The Ayatollah, Dictatorship & Judiciary.

General Ziaul Haq offering prayers behind Khomeini - "QUOTE" Quotes from just after the Islamic Revolution in 1979: "The mullahs are going to rule now. We are going to have ten thousand years of the Islamic republic. The Marxists are going to go on with their Lenin. We are going to go on in the way of Khomeini." Ayatollah Khalkhali ---- "What he [Stalin] did in Russia we have to do in Iran. We, too, have to do a lot of killing. A lot." Behzad, Iranian interpreter for Western journalist V.S. Naipaul ----- "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death."Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini FATWA issued February, 1989 against Salman Rushdie http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2011/10/using-islam-in-pakistani-politics-is.html---- "The mullahs are going to rule now. We are going to have ten thousand years of the Islamic republic. The Marxists are going to go on with their Lenin. We are going to go on in the way of Khomeini." Ayatollah Khalkhali ---- "--- "There is no room for play in Islam... It is deadly serious about everything." Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Speech at Qum, reported in Time magazine January 7, 1980 "UNQUOTE" 

On Wednesday October 24, 2007, Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday remarked during the course of hearing of the petition against the eligibility of General Musharraf’s nomination as a presidential candidate, “I am not ashamed if I had taken the oath under the PCO,” “We have made our country, its institutions and the Constitution a matter of laughing stock in the world.” Perhaps he has forgotten General Zia’s famous remark, “Constitution is a book containing 12-13 pages and I can tear it apart whenever I feel like it.” Justice Ramday further said that whatever ‘burble and verbal jugglery’ might be behind the changes made since 1977 in the Constitution, the country had been ruled under the Constitution. If the judge has indeed made these remarks, people should take a serious note. First, the wisdom of the judges making highly controversial political remarks in one of the most important cases of Pakistan’s history, or even otherwise, is seriously questionable and debateable. It is a time honored best practice that judges should speak through their decisions. Leaving that aside, to assert that Pakistan has been ruled under a constitution since 1977 is a joke with the people of Pakistan, an insult to their intelligence, a travesty of justice and a distortion of history. From 1977 to 1988, Pakistan was ruled by a military dictator who did not hesitate to flog his political opponents and journalists under military regulations [On the left: a couple of pictures from that dark period of Pakistan's history]. The view expressed by Justice Ramday, and it is no more than that, similar to views of the likes of – Justice Munir, that stooge of the military dictators, Sharifuddin Pirzada, unsrupulous judges like the Former Chief Justice Nasim Hasan Shah, yes-man judges like the present attorney general Justice (retired) Malik Qayyum – belongs to the dustbin of history. And yes PCO is and was a violation of article (6) of the constitution and judges should at least have the moral courage and humility to admit that they too are ordinary mortals and too meek to resist the force of gun. And by the way, Justice Javed Iqbal should stop giving remarks like “these” people (critics) know nothing or do not know the basics of the law because many of the critics (e.g. Justice Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim) in this country are better qualified and better educated than Justice Iqbal (with due apologies) is. Since he had made this sort of remark on more than one occassion, a comment had become unavoidable. It is symptomatic of a general decline and degeneration of institutions under military or quasi-military regimes that some quite medicore people have risen to senior positions in all branches of the government and the talented and the better ones have opted to work outside the government due to pervasive corruption, low compensation, and a complete lack of meritocracy. REFERENCE: I am not ashamed if I had taken the oath under the PCO: Justice Ramday October 26, 2007 By Editor http://www.stateofpakistan.org/since-1977-in-the-constitution-the-country-had-been-ruled-under-the-constitution-justice-ramday

Article (6) of the constitution 6. (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason. (2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

CJ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry also Violated Constitution (Frontline Express News)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3uqnUuwe6M

ISLAMABAD: Parliament cannot adopt a law that is repugnant either to the Constitution, Islamic injunctions or fundamental rights and if it does so, the action will be open to judicial review, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said on Saturday. The chief justice told a 50-member delegation of a mock Youth Parliament that an underlying objective of judicial review was to check abuse of power by public functionaries and to ensure fair treatment to all citizens in accordance with law and constitutional norms. He said the Supreme Court, through its judgments, had stressed the need for adherence to law and the Constitution in order to bring about civilised governance in the country. “Law applies to all, irrespective of their status, power, caste, creed and religion. No one can claim supremacy over and above the law,” Justice Chaudhry observed. Talking about trichotomy of powers, the chief justice said: “The Constitution is a complete document which answers all questions. Every organ of the state enjoys complete institutional independence within its constitutional domain. However, any excess or misuse of power beyond that domain becomes the subject matter of judicial scrutiny.” The judicial institution of the state with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter acts as the ultimate protector of citizens’ rights and upholder of constitutional supremacy. The Supreme Court enjoys original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction, he said. The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to matters referred to it by the President for obtaining its opinion on any question of law which he considers of public importance, the Chief Justice added. In 2005, the Supreme Court while deciding a presidential reference made under Article 186 of the Constitution declared certain provisions of the North-West Frontier Province Hasba Bill as null and void, he recalled. Likewise, he added, the Supreme Court, to the exclusion of any other court, had the jurisdiction to pronounce declaratory judgments in any dispute between the federal government and a provincial government or between any two or more provincial governments under Article 184(1). Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said where any question of public importance arose with reference to the enforcement of any of fundamental right, the Supreme Court has the power to issue an order for enforcement of these rights. The chief justice said: “Youth being a crucial segment of society forms the basis for future development, and you are also face and future of nation. I am hopeful that ambitious and zealous young people of today will prove to be the true leaders of democracy in future.” Giving a piece of advice to members of the delegation, he said: “As you are young and have to set a future roadmap for democratic rule and harmony in Pakistan, I would like to advise all of you to study the basic features of our Constitution and also how the document has been interpreted by courts so as to acquaint yourselves with constitutional history and the role of superior courts in protecting fundamental rights and the constitutional development of Pakistan”. Senator S.M. Zafar and Wazir Ahmed Jogezai, a former deputy speaker of the National Assembly, accompanied the delegation. REFERENCE: Parliament can’t make laws repugnant to Constitution: CJ Iftikhar A. Khan http://dawn.com/2012/06/24/parliament-cant-make-laws-repugnant-to-constitution-cj/

Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers - Part - 1 (GEO 22 Dec 2009)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbTD-ZtDPkg

Pakistan's Supreme Court has gone overboard - It has no right to dismiss a Prime Minister or overrule the constitutional immunity given to the President --- When I was I was a student of law at Allahabad University, I had read of the British Constitutional principle ‘The King can do no wrong’. At that time I did not understand the significance of this principle and what it really meant. It was much later, when I was in law practice in the Allahabad High Court, that I understood its real significance. The British were experienced and able administrators. They realized from their own long, historical experience that while everybody should be legally liable for his wrongs and made to face court proceedings for the same, the person at the apex of the whole constitutional system must be given total immunity from criminal proceedings, otherwise the system could not function. Hence the King of England must be given total immunity from criminal proceedings. Even if he commits murder, dacoity, theft, or some other crime, the King cannot be dragged to court and made to face a trial. One may ask why should the King be given this immunity when others are not? The answer is that in the practical world one does not deal with absolutes. The British were one of the most far sighted administrators the world has known. They realized that if the King is made to stand on the witness box or sent to jail, the system could not function. A stage is reached at the highest level of the system where total immunity to the person at the top has to be granted. This is the only practical view. Following this principle in British constitutional law, almost every Constitution in the world has incorporated a provision giving total immunity to Presidents and Governors from criminal prosecution. Thus, Section 248(2) of the Pakistani Constitution states:

“No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or Governor in any Court during his term of office.” The language of the above provision is clear, and it is a settled principle of interpretation that when the language of a provision is clear the court should not twist or amend its language in the garb of interpretation, but read it as it is.

I therefore fail to understand how proceedings on corruption charges (which are clearly of a criminal nature) can be instituted or continued against the Pakistani President. Moreover, how can the court remove a Prime Minister? This is unheard of in a democracy. The Prime Minister holds office as long he has the confidence of Parliament, not the confidence of the Supreme Court.

I regret to say that the Pakistani Supreme Court, particularly its Chief Justice, has been showing utter lack of restraint. This is not expected of superior courts. In fact the court and its Chief Justice have been playing to the galleries for long. It has clearly gone overboard and flouted all canons of constitutional jurisprudence. The Constitution establishes a delicate balance of power, and each of the three organs of the state -- the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – must respect each other and not encroach into each other’s domain, otherwise the system cannot function. It seems to me that the Pakistani Supreme Court has lost its balance and gone berserk. If it does not now come to its senses I am afraid the day is not far off when the Constitution will collapse, and the blame will squarely lie with the court, and particularly its Chief Justice. REFERENCE: Pakistan's Supreme Court has gone overboard MARKANDEY KATJU June 21, 2012 (Justice Markandey Katju is a former Judge, Supreme Court of India. He is currently Chairman, Press Council of India) http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/article3553558.ece?homepage=true

Perhaps the real question I should ask is, why do I even care? When I took time off from Harvard to be part of the lawyers’ movement I had seen a ray of hope. There were concerned citizens and lawyers who stood for what was right, no matter what the consequences. We fought for a principle and won, with the hope that things will slowly improve. Today the very judges we had faith in released the Lal Masjid cleric whose crimes everyone knows about. If the judiciary was going to release people whose crimes were recorded on TV, perhaps it does explain why the Taliban are growing popular. Having said that, rays of hope like Afzal Khan Lala, who has refused to move from Swat while he is alive, appear every now and then. However, he stands alone in facing the storm. Other than Ayaz Amir, not a single Pakistani leader has spoken out against the Taliban. Will the real leader who can get rid of these monsters stand up, please? Imran Khan? Qazi? Nawaz Sharif? This silence is criminal! What’s worse is that these leaders of ours have unanimously approved a state within a state run, which is not accountable to anyone, absolved the Taliban of all crimes and provided them a safe haven to kill more Pakistanis. The so-called Nizam-e-Adl Regulation was endorsed by the National Assembly without any proper debate. The sad story, friends, is that the Taliban are here, and unless we stand up against them in every possible way, Pakistan will be lost for good. And it will not be lost because of Zardari’s real or perceived corruption or anything else like that, but because of the silence of the lambs – we ALL will be responsible if Pakistan fails. The writer is a student at Harvard University and turned down an award from the US ambassador as a mark of protest against killings of Pakistanis by US drone attacks. The Taliban are here Samad Khurram Monday, April 20, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=173372&Cat=9&dt=4/20/2009

Rinkle Kumari Award for CJ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdAg0jGqJZs

In 2008, Pakistan Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry became the symbol of the lawyers’ movement which toppled an unelected president and brought democracy back to the country. Harvard Law School even presented Mr. Chaudhry with its Medal of Freedom. A new report by the International Commission of Jurists, a Geneva-based nongovernment organization of judges and lawyers, suggests his legacy might be more complicated. The report, released this month and based on a field trip to Pakistan last fall, paints a picture of a judiciary under Mr. Chaudhry that is exercising unusually wide-ranging powers. Pakistan’s judiciary has, during Mr. Chaudhry’s tenure as chief justice, stepped into areas normally reserved for a nation’s government, raising concerns over the balance of power, the report said. It noted that judges in Pakistan are increasingly initiating court proceedings on issues – as opposed to hearing cases brought by plaintiffs. The courts often launch these so-called “suo moto” cases in instances where the government has failed to take action. The report said in some cases this helps to protect the rule of law. It cited an example last year when paramilitary forces were caught on video shooting dead a teenager who was pleading for his life. The Supreme Court ordered senior paramilitary officers removed from their posts within three days and told a state prosecutor to launch an investigation. But in other cases Mr. Chaudhry appears to arbitrarily initiate “suo moto” proceedings based on articles in Pakistani newspapers, the report said. “This introduces a certain element of chance to the practice which is hardly compatible with the rule of law.” REFERENCE: Report Dings Pakistan’s Lawyers and Chief Justice April 20, 2012, 1:38 PM IST http://ht.ly/1iVQn7 

ICJ Mission to Pakistan Pakistan Mission Report 30 March 2012

Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers - Part - 2 (GEO 22 Dec 2009)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Igv1kg5gU

In the past, Pakistan's supreme court has hanged an elected prime minister on trumped-up charges, sentenced another to life imprisonment and forced several career politicians into exile. So the disqualification of the prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on contempt-of-court charges should be seen as a step forward. Nobody died, right? The Pakistan Peoples' party and its coalition partners now have another prime minister in the shape of Raja Pervez Ashraf. Pakistan's supreme court will thump its chest and say we have proved that the law is the same for a commoner and a king. Pakistan's all-powerful army will say: look, no hands. So why are Pakistan's human rights activists calling it a judicial coup and warning us that the whole democratic facade is about to be pulled down? Political decisions used to be made in the Pakistani army's HQ. But the action has shifted to court one of the supreme court, in full view of the public, with judgments framed and delivered like soundbites for the primetime news.

Since being restored to his job after being sacked by President Musharraf in 2009, the chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, has been betraying an evangelical streak in his pronouncements. Maybe he feels that, with a country full of self-righteous zealots, he needs to adapt their tone. Or perhaps he is one. He doesn't wait for the petitioners to come to the court, he watches TV and acts on his own cognizance. Even the half of Pakistan that can't read or write will tell you what a suo motu is. We have already been quoted Khalil Jibran and the Persian poet Hafiz, and, it seems, a verse from the Qur'an or a hadith is only ever a suo motu notice away. When the chief justice took suo motu notice of allegations of his own son's corruption he turned up in court waving a copy of the Qur'an and insinuating comparisons with himself and the second caliph, Umar. Last year the chief justice took suo motu notice against the country's most famous television actress for possessing a bottle of wine. Elsewhere, one of his sidekicks wondered aloud that if one day Pakistan's parliament were to legalise gay marriages, would the supreme court sit quietly and watch?

This court is not as much in love with the rule of law as with the sound of its own sermonising voice. It has also mastered the art of selective justice. The same supreme court that has been sitting on an ISI corruption case for 15 years, the same judiciary that can't look a retired general in the eye or force a serving colonel to appear in court, feels it perfectly constitutional to send a unanimously elected prime minister home. There are not many tears being shed over Gilani. Looking at his record, many would say that he should have stayed home in the first place. But what is the point of clamouring for democracy if we can't elect imperfect people – slightly less competent and way more corrupt than our average traffic cop – to lead us?

There are many ways of getting rid of a prime minister (though the old-fashioned way of voting them out has never been tried in Pakistan) but no simple way of telling the country's highest judge, restored to his job as a result of a popular movement, that he has begun to sound like that dictator who sent him home. In Pakistan, generals often confuse access to private golf courses with the country's security. Senior bureaucrats consider it their right to name roads and villages after their grandfathers. Mullahs always fall back on God to justify their greed. Political leaders believe that democracy makes it mandatory to groom sons and daughters to take over their political parties. It's not surprising that senior judges have started to believe that respect for them is the same thing as respect for the rule of law.

Pakistanis are being forced to choose between Gilani's right to rule without doing a thing for his people, and a supreme court judge's right to send him home. And people are refusing to choose. For a few days the country lacked a prime minister and a cabinet. And nobody really missed them. The alarm being raised by pro-democracy people in Pakistan is that the whole system is about to be derailed. The supreme court's reckless pursuit of government politicians could pave the way for a caretaker setup that will suit the military establishment. The military, indeed, sulking after a series of humiliations at home and abroad, is watching from the sidelines. Some would say it's even gloating at the prospect of civilian institutions cutting each other down to size, traditionally its job. There was a time in Pakistan when people joked: why hire a lawyer when you can buy a judge? Now you can't buy them because they are too busy shopping for a place in history. REFERENCE: Yousuf Raza Gilani's sacking is bad news for Pakistan Pakistan's judiciary is starting to care less for the rule of law than the sound of its own sermonising voice. Which suits the military BY Mohammed Hanif Friday 22 June 2012 19.00 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/22/yousuf-raza-gilani-chief-justice-pakistan

Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers - Part - 3 (GEO 22 Dec 2009)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7VBbtAyPWE

(Reuters) - To his admirers, Pakistan's Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is a hero whose relentless pursuit of a money-laundering case against the president is teaching a generation of the country's leaders a long-overdue lesson in respect for the law. To his critics, he is a runaway judge in the grip of a messiah complex whose turbo-charged brand of activism threatens to upend the power balance underpinning Pakistan's precarious embrace of democracy. Last week, Chaudhry made his boldest move yet by disqualifying prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani as punishment for his repeated refusal to obey court orders to re-activate a corruption case against President Asif Ali Zardari. Gilani's downfall marked a watershed in a long-running showdown between the judiciary and the government that has laid bare the institutional tensions plaguing a country that has test fired ballistic nuclear missiles, but has yet to agree on how it should be run. "In practical terms, democracy is finished because the balance of power between the parliament, the executive and the judiciary has been ruined," said a senior member of Zardari's ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP). The military, which has ruled Pakistan for about half of its 65 years as an independent nation, has also not hidden its disdain of Zardari's government, but has made it clear it does not wish to seize power. And it has its own problems with Chaudhry's activism. The drama has been spiced by allegations of bribe-taking brought against Chaudhry's son by a billionaire property developer, who has himself been accused of land-grabbing and fraud. The controversy briefly put the stern-faced judge on the defensive before he regained the initiative by disqualifying Gilani.

The next chapter in the saga could start as early as Wednesday, when the Supreme Court holds its latest hearing in more than two years of legal wrangling aimed at forcing the government to re-open proceedings against Zardari. Pakistan's political class is now transfixed by the question of whether Chaudhry will opt to pause in the wake of his victory over Gilani, or press home his advantage by demanding that Raja Pervez Ashraf, the new prime minister, re-activate the case. Zardari, a consummate political survivor, has already sacrificed Gilani in his determination to ensure the money-laundering case, which falls under Swiss jurisdiction and dates back the 1990s, remains closed. While many Pakistanis are happy to see his unpopular government on the ropes, the pugnacious chief justice is facing a growing backlash from those who fear his court-room victories are being bought at the price of Pakistan's stability. "We all have a problem with corruption, we all want these guys taken to task," said Mehreen Zahra-Malik, a columnist with The News. "But I don't think it should be at the expense of the entire house falling apart." Opposition parties have exploited the crisis to pile pressure on Zardari, raising the risk that the government might be forced to call general elections before its term expires in March.

Whatever the president may decide, the stage is set for a new bout of institutional gridlock at a time when Pakistani needs agile leadership to face a host of challenges, from a chronic power crisis to Islamist militancy and tense relations with Washington. The source of Chaudhry's zeal is to be found in one of the more turbulent episodes in Pakistan's recent history, according to lawyers and commentators who have tracked his ascent. Appointed in 2005, Chaudhry became embroiled in a confrontation with Pervez Musharraf, then Pakistan's military leader, who removed him from office after he opposed plans to extend the general's term in office. Huge crowds poured onto the streets to support Chaudhry's stand against the generals. Zardari's government, which took power in 2008, was forced to re-instate him the following year after an outpouring of street protests by lawyers. The heady victory seems to have shaped the judge's self-image as a champion sent to right the wrongs inflicted on ordinary Pakistanis by a self-serving elite and an over-privileged military.

He has since used his powers to investigate everything from petrol and sugar prices to cases of people whose relatives say they have been abducted by Pakistan's intelligence services. The judge's eagerness to rewrite the rules of Pakistan's power game have won him support among those who see the judiciary as the only realistic hope of holding their leaders to account. Zardari's choice of Ashraf as prime minister may only reinforce Pakistanis' sense of despair in their government. As a former power minister, many Pakistanis hold Ashraf partly responsible for the chronic electricity shortages that triggered a fresh bout of violent protests last week. But Chaudhry, too, has got his fair share of criticism. Some say the decision to disqualify Gilani smacks of a grudge match cheered on by his allies in Pakistan's boisterous media. Legal experts have questioned whether Chaudhry may have exceeded his powers by ousting the prime minister, arguing that there were other options available to resolve the stand-off with Zardari's government. "It's my impression that the judgments are highly politicized," said Asma Jahangir, a respected human rights lawyer. "The populist approach of the chief justice will destabilize the democratic process." The ruling PPP believes Chaudhry is deliberately fast-tracking corruption proceedings against its members, while leaving cases against opposition politicians to gather dust.

The media frenzy triggered by Gilani's ouster also eclipsed a sub-plot that had, days earlier, put Chaudhry in the spotlight over allegations that his son had accepted huge bribes from Malik Riaz, a business magnate. Malik Riaz said he had given almost $3.6 million in bribes to Arsalan Iftikhar, the chief justice's son. Iftikhar has denied any wrongdoing. The growing backlash against Chaudhry in some parts of the political sphere may temper his next move. While Zardari's government is widely tarnished with allegations of cronyism and incompetence, it also stands at a unique juncture in Pakistan's evolution from an army-dominated to a civilian-led system. Before he was ousted, Gilani had been on course to become the first prime minister to lead a democratically elected civilian government to the completion of a five-year term. The government has often sought to deflect criticism of its record by portraying itself as a "martyr" to a conspiracy by its opponents in the judiciary and military. That narrative gained more credence in the eyes of many last week when an anti-narcotics court run by the military issued an arrest warrant for Makhdoom Shahabuddin, a former health minister, who had been Zardari's first pick to replace Gilani. Should Chaudhry attempt to disqualify Ashraf, the prime minister, if he also refuses to re-open the graft case against Zardari, then the unease over his no-holds-barred activism is only likely to grow. "The Supreme Court will be under tremendous pressure not to send two prime ministers home," said Babar Sattar, a legal commentator. "Irrespective of the legalities of the issue, I just don't think people will have the patience to live through that drama." REFERENCE: Pakistan's gun-slinging chief justice faces backlash By Matthew Green and Qasim Nauman ISLAMABAD | Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:20am EDT (Editing by Michael Georgy and Raju Gopalakrishnan) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-pakistan-politics-idUSBRE85N05D20120624

Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers - Part - 4 (GEO 22 Dec 2009)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPAn4TC1se8

LAHORE: Judges of the higher judiciary are making up their minds about cases after reading newspaper headlines and watching TV shows, former president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Ali Ahmed Kurd said on Tuesday. Describing the present situation as “justice hurry and justice worry”, Kurd deplored the fact that the judges were visiting and addressing the bars and said they would have to “prove themselves worthy of their positions”. According to Kurd, judges in the United States neither read newspapers nor watched TV programmes, but focused only on their work. ----------Daily Dawn The judgment appeared to be based on newspaper headlines and talk shows of private TV channels: Ali Ahmed Kurd. ISLAMABAD: Ali Ahmed Kurd, the firebrand leader of the lawyers’ movement and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has been keeping quiet for quite some time, surprised a lot of people on Tuesday with his blunt criticism of the way the Supreme Court was behaving. Judges should “behave like judges”, he said. Speaking during a talk show on “Challenges facing the judiciary”, he said that people had reservations about the verdict handed down by the Supreme Court on petitions challenging the National Reconciliation Ordinance. According to him, the judgment appeared to be based on newspaper headlines and talk shows of private TV channels. Mr Kurd said that an independent judiciary had been restored after a great struggle, adding that the country would become stronger if the judiciary acted in the manner expected by the nation during the struggle. “If it does not happen, it will cause a blow to national security.” He said he had been invited by various bar councils after the restoration of the judiciary, but he preferred to keep quiet. He said he did not attend functions where the chief justice had been invited and quit his practice as a lawyer in the Supreme Court. It was astonishing to see judges visiting bar councils, he added. Mr Kurd described the National Judicial Policy as detrimental to the judicial system. He pointed out that a deadline of Dec 31 had been set for courts to decide cases. He said the maxim of ‘justice hurried is justice buried’ would turn out to be true in many cases because these, including cases of murder and dacoity, and the rights of defence and the practice of producing evidence of many people would be compromised due to paucity of time. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairperson Asma Jehangir also criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment on the NRO and said it appeared to be a decision pronounced by a ‘jirga’. She was of the opinion that the NRO could have been declared null and void by merely declaring it as repugnant to Article 25 of the Constitution, but a Pandora’s box had been opened by the court. Syed Iqbal Haider and Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood also spoke on the occasion. REFERENCE: Kurd unhappy over SC verdict on NRO By Iftikhar A. Khan Dated 23 December 2009 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/141254 Judges deciding cases on media lines: Kurd Daily Times Monitor Wednesday, December 23, 2009 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\23\story_23-12-2009_pg7_12

Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers - Part - 5 (GEO 22 Dec 2009)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8KA5k6mAR0

“On the issue of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Shahbaz claimed that the PML-N was open to negotiation, provided that Chaudhry was symbolically restored.” The conversation took place just a day before Nawaz Sharif would join a lawyers’ long march in a dramatic public protest for the reinstatement of judges deposed by Gen Musharraf, a demand that President Zardari had been resisting. In private, however, a different story was being told. - File Photo (Thumbnail illustration by Faraz Aamer Khan/Dawn.com) KARACHI: Even as PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif was rallying street support by publicly refusing to back down from demands for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in February and March 2009, the party was privately telling American diplomats that the future of the then-non-functional chief justice was up for negotiation.

“Shahbaz stated http://dawn.com/2011/05/20/shahbaz-was-willing-to-negotiate-cjs-future/ that following the restoration, the PML-N was prepared to end the issue and remove Chaudhry once and for all,” reported Lahore Consulate Principal Officer Bryan Hunt in a secret American diplomatic cable describing his meeting with the younger Sharif on March 14, 2009.

“On the issue of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Shahbaz claimed that the PML-N was open to negotiation, provided that Chaudhry was symbolically restored.”

The conversation took place just a day before Nawaz Sharif would join a lawyers’ long march in a dramatic public protest for the reinstatement of judges deposed by Gen Musharraf, a demand that President Zardari had been resisting. In private, however, a different story was being told.

“Shahbaz stressed that his party could not afford the political humiliation of abandoning what had become a long-standing principle in favour of Chaudhry’s restoration,” Mr Hunt reported. “At the same time, Shahbaz claimed to understand that Chaudhry was a problematic jurist, whose powers would need to be carefully curtailed.”

Shahbaz Sharif strategised that as a judge who had taken oath under Gen Musharraf’s first provisional constitutional order, Chaudhry could be removed – once “some sort of face-saving restoration” had been carried out – “by adopting legislation proposed in the Charter of Democracy that would ban all judges who had taken an oath under a PCO from serving.”

A week earlier, in another meeting at the Lahore consulate, Shahbaz Sharif had proposed http://dawn.com/2011/05/20/shahbaz-speculated-kayani-may-be-pressured-to-intervene-in-political-system/ an alternative solution: creating the Constitutional Court envisioned in the Charter of Democracy and ensuring that “it be made superior to the Supreme Court. Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration … would then have little measurable impact, as the Constitutional Court, staffed by appointees from both parties, could nullify his decisions.”

Even before the restoration, Shahbaz Sharif confided, the PML-N leadership would agree to any constraints President Zardari might want placed on Chaudhry, “including curtailment of his powers to create judicial benches, removal of his suo motu jurisdiction, and/or establishment of a constitutional court as a check on the Supreme Court.”

“Although Nawaz publicly has said Chaudhry’s restoration is also a red line,” commented http://dawn.com/2011/05/20/us-ambassador-picked-gilani-as-winner-of-2009-political-showdown/ US Ambassador Anne Patterson in a separate report, “no leader in Pakistan really wants an activist and unpredictable Chief Justice. … Nawaz emerges stronger in the public eye and retains the ‘high moral ground’ by defending the judiciary.”

As late as January 22, in fact, PML-N leader Khawaja Saad Rafique had told Mr Hunt http://dawn.com/2011/05/20/ppp-and-pmln-courted-pml-to-win-fight-for-punjab/ that a minimum requirement for saving the coalition with the PPP in Punjab was “full retirement of Chief Justice Hameed Dogar and appointment of Justice Sardar Raza in his place.” Chaudhry did not seem to have been a concern.

But by March 2009 he had become the PML-N’s rallying cry, and the timing clearly had to do with political developments at the time: a February 25 Supreme Court decision had declared the Sharif brothers ineligible for office, and the president had imposed governor’s rule in Punjab.

“Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif told Principal Officer http://dawn.com/2011/05/20/embassy-reported-zardari-continues-to-play-politics-while-pakistan-disintegrates/ Lahore that the decision [to declare them ineligible to hold public office], which they claimed was entirely Zardari’s, was a declaration of war; they would … take their battle to the streets. Following the decision, PML-N certainly will participate in the lawyers’ march,” reported a February 2009 cable previously published in the media.

“Before the Court ruling, ‘95 per cent of the party’ had opposed joining the lawyers’ March 16 sit-in because it might lead to violence,” Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan revealed http://dawn.com/2011/05/20/zardari-sharifs-political-battle/ privately in a separate conversation at the US embassy. “Now, the party had little choice but to support them.” Cables referenced: WikiLeaks # 196903, 195758, 196939, 188203, 193807, 194540. All cables are available on Dawn.com. REFERENCE: Shahbaz was willing to have CJ removed after ‘face-saving’ restoration By Madiha Sattar | From the Newspaper | 20th May, 2011 http://dawn.com/2011/05/20/shahbaz-was-willing-to-have-cj-removed-after-face-saving-restoration/

Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers - Part - 6 (GEO 22 Dec 2009)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kOW2bwW6PY

Contempt of Court and Mr. Nawaz Sahrif DAWN WIRE SERVICE November 1997 ISLAMABAD, Nov. 17: The National Assembly adopted, with a majority vote, a bill that amended the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, by providing an intra-court appeal against the orders passed by the Supreme Court to a larger bench consisting of all the remaining available judges of the court within the country. The leader of the opposition Benazir Bhutto and a couple of other PPP MNAs opposed the bill. Just before the bill was put before the House for passage, the PPP members walked out in protest. They wanted to suggest some changes but the speaker ruled they could not do so because they had not formally moved their amendments to the bill. The bill was earlier approved by a special cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and was thoroughly discussed in a meeting of the PML and its allied parties. The purpose of the bill, the special cabinet meeting said, was to bring the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, in conformity with the injunctions of Islam.

The eminent constitutional expert, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, and a couple of other prominent lawyers are said to have been behind the preparation of the new bill to stop the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Syed Sajjad Ali Shah to take any final decision against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and others involved in the contempt of court case that was heard today and was adjourned for Tuesday. The bill passed by the National Assembly holds that an intra-court appeal shall lie against the issuance of the show-cause notice or an original order, including an interim order passed by a bench of the Supreme Court in any case, including a pending case, to a larger bench consisting of all the remaining available judges of the court in the country. It also provided that in the event the impugned show-cause notice or order has been passed by half or more of the judges of the Supreme Court, the matter shall, on the application of an aggrieved person, be put up for re-appraisal before the full court. The bill further provides that "the operation of the impugned show-cause notice or order shall remain suspended until the final disposal of the matter in the manner herein before provided...and ..(ii) after sub-section (3) the following new sub-section shall be added namely: "An intra-court appeal or application for re- appraisal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of show case notice or the order, as the case may be". REFERENCE: NA amends Contempt of Court Act By Ihtasham ul Haque DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:22 November 1997 Issue:03/47 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/22Nov97.html#naam

22 November 1997 ISLAMABAD, Nov. 18: The Senate passed the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Bill, 1997, with a voice vote amid a walkout by the opposition over misinterpretation" of the Supreme Court and Federal Shariat Court verdicts on the issue of right of appeal by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Yasin Wattoo. The bill was passed by a voice vote. The bill will now go before President Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari for assent. The Leader of the Opposition in Senate, Aitzaz Ahsan, and deputy leader Raza Rabbani argued against the bill. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Mohammad Yasin Wattoo defended the bill, saying that it was in consonance with the verdicts passed by the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court and recommendations of the Islamic Ideology Council and provided right of appeal to aggrieved individuals and parties. He defended the summoning of the two Houses, saying that it fulfilled the Islamic requirements of consultation on important issues facing the nation. He justified the suspension of rules of business and procedures of the House to meet an emergency. He said while every forum provided a right of appeal to an aggrieved party, there was no such recourse in cases relating to the Supreme Court. REFERENCE: Senate passes Contempt Bill DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 22 November 1997 Issue : 03/47 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/22Nov97.html#sena

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

15 May 1999 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. The court stated it was constrained to observe that despite large numbers of onlookers, visitors and officials and also members of the press being present perhaps from early morning till the end of demonstration, none came forward to name or nominate the culprits. "It either shows lack of moral courage on the part of eye witnesses to come and speak the whole truth before the Court or they did not want to get involved in the proceedings perhaps for being singled out for having spoken the truth."

The bench had examined 54 witnesses before indicting seven persons who it had found, prima facie, guilty of contempt of court. The court observed on Friday that it could not act as investigators. "As a court we do not act investigators. We could only call persons as witnesses about whom information was given that they might be able to assist the court." It was observed by the bench that verbal as well as video evidence established that a mob had gathered on that day outside the court building which was raising objectionable slogans and also carrying banners and placards with objectionable writings against the judiciary. The court held that the incident had not happened on the spur of moment and evidence showed it was premeditated. "It appears from   the evidence that the action of that day was planned and purpose was to disturb the court proceeding which was conducting contempt proceedings at that time." It, however, stated that the evidence did not establish at what  level and by whom the planning was done. It added: "but could be presumed that it was not done at the local level." The court stated: Despite reaching the conclusion that the action of the mob/crowd amounted to most flagrant type of contempt of the court, as the evidence does not specifically point out any of the respondents to the extent that it could be said that the case against any of them had been established beyond reasonable doubt. In our view the respondents are entitled to acquittal under the law.

The court further held that mob attack on the court was intended to undermine the independence of judiciary. "It should be endeavour of every government to strengthen the institution of judiciary and to jealously guard its independence and not to weaken it . "It appears from the evidence that perhaps time positive action could have avoided the ugly situation that was ultimately created. The government in power should ensure that incidents of like nature are never allowed to be repeated and the judiciary is as jealously guarded against such attacks as the Parliament." REFERENCE: Storming of SC building: PML MPs acquitted for lack of evidence Rafaqat Ali DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 15 May 1999 Issue : 05/20 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/15May99.html#stor 

Alleged Independent Judiciary & So-Called Lawyers Movement.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Vice chairman (VC) Latif Afridi has backed Asma Jahangir’s stance regarding court’s judgement in the controversial memo scandal, saying that the superior judiciary cannot play the role of an investigator in any matter. Talking to Daily Times, the PBC vice chairman endorsed Asma Jahangir’s stance that the Supreme Court has wrongly assumed its jurisdiction in the memo scandal. Regarding the memo probe commission, consisting of three high courts chief justices, Afridi said that ordinary litigants would face difficulties in this situation. “The nation is already divided politically, ethnically and economically... it cannot be allowed to further divide on judicial consideration,” he added. The VC hoped the judiciary would not become a source of conflict and things would proceed in accordance with the constitutional division of powers. “Pakistan needs coherence, unification and support of all the federation units and democratic forces, minus those who make hay while the sun shines,” Afirdi said. He urged the SC not to adopt dual standards, and take notice of Mansoor Ijaz’s other statement regarding the ISI director general’s visits to the Arab countries for the removal of President Asif Ali Zardari. The PBC VC urged the court to adopt the policy of judicial restraint, and refrain from entertaining political cases, as the move could make the SC prone to allegations of favouritism. On the other hand, he urged the chief justice of Pakistan to take up the Asghar Khan case. Concerning Pervaiz Musharraf’s return, he said the lawyers would agitate against the former dictator upon his arrival. hasnaat malik. REFERENCE: PBC backs Asma’s stance on memogate Tuesday, January 03, 2012 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C01%5C03%5Cstory_3-1-2012_pg1_6

MNA Farahnaz Ispahani appeal for justice (CNN 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffWk0_0tDFs

CNN's Wolf Blitzer talks to Farah Ispahani, the wife of Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani ambassador to the United States, who is involved in a scandal being investigated by Pakistan's high court. REFERENCES: 'Memogate' rocks Pakistan post-Bin Laden December 31st, 2011 http://situationroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/31/memogate-rocks-pakistan-post-bin-laden/?hpt=sr_mid Pakistan's high court investigating memo scandal From Nasir Habib, for CNN December 30, 2011 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/30/world/asia/pakistan-memogate/index.html

Selected Justice In Pakistan - Eye Opener 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o1ddo5I3ss

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry ILLEGALLY Favours Nawaz Sharif

Nawaz Shareef didn't Walk through Security Gates in Supreme Court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVozwXvEaw

ISLAMABAD: Former Director-General of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Tariq Khosa has refused to head a one-man commission to investigate the memo scandal, DawnNews reported on Saturday. The commission was set up by the Supreme Court. Khosa, who has also served as inspector general of Balochistan police, is a brother of Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Punjab Chief Secretary Nasir Khosa. Earlier, former law minister Babar Awan had questioned Khosa’s nomination at a press conference by saying that he was a brother of the Punjab chief secretary and a judge of the Supreme Court. But those who worked with Khosa called him an ‘upright’ man and a ‘clean’ government officer. The scandal erupted when US citizen of Pakistani origin, Mansoor Ijaz, accused Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, of masterminding an alleged memo sent to a senior US military official asking for help to rein in the Pakistani military after the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in May. Haqqani denied the allegation and resigned from his position of ambassador in the wake of the controversy. REFERENCES: Tariq Khosa refuses to head commission on memogate December 3, 2011 http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/03/tariq-khosa-refuses-to-head-commission-on-memogate.html •One-man commission named •PPP’s angry reaction •President, COAS, ISI chief to explain position: SC orders memogate inquiry, tells Haqqani not to go abroad December 2, 2011 http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/02/one-man-commission-named-ppps-angry-reaction-president-coas-isi-chief-to-explain-position-sc-orders-memogate-inquiry-tells-haqqani-not-to-go-abroad.html

ISLAMABAD: Renowned lawyer Asma Jahangir on Sunday refused to continue acting as former Ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani’s counsel in the memogate case, DawnNews reported. Asma Jahangir said that she did not trust the commission formed by the Supreme Court to investigate the memo-scandal, alleging that the Supreme Court judges were under the establishment’s influence. Asma also told DawnNews in an exclusive interview that Hussain Haqqani feared the powerful spy agencies may force him into giving a statement. This fear was the reason behind the former ambassador’s stay at the prime minister’s house, she said. Moreover, she said that the Supreme Court’s decision on the memogate petition was a victory for the country’s establishment. The law was being used to transform the country into a ‘security state’, she said. REFERENCE: Asma refuses to continue as Haqqani’s lawyer http://www.dawn.com/2012/01/01/isi-fear-forced-haqqani-to-reside-at-pm-house-asma.html

Asma Jahangir discusses memogate investigation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNfFFn9_Kc

Noted lawyer and human rights activist Asma Jahangir has refused to appear before the judicial commission investigating the memo case as counsel for Mr Husain Haqqani. Ms Jahangir’s decision is a serious expression of no confidence in justice being delivered from either the court or the judicial commission. This has raised some serious questions regarding the superior judiciary. From the very beginning of the memo case, it was obvious that more credence was being given by the court to the military top brass as against the civilians. Ms Jahangir expressed her disappointment with the judgement of the nine-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. She termed the judgement as a win for the military establishment, which undermined civilian supremacy: “If nine judges of the SC can be [under the establishment’s influence], then I am sorry to say I cannot have any expectations from the high court judges [heading the judicial commission].” That the court is focused on national security instead of upholding fundamental rights and civilian authority has turned the public’s expectations from the ‘independent’ judiciary into disillusionment. Those who have criticised Ms Jahangir for ‘running away’ from the fight or ‘defeatism’ must remember how hostile the bench was towards the defence counsel. In fact, it seemed like a repetition of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s case, where some quarters lamented that Mr Yahya Bakhtiar did not plead Mr Bhutto’s case well, which led to his hanging. This was despite the fact that the judiciary in those days was completely under the army’s thumb and highly biased towards Mr Bhutto. A similar scenario is in the making today in the memo case. Independent courts all over the world do not hear political cases but in Pakistan’s case, as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) has pointed out, “a tendency for the courts to find themselves embroiled in matters that they would not otherwise be an appropriate forum for”. HRW also expressed “concern about the fear of judicial overreach and unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the legislature and the executive”. Courts should be a forum of justice where citizens go expecting their rights will be protected. Ms Jahangir was not able to get justice for her client despite making a strong legal case about the maintainability of the memo petitions. Now the judiciary’s ability to provide justice hangs in the balance. It would be interesting to see if the findings of the judicial commission are different from that of the parliamentary committee’s investigation. In such an event, whose findings would be considered ‘supreme’ would determine where the real power lies. In principle, parliament is supreme but by hearing the petition on an unsigned memo, and that too when parliament is siezed of the matter, the court has in effect given an impression of ignoring the possible pitfalls ahead. With the success of the lawyers’ movement, it was expected that the judiciary would become truly independent but now the perception is growing that not much has changed. If this trend continues, the issue of civil-military imbalance may not be addressed and democracy remain in the dock. * REFERENCE: EDITORIAL: Whither an independent judiciary? Tuesday, January 03, 2012 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\01\03\story_3-1-2012_pg3_1

Reality of Lawyers Movement - 1 (Capital Talk 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBYWG8p_YIo

ISLAMABAD, May 29: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on Tuesday narrated for the first time his version of the events of of May 9 at the President’s camp office in Rawalpindi. He said in an affidavit that top intelligence officials had constantly pressured him into resigning, and after keeping him confined at the office for over five hours, he was allowed to leave in a flagless car. “I was informed that I have been restrained from acting as the chief justice.” The `non-functional’ chief justice informed the full-bench hearing identical petitions against the presidential reference that since the action of March 9, he had remained a victim of intrusive and not-so-intrusive intelligence and police operation. Justice Iftikhar said his entire house had been bugged, all his activities were being monitored, and `everything and everyone’ in and around his residence was being watched through a listening post set up at the nearby Sindh House. He did not say in the affidavit if he had been summoned to the Army House by President General Pervez Musharraf or whether he had made a request to meet the president. “When I reached the Army House, President Musharraf, wearing military uniform, told him he had received a complaint against him from a judge of the Peshawar High Court.. “I replied that it was not based on facts as my case was decided by a two-member bench and that attempts are being made to maliciously involve the other member of the Bench as well.” After this, the president said there were a few more complaints as well, directing his staff to call the 'other persons'. The 'other persons' entered the room immediately. They were: Prime Minster Shaukat Aziz, the Directors General of Military Intelligence (MI), Director General of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Director General Intelligence Bureau (IB), Chief of Staff (COS) and another official. All officials (except the IB chief and the COS) were in uniform. He said Gen Musharraf started reading notes from bits of paper. There was no single consolidated document containing charges against him. Most of the allegations had been taken from the contents of a 'notorious letter' written by Mr Naeem Bukhari. The Chief Justice said he dismissed the accusations as being baseless, having been engineered to defame him and the judiciary. He said President Musharraf insisted on his resignation. The president also said that if he agreed to resign, he would 'accommodate' him. In case of refusal, Gen Musharraf warned him, he would have to face a reference. “I replied: `I will not resign and would face any reference since I am innocent; I have not violated any code of conduct or any law, rule or regulation. I believe that I am the guardian of law. I strongly believe in God." He said the reply angered the president. He left the room in haste along with his military secretary, COS and the prime minister, saying that others would show evidence to him. “The meeting lasted about 30 minutes. The chiefs of the MI, ISI and IB stayed back, but they too did not show him me a single piece of evidence.” In fact, Justice iftikhar said, no official, except the ISI chief, had any document with him. The officials, however, alleged that Justice Iftikhar had used his influence to get his son admitted in Bolan Medical College, Quetta, when he was serving as a judge of the Balochistan High Court. The ISI and MI heads persisted in their demand for resignation, the CJ said. “I refused, saying that the demand has a collateral purpose.” “I was kept there absolutely against my will till 5pm. I was stopped there on one pretext or the other and at one stage was told the president will once again see me. “After 5pm, the MI chief told me `This is a bad day. Now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained from working as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of Pakistan’.” Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry further said when he came out of the room, he was stunned to find that the national flag and the insignia of office were no longer there on his car. “My staff officer later informed me Justice Javed Iqbal has taken oath as Acting Chief Justice and it has been shown on TV. My driver said he had been instructed not to drive the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.” Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said while on the way home, he asked the driver to take him to the Supreme Court, but an army official stopped his car near the Sports Complex from proceeding further. In the meantime, an SP, Tariq Masood Yasin, appeared. “He (SP Tariq) ordered the driver to come out of the car so that he (SP) could drive. He also asked his gunman to come out of the car. “I intervened, telling the SP `okay, I will not go to the Supreme Court, but my chauffeur will drive the car and my gunman will escort me home. Only then, did the SP allow the chauffeur to take the steering.” Justice Iftikhar said he reached home at 5.45pm and was shocked to see policemen and agency officials in mufti all over the place. My phones had already been disconnected, cellphones, TV, cables and DSL had been jammed or disconnected. He said he and his family were completely cut off for several days from the outside world. He said by 9pm, all official vehicles in his use, including a Mercedes, had been taken away by means of a lifter. One of the vehicles was returned to him later in the night, but without the key. The next day (March 10), the chief justice recalled, he received a `notice' from the Supreme Judicial Council informing him hereby he came to know that a Reference (No.43/2007) had been filed by the President before the Council. There was also a copy of the Order passed by the Council restraining him to function as a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of Pakistan. He said the copy of the Reference had also been appended with the Notice without any annexure or supporting documents for his perusal. Justice Chaudhry said it was also surprising for him to note that the aforesaid reference came up for hearing on March 9, 2007 after 6 pm in indecent haste. Two members of the Council as was evident from news published in an urdu daily on March 10, 2007, had been flown to Islamabad in special flights, from Lahore and Karachi simply to participate in a meeting of the Council. In fact, no meeting had been called by the Secretary of the Council namely Mr Faqir Hussain. No one had issued either agenda for the meeting or notice thereof. He said the Council, rather than merely scrutinizing the material, if at all and serving notice on him (without prejudice to his rights and interests as averred in the titled petition), went ahead and passed an order very detrimental to his interests as well as the interests of the institution. He said he was restrained to perform his functions as a Judge of the Supreme Court Judge and or Chief Justice of Pakistan. He said that he had been detained along with his family members including his infant child of seven years from the evening of March 9, 2007 till March 13. He had to walk till the other end of the road when the police officer confronted him and manhandled him as has now been established by a judicial enquiry.He said the Supreme Court staff attached to him was reportedly missing and had been kept at an unknown place. An attempt was being made to fabricate the evidence through them by coercive means against him. Even other employees working at his residence were taken and made to appear before some agency officials. They were released after 2/3 days. He said the grocery man was not allowed to go to Šcollect grocery; he was made to wait till an agency official accompanied him to the market and back. He said his chamber was sealed and certain files laying therein were removed and some of them had been handed over to the ISI under the supervision of the newly appointed Registrar.He said such an act was contrary to all norms and practices of judiciary and being the CJP, he was entitled to occupy his chamber along with his staff. He said on account of deployment of heavy contingents, no one was allowed to meet him freely, in as much as his colleagues were not allowed access to meet him. Even a retired judge of the Apex Court Mr Justice (R) Munir A Sheikh was not allowed to meet him. He said he was not all alone to suffer this agony. Even his children were not allowed to go to school, college and university. He said he and his family members were deprived of basic amenities of life, including medicines and doctors, etc.He said even when ordered by the Council, he was deprived of the assistance of his counsel to seek legal assistance regarding legal and factual issues involved in the reference. He said he and his family have been made to go through a lot of mental, physical and emotional agony, torture and embarrassment and words could never be enough to properly and adequately express that. He said all these tactics were used to put pressurise him to resign from the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. But after March 13, 2007 when he succeeded in establishing at least some contact with his lawyers team during a brief appearance before the Council and after March 16, 2007, the on going pressure to 'resign the office' was released to some extent. He said he believed that his entire house has been bugged and at the Sindh House which is located right opposite the residence of the deponent, the officials of the agencies other than police have established a place therein to keep an eye on those who come and visit him. He said his children were so scared that they could not go to school or university. "As a result, one of my daughters failed to appear in her exams (1st year, Federal Board) whereas my other daughter who is a student of Bahria university is not being allowed to take her examination (1st semester) due to lack of attendance in internal studies. My younger son is also not in a position to attend his school because of circumstances through which I am passing". Though the affidavit did not say the Chief Justice was summoned to the Army House, the lead counsel for the Chief Justice Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan who concluded his arguments on maintainability of the petition challenging the reference against CJ, before a 13 member bench of the Court headed by Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday said he had evidence that the Chief ŠJustice was summoned to the Army House. He said he will prove that the respondent side was telling lies before the Court.He said President General Pervez Musharraf must be impleaded as an essential party in the case.Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokar asked how can a referring authority be made a party in the case. Aitzaz Ahsan replied that he should acted like a post office as a referring authority, but he summoned the Chief Justice, pressurized him to resign and punished him for the refusal by filing a reference against him before the Supreme Judicial Council with malafide intention. He said there were precedences of President being made a party in Farooq Leghari, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Aftab Khan Sherpao cases. “This is a case of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the President must be impleeded as a party”, he submitted. He said under Islamic jurisprudence also, the rulers were answerable to the courts. He cited various judgments passed by superior courts in Pakistan as well as India to build his argument that the immunity to the President under Article 248 against judicial proceedings would not apply in this case and it was open for judicial review by the Court. REFERENCE: CJ says chiefs of MI, ISI asked him to quit: Affidavit on March 9 camp office event By Iftikhar A. Khan May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/30/top1.htm

Reality of Lawyers Movement - 2 (Capital Talk 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Q081cucmc

Reality of Lawyers Movement - 3 (Capital Talk 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh4hbU4Umgc

LAHORE: Judges of the higher judiciary are making up their minds about cases after reading newspaper headlines and watching TV shows, former president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Ali Ahmed Kurd said on Tuesday. Describing the present situation as “justice hurry and justice worry”, Kurd deplored the fact that the judges were visiting and addressing the bars and said they would have to “prove themselves worthy of their positions”. According to Kurd, judges in the United States neither read newspapers nor watched TV programmes, but focused only on their work. – ISLAMABAD: Ali Ahmed Kurd, the firebrand leader of the lawyers’ movement and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has been keeping quiet for quite some time, surprised a lot of people on Tuesday with his blunt criticism of the way the Supreme Court was behaving. Judges should “behave like judges”, he said. Speaking during a talk show on “Challenges facing the judiciary”, he said that people had reservations about the verdict handed down by the Supreme Court on petitions challenging the National Reconciliation Ordinance.According to him, the judgment appeared to be based on newspaper headlines and talk shows of private TV channels. REFERENCE: Kurd unhappy over SC verdict on NRO By Iftikhar A. Khan Wednesday, 23 Dec, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/12-kurd-unhappy-over-sc-verdict-on-nro%E2%80%93bi-09 Judges deciding cases on media lines: Kurd Daily Times Monitor Wednesday, December 23, 2009 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\23\story_23-12-2009_pg7_12 

Lawyers Movement & Chief Justice Case - 1 (Capital Talk 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTOhRalnewY

Husain Haqqani was forced to resign as ambassador late last year after a Pakistani-American businessman claimed he had passed on a memo on behalf of President Asif Ali Zardari pleading for US help to oust its army chiefs. The memo was allegedly sent to the United States then Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, via former National Security Advisor General James Jones. Both President Zardari and Mr Haqqani have denied the claims. Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the intelligence director Lt-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha have encouraged the establishment of a judicial inquiry into the allegations. The developing confrontation between Pakistan's civilian and military leaderships has triggered warnings of a coup against the Pakistan People's Party-led democratic government and fueled rumours that President Zardari may yet flee the country. The extent of mutual suspicion between the military and political leaderships was exposed by Asma Jahangir, who told The Daily Telegraph Mr Haqqani was too afraid to leave the prime minister's house to meet her in her office. Instead she was forced to obtain a court order to allow him to visit her at the Supreme Court under a heavy police guard. Miss Jahangir accused the judges of the Supreme Court of falling under the influence of the country's army chief after it established a judicial commission to establish whether Mr Haqqani had violated the constitution by seeking to colluded with a foreign power against state officials. An investigation into the allegations had already been announced by the country's National Assembly, but Nawaz Shartif, the opposition leader and former prime minister, appealed to the Supreme Court for a separate judicial inquiry. Mr Haqqani's lawyer Asma Jahangir last night said she will not represent him in the inquiry because she believes the judges are acting under the influence of the military establishment. "They've set up a commission not to probe what is there already but to go further and create more evidence the case is stacked against Haqqani, of course," she said. "He would not come to see me at my office in Islamabad. The only place I could meet him was at the [prime minister's] house. I refused to take his affidavit unless we were face to face and in a place where I was certain no-one was watching us," she said. Former senior Pakistan Army officer Lt-Gen Talat Masood said the military had already achieved its objectives when Mr Haqqani was forced to resign, but it remains determined that the truth be established, regardless of the political fall-out. "They want to see whether it was done at the individual level or whether it had the blessing of anyone in the presidency. Whatever the political consequences, they still think it's worth it," he said. REFERENCE: Husain Haqqani 'too afraid to leave Pakistan prime minister's house' Pakistan's former ambassador to Washington was sheltering on Monday night in the prime minister's official Islamabad residence as his lawyer accused the judicary and military of conspiring against the ex-official. By Dean Nelson, New Delhi and Javed Siddiq5:31PM GMT 02 Jan 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8988275/Husain-Haqqani-too-afraid-to-leave-Pakistan-prime-ministers-house.html

Lawyers Movement & Chief Justice Case - 2 (Capital Talk 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knA9275i3B8

THE FIRST time I ever traveled to Pakistan — in December of 2001 — I was quickly introduced to that country’s fondness for conspiracy theories and its deep mistrust of the United States. Over a delicious dinner of rice and lamb, an elected Pakistani official informed me that the United States had perpetrated the 9/11 attack on its own people. My fork stopped mid-air. “Why would they do that?’’ I asked. “To get their hands on Afghanistan, of course.’’ So the alliance between the United States and Pakistan in the so-called war on terror was always bound to be, shall we say, rocky. Ten years later, this forced marriage of convenience has been going through a nasty divorce. A string of unfortunate incidents have confirmed Pakistan’s view that Americans are up to no good: A CIA contractor shot two Pakistani men in Lahore. The United States swept in and killed Osama bin Laden - publicly humiliating Pakistan’s army. A November air strike killed 26 Pakistani soldiers - an accident for which President Obama has not seen fit to personally apologize. Perhaps the most foreboding sign of chilly relations has been the public allegations against Husain Haqqani, a Boston University professor who served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States. Haqqani has been virtually accused of treason for allegedly authoring a secret memo to the Americans that offers more transparency in Pakistan’s nuclear program, a stronger hand against militant groups, and an investigation into which Pakistani military officials knew about bin Laden’s hideout. In short, the memo offers to give the Americans pretty much everything they want. In return, Haqqani is accused of asking for one thing: protection for Pakistan’s weak elected government from Pakistan’s military, which has staged three coups and ruled for half of the country’s 64 years of existence. You might think that an effort to protect an elected government from a coup might elicit praise from the public. Not in Pakistan. The rumor that Haqqani asked for American help has sparked such outrage that Haqqani — a tenacious survivor of numerous political battles — was forced to resign. He has been called everything from a traitor to an American sell-out. Now Pakistan’s Supreme Court has appointed a three-judge committee to investigate whether Haqqani did indeed author the memo — a charge he strenuously denies. If Haqqani — and his former boss, Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari - are proven to be behind the memo, Zardari could be forced out. Haqqani could have shied away from this trouble and returned to Boston, where a job awaits him at BU, and settled back into a quiet life. Instead, he flew to Pakistan to fight the charges. Today, he is holed up in the prime minister’s guest annex, with extra security to protect him from assassination. He isn’t allowed to leave Pakistan without the court’s permission. “It is an intense and scary time,’’ says Asma Jehangir, a human rights lawyer representing Haqqani in court. Haqqani’s political survival rests on his ability to convince the Pakistani public that he didn’t write a one-page, unsigned memo. The only evidence that he did comes from a Pakistani-American businessman named Mansoor Ijaz, who sent the memo to Admiral Mike Mullen but claims Haqqani dictated it. Ijaz, who revealed the memo’s existence in an op-ed to the Financial Times, has a history of sensational claims. During the Iraq war, he claimed to have knowledge of an impending chemical weapons attack. During the hunt for bin Laden, he gave detailed descriptions of his hide-out. During the diplomatic frenzy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Ijaz announced that Iran already has one. Now Pakistan is abuzz with delicious conspiracy theories about Ijaz and why he would try to ruin his former friend. Maybe he is a Trojan Horse, sent by the army to try to topple Zardari. Or maybe he is an American spy. Pakistan loves conspiracy theories so much that Haqqani might yet survive this scandal. I wish I could say the same for US-Pakistani relations. REFERENCE: Political survival test for BU’s Haqqani FARAH STOCKMAN January 03, 2012|By Farah Stockman http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-03/opinion/30581383_1_pakistani-soldiers-pakistani-military-officials-asma-jehangir http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-03/opinion/30581383_1_pakistani-soldiers-pakistani-military-officials-asma-jehangir/2

Lawyers Movement & Chief Justice Case - 3 (Capital Talk 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJIbHm1FnKM

When U.S. President Barack Obama sharply challenged a recent Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union address, prompting a soto voce rejoinder from Justice Samuel Alito, nobody was concerned that the contretemps would spark a blood feud between the judiciary and the executive. The notion that judges could or would work to undermine a sitting U.S. president is fundamentally alien to America's constitutional system and political culture. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Pakistan.Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the country's erstwhile hero, is the leading culprit in an unfolding constitutional drama. It was Mr. Chaudhry's dismissal by then-President Pervez Musharraf in 2007 that triggered street protests by lawyers and judges under the twin banners of democracy and judicial independence. This effort eventually led to Mr. Musharraf's resignation in 2008. Yet it is now Mr. Chaudhry himself who is violating those principles, having evidently embarked on a campaign to undermine and perhaps even oust President Asif Ali Zardari. Any involvement in politics by a sitting judge, not to mention a chief justice, is utterly inconsistent with an independent judiciary's proper role. What is even worse, Chief Justice Chaudhry has been using the court to advance his anti-Zardari campaign. Two recent court actions are emblematic of this effort. The first is a decision by the Supreme Court, announced and effective last December, to overturn the "National Reconciliation Ordinance." The NRO, which was decreed in October 2007, granted amnesty to more than 8,000 members from all political parties who had been accused of corruption in the media and some of whom had pending indictments. While some of these people are probably corrupt, many are not and, in any case, politically inspired prosecutions have long been a bane of Pakistan's democracy. The decree is similar to actions taken by many other fledgling democracies, such as post-apartheid South Africa, to promote national reconciliation. It was negotiated with the assistance of the United States and was a key element in Pakistan's transition from a military dictatorship to democracy. Chief Justice Chaudhry's decision to overturn the NRO, opening the door to prosecute President Zardari and all members of his cabinet, was bad enough. But the way he did it was even worse. Much to the dismay of many of the brave lawyers who took to the streets to defend the court's integrity last year, Mr. Chaudhry's anti-NRO opinion also blessed a highly troubling article of Pakistan's Constitution—Article 62. This Article, written in 1985, declared that members of parliament are disqualified from serving if they are not of "good character," if they violate "Islamic injunctions," do not practice "teachings and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam," and if they are not "sagacious, righteous and non-profligate." For non-Muslims, the Article requires that they have "a good moral reputation." Putting aside the fact that Article 62 was promulgated by Pakistan's then ruling military dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, relying on religion-based standards as "Islamic injunctions" or inherently subjective criteria as "good moral reputation" thrusts thePakistani Supreme Court into an essentially religious domain, not unlike Iranian Sharia-based courts. This behavior is profoundly ill-suited for any secular court. While Article 62 was not formally repealed, it was discredited and in effect, a dead letter. The fact that the petitioner in the NRO case sought only to challenge the decree based on the nondiscrimination clause of the Pakistani Constitution and did not mention Article 62 makes the court's invocation of it even more repugnant. Meanwhile, the decision's lengthy recitations of religious literature and poetry, rather than reliance on legal precedent, further pulls the judiciary from its proper constitutional moorings. The second anti-Zardari effort occurred just a few days ago, when the court blocked a slate of the president's judicial appointments. The court's three-Justice panel justified the move by alleging the president failed to "consult" with Mr. Chaudhry. This constitutional excuse has never been used before. It is well-known in Islamabad that Mr. Zardari's real sin was political, as he dared to appoint people unacceptable to the chief justice. Since consultation is not approval, Mr. Chaudhry's position appears to be legally untenable. Yet Mr. Zardari, faced with demonstrations and media attacks, let Mr. Chaudhry choose a Supreme Court justice. There is no doubt that the chief justice is more popular these days than the president, who has been weakened by the split in the political coalition which brought down Mr. Musharraf. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is now a leading opponent of the regime. There is a strong sense among the Pakistani elites that Justice Chaudhry has become Mr. Sharif's key ally. The fact that Mr. Chaudhry was a victim of an improper effort by former President Musharraf to replace him with a more pliant judge makes his current posture all the more deplorable. His conduct has led some of his erstwhile allies to criticize him and speak of the danger to democracy posted by judicial meddling in politics. The stakes are stark indeed. If Mr. Chaudhry succeeds in ousting Mr. Zardari, Pakistan's fledgling democracy would be undermined and the judiciary's own legitimacy would be irrevocably damaged. Rule by unaccountable judges is no better than rule by the generals. REFERENCE: Judicial Coup in Pakistan - Once a democratic champion, the Chief Justice now undermines the elected government. by DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY FEBRUARY 23, 2010, 7:51 P.M. ET  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704057604575080593268166402.html  Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington, D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan andGeorge H.W. Bush administrations.

Lawyers Movement & Chief Justice Case - 4 (Capital Talk 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_VAU08QVpY

To his supporters, and there are many, Pakistan's Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is a hero, a man of honor who stood up for an independent judiciary and defied the diktats of former President Pervez Musharraf — and who continues to hold the political establishment accountable. To his detractors, however, Chaudhry is an activist jurist with unbridled powers, a populist with grandiose political ambitions. In a country where politics can get very personal, the Chief Justice's relationships with the pillars of civilian and military power, President Asif Ali Zardari and Army Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Kayani respectively, could be important in shaping Pakistan's transition from de facto military rule to civilian democracy. And those relationships are likely to be tested in the tussle over a package of wide-ranging constitutional reforms that was due to be introduced to parliament on Friday, whose purpose is to reverse changes made by previous military rulers, trim the power of the presidency, and alter the procedure for Supreme Court appointments. The bill would take Supreme Court appointments out of the hands of the president, who now makes nominations after consulting with the chief justice, and place them before a government legal committee that also includes several justices. Unlike the present system, judges would have to be confirmed by a parliamentary vote. The proposed reforms have widened the rift between Chaudhry and the government that has grown since the Chief Justice last year struck down amnesty decrees by Musharraf that protected many senior figures in government — including Zardari himself once out of office — from prosecution on corruption charges. And some saw the Chief Justice's hand in the eleventh-hour stalling of parliamentary debate on the package on Friday by opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who objected to proposals on the selection of judges. Sharif's opposition, some senior politicians suggest, results from being pressured by Chaudhry, who is allegedly opposed to having his own power in the selection of judges curtailed. "The chief justice threatened [Sharif]. He said he'd open up all cases against him," a senior leader of the ruling Pakistan People's Party said on condition of anonymity. "He's become an absolute dictator." On the contrary, says a legal expert at the Supreme Court and Chaudhry associate speaking on condition of anonymity, the conflict is caused by the "government [wanting] a chief justice and court which is compliant, not independent." The standoff over how judges are selected could have far-reaching implications in a political order feeling its way towards democracy, with the different branches of government are "attempting to first stretch the bounds of their authority and second, to learn how to work with each other," says Samina Ahmed, Pakistan director for the International Crisis Group, a global policy-research center. "The problem in Pakistan has [historically] been with the military's intervention, transitions have been disrupted, and the judiciary in the past has supported every military intervention." But as the two civilian branches of government tussle over their powers, neither appears to have clear backing from the military, whose preferences are often decisive. Still, some Pakistani media commentators suggest that the generals may be colluding with the judges to limit the power of government, already groaning under the weight of the president's sagging popularity. They point to a stalled but soon-to-be-reopened Supreme Court case that accuses intelligence agencies of using the "war on terror" as a pretext to secretly detain thousands of citizens suspected of links to Baluchi separatists and other radical groups. The local Dawn newspaper reported last month that Supreme Court Justice Javed Iqbal said that the court "would not like to create the impression that it was out to destroy or tarnish the image of intelligence agencies" with regard to these cases. Chaudhry had in 2007 begun to investigate the issue of Pakistanis alleged to have disappeared into secret custody before he was deposed by Musharraf, and had ordered members of the security forces to produce several of the missing in court. Now, some media commentators are suggesting that Chaudhry is retreating from that fight. Chaudhry's supporters deny the claim, and say that the court will not shy away from prosecuting any security officials who have broken the law. Whatever the outcome of the particular battles over constitutional powers and various court cases, what remains clear is that Justice Chaudhry, while holding an office that is ostensibly above politics, will remain in the thick of it. REFERENCE: Pakistan's Chief Justice Takes on its Political Class By Rania Abouzeid / Islamabad Saturday, Mar. 27, 2010 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1975646,00.html