced leave as they did to the irretrievable detriment of their master, would we today have a united bench of the Supreme Court judges exercising independent minds empowered by the people?
To follow on from last week on the matter of the Inter Services Intelligence and its meddling in the political affairs of Pakistan , and in particular in the country’s ‘free and fair’ elections, the indefatigable retired air force air marshal, Asghar Khan, has once again approached the Chief Justice of Pakistan. On August 8, he addressed him :
“Human Rights Petition 19/1996. Sir, I seek your indulgence. My petition No.19 filed in 1996 is pending in the Supreme Court. I should be greatly obliged if you would kindly order that it be urgently heard and adjudged. I may mention that I am now 86 years of age. Thanking you in anticipation and with kind regards...”
The court is now hearing a petition filed by Benazir Bhutto accusing the government of ‘institutional fraud’ by the deletion from the electoral rolls of over 22 million voters. This is an important matter, yes. But if we are on the subject of elections, then equally important is the matter of how the deleted 22 million and the other millions on the rolls are to cast their votes. Can they be allowed to do so fairly and freely without the ISI indulging in its ‘fixing’ tactics which will bring in once again the purchased, corrupt and discredited who have been thrown up in the sporadic elections of the past two decades as ‘representatives’ of the people?Asghar Khan’s petition was filed over one decade ago, it has been partly heard and then shelved, overtaken by the events of October 1999 and the subsequent matter of the judges of our courts and the oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order. Rightly, it should have been taken up before the 2002 elections. It was not, though Asghar twice, in 2000 and again in 2002, approached the then chief justices requesting them to act. For whatever reasons, he was ignored. Let us hope now that Chief Justice Chaudhry will heed his plea and before the elections are upon us decide this vital issue. REFERENCE: We never learn from history – 7 By Ardeshir Cowasjee August 12, 2007 Sunday Rajab 27, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20071208.htm
THIS nation attained the age of 60 years on August 14. We remembered our founder and maker, Mohammad Ali Jinnah; we remembered all the intelligent men who have ruled over us; we, who have lived long enough, also remembered that at a relatively young age we managed to lose half the country (143.998 square kilometers of territory to be precise). Most of all, we all remembered that our governments had all failed to adhere to the first edict of our founder-maker : “...the first duty of a government is to maintain law and order....”. Eleven years ago, on June 16 1996, former air chief Air Marshal Asghar Khan wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Sajjad Ali Shah, regarding a matter of great national importance – the 1990 countrywide elections and the use of public money to ‘buy’ standing candidates. He requested that the matter be adjudged and action be taken against those found guilty. The good judge took cognizance of the request, converted it into a petition (19 of 1996), and fixed it for hearing on November 3. The respondents were Mirza Mohammad Aslam Beg, former Chief of Army Staff, retired Lt General Asad Durrani, ex-Director-General of Inter Services Intelligence Directorate, and Mr Younis Habib, ex-chief of ex-Mehran Bank Ltd, then confined in Central Jail, Karachi. CJP Sajjad Ali Shah was followed by CJPs Ajmal Mian, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Irshad Hasan Khan, Bashir Jehangiri, Shaikh Riaz Ahmed, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui and now Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. But today, eleven long years later, Human Rights Petition 19/96 remains shelved. Each successive Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has found it prudent to leave the petition undecided.
Filed in court is a ‘reply on behalf of respondent No.1,’ Mirza Mohammad Aslam Beg. It is far too long to be reproduced in toto though it makes most interesting reading, so we must confine ourselves to highly pertinent excerpts illustrative of the military and the ruling civilian mindset :
“It is submitted with great respect that more serious damage has been caused to the reputation and the goodwill of the Armed Forces by Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan in bringing this petition before this Honourable Court and raising an issue before the apex Court which of course would receive great publicity and would cause greater damage by scandalisation in the media. It also reflects on the poor control of the armed forces Supreme Command for not punishing delinquent people causing damage to its reputation. Raising of such an issue clearly suggests that the Armed Forces are not capable of looking after their own reputation . . . . It is submitted with great respect that the raising of this issue and investigation thereof by this august court as also further proceedings in this matter shall be detrimental to the interest of the armed forces rather than helping it.…..
“That . . . . dragging the ex-service chief to the courts on a letter may be detrimental to the prestige, honour and dignity of the institution he has once represented. . . . . “That Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan has approached this august court with ulterior motives and his representation is based on obvious malafides . . . “That the answering respondent never received the alleged amount from Mr Younis Habib, respondent No.3, in person or through other means and emphatically denies the allegation made by Maj General (retd) Nasirullah Babar, the then interior minister, on the floor of the National Assembly on 20 April 1994. .Lastly, may I again appeal to Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to take up this pending matter and let us have a decision before the next round of ‘fair and free’ elections. If press reports of August 17 are to be believed, President General Pervez Musharraf has clearly stated that he would be re-elected “at any cost” – at the cost of whose life and whose money? REFERENCE: We never learn from history-8 By Ardeshir Cowasjee August 19, 2007 Sunday Sha’aban 5, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20070819.htm
“Another undesirable aspect of the working of certain intelligence agencies was their conduct in the recent general elections and to the subsequent transfer of power to elected representatives of the people. Arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to patriotism, they tried to manipulate the results in favour or against certain political parties by threats and coercion, persuasion and offers of bribes. Subsequently, efforts were made to destabilise the government duly established by law and these agencies tried to acts as virtual king-makers. “In normal times, this should have entailed severe punishment for the individuals concerned, but I realise that under martial law such activities are considered valid. The least that should be done to redress the situation is to transfer the key personnel of the agencies concerned without delay, as the posting out of lesser functionaries does not seem to have produced the desired results…”
In view of the ISI’s past record, and now particularly in view of the admitted and open involvement of ISI chief Lt General Ashfaq Kiyani in the electoral process, if there is to be any semblance or any attempt to hold ‘free and fair’ elections, the ISI must be reined in and the sole body capable of doing so at the moment is the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Will Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry take heed of the recent letter sent to him by Asghar Khan requesting that he take up his petition and finally, 11 years down the road, decide it? REFERENCE: We never learn from history – 10 By Ardeshir Cowasjee September 02, 2007 Sunday Sha’aban 19, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/20070209.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment