2009: KARACHI: MQM Quaid Altaf Hussain has said that his party respects the Supreme Court judgment on the National Reconciliation Ordinance. “We respect the Supreme Court judgment and we believe in the freedom of judiciary,” he was quoted as saying in a short statement issued here by the party’s Rabita Committee. MQM leader Mohammad Anwar told The News from Dubai that others should also respect the verdict. Meanwhile, Sindh Minister for Local Bodies Agha Siraj Durrani said he was ready to face all the cases against him, adding his name was wrongly placed on the NRO list. When Federal Minister for Ports and Shipping Babar Ghauri was asked to comment on the issue, he said the MQM Coordination Committee will issue an official statement from London. REFERENCE: MQM respects SC judgment, says Altaf Fasahat Mohiuddin Thursday, December 17, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=213782&Cat=2&dt=12%2F17%2F2009
2007: Altaf wants CJ to tender resignation: KARACHI, May 12: Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain on Saturday asked Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to resign from his post for violating his oath of office. “Mr Chief Justice, you had breached the oath taken under the Constitution by taking another oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order. I demand that you make an apology to the whole nation for this act, tender resignation and then come forward for the cause of the independence of the judiciary,” he said while addressing a rally called by the party against what was described as political jugglery in the name of the independence of the judiciary. Mr Hussain was of the view that opposition political and religious parties were using the issue of CJ for dissolution of the government. “This should be stopped forthwith as solidarity of Pakistan lies in a true democratic government,” he added.A large number of people reached M.A. Jinnah Road to take part in the MQM rally. Mr Hussain, who was sad and grieved over the loss of lives on Saturday, said that no untoward incident had taken place in any part of the city but with the landing of CJ’s flight at Karachi Airport the situation started deteriorating. “After noon when the CJ’s plane landed in Karachi, terrorists started targeting MQM rallies in different areas by firing indiscriminately.” He informed the participants that over a dozen workers of the MQM were targeted while hundreds of workers and supporters were injured. However, he declared that nothing could stop the struggle of the MQM for the rights of the oppressed people. The MQM leader said that the Sindh Home Department requested the CJ to cancel his visit to Karachi on the basis of certain intelligence reports but he did not accede to the request. “I believe now you [the Chief Justice] are feeling relaxed after so many people lost their lives due to your programme.” “Mr Chief Justice, kindly recognise political jugglers around you. On the occasion of your arrival, miscreants and enemies of the country killed innocent people,” he said. He wondered why the participants of a procession in Punjab to welcome the CJ in Lahore were raising the slogans of “Go Musharraf Go” instead of “Go Military Go”. REFERENCE: KARACHI: Altaf wants CJ to tender resignation May 13, 2007 Sunday Rabi-us-Sani 25, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/13/local3.htm
2010 : MQM retreated on NRO on US, UK pressure KARACHI: Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) took back its support of government for NRO on pressure from the US and Britain, according to a cable leaked by WikiLeaks.
According to a US State Department cable released by WikiLeaks, Interior Minister Rehman Malik suspected that the “establishment” was out to get President Asif Zardari and that the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) was being influenced by the US and the UK.
In a meeting held on November 9, 2009, Malik claimed to then US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson that the MQM had repeatedly stated that both the US and the UK had urged the party to oppose the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) a move that led the government to withdraw the legislation from parliamentary consideration and placed the future of Zardari at risk.
In a November 9 meeting with Ambassador Patterson, Interior Minister Rehman Malik requested that the USG (United States government) issue a public statement in support of Pakistani democracy.
He suggested that such a statement would be useful in protecting President Asif Ali Zardari from military-induced pressure for Zardari to leave office. In addition, it would help dispel persistent charges from the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) that the United States and the United Kingdom had urged it to withdraw support for the National Reconciliation Ordinance, thereby placing Zardari at risk. Malik assessed that Saudi Arabia and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) were cooperating with the military and MQM to bring down President Zardari. Despite these charges, Malik was optimistic that the Supreme Court would not/not strip Zardari of his presidential immunity and suggested that even if it did, the government would simply cease prosecution of Zardari`s cases, thereby allowing him to continue to hold office.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik met on November 9 with Ambassador Patterson to provide a read-out of his meetings with senior officials of the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) in Dubai. Throughout the meeting, Malik was clearly nervous that the USG was distancing itself both from him and President Zardari. Malik claimed that during the course of his Dubai meetings, the MQM had repeatedly stated that both the United States and the United Kingdom had urged the party to oppose the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) — a move that led the government to withdraw the legislation from parliamentary consideration and placed the future of President Zardari at risk. Malik claimed that the MQM stated it had received this message during the Sindh Governor`s recent trip to the United States and that Altaf Hussain had been approached by the British government in London.
Ambassador strongly denied these allegations, stating that the USG had not/not had any such discussions with the Sindh Governor.
Minister Malik inquired as to whether the Ambassador was aware that the “establishment” — local short-hand for the military and the intelligence services — was involved in working against the NRO and for President Zardari`s departure. Ambassador told Rehman that we were aware of such allegations. Minister Malik reported that the MQM had told him directly in the Dubai meetings that the military was involved, although Malik personally did not/not believe that Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani was involved in the plotting. Malik also claimed that the MQM was meeting regularly with the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) and that PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif was, in turn, pressuring Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to disqualify President Zardari. Malik also assessed that Saudi Arabia was working to unseat President Zardari. Malik intended to visit Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, Chief of Saudi General Intelligence, in Saudi Arabia and then travel on to London to meet with MQM Convener Altaf Hussain.
Malik suggested that the best way to deal with military pressure would be for President Zardari to make internal changes within the military hierarchy. Malik proposed that Zardari recreate the Deputy Chief of Army Staff position and move Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director General Ahmad Shuja Pasha into that position in March 2010. Zardari could then commit to elevating Pasha to COAS in October 2010 on the expiration of Kayani`s term. Malik suggested that Kayani could then be moved to Chairman of the Joint Staff. Comment: Malik seemed to believe that ISI DG Pasha was unilaterally behind the push to oust Zardari — which we know is not/not the case.
Despite these concerns, Malik reiterated the government`s line that Zardari is not in any real danger on expiration of the NRO. He asserted that the Chief Justice would not/not revoke Zardari`s presidential immunity. Even if he did, Malik claimed that the Interior Minister can instruct prosecutors to dismiss charges in any court case. He shared that, in one of his own corruption cases, this had been done, and that in another case, the Supreme Court had ruled his imprisonment illegal. Malik also added that President Zardari had the ability to pardon anyone.
Malik pressed the Ambassador for issuance of a strong statement from the United States. Ambassador inquired as to the content and the audience. Malik suggested that it be a public statement saying that the United States supported democracy in Pakistan.
Malik was clearly worried that President Zardari and his inner circle of advisors — including Malik — had lost the support of the international community. Malik appeared to believe that such support was essential for their survival in the face of military plotting against them. Malik`s view that ISI DG Pasha is behind the moves against President Zardari and that COAS Kayani is not involved is either naive or intentionally misleading. It would be impossible for Pasha to move without Kayani`s acquiescence. Malik`s views on Zardari`s legal troubles presuppose that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry will be bound by normal interpretations of the law and precedent. Such an assumption ignores Chaudhry`s penchant for ignoring both in recent rulings and his personal animosity towards Asif Ali Zardari. REFERENCES: MQM retreated on NRO on US, UK pressure December 05, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-6580-MQM-retreated-on-NRO-on-US,-UK-pressure Ansar Abbasi on Altaf Hussain 2 Feb 2009 Daily Jang WikiLeaks episode III: ‘Britain, US pressing MQM to oppose NRO’ http://tribune.com.pk/story/85786/wikileaks-episode-iii-britain-us-pressing-mqm-to-oppose-nro/ MQM took back NRO support on US, UK pressure: WikiLeaks | The Nation December 05, 2010, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/05-Dec-2010/MQM-took-back-NRO-support-on-US-UK-pressure-WikiLeaks
26th July, 2012 Opposition should have resisted contempt law: SC ISLAMABAD, July 26: Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan sharply reacted on Thursday to remarks made by some Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, about opposition’s role in parliament during the adoption of a bill to amend the contempt of court law and said the observations were “disappointing, unfair, unjust and beyond comprehension”. “The honourable judges venting their feelings against the opposition should enlighten us where exactly the opposition erred in coming up to their expectations,” a statement issued by the PML-N leader from London said. Chaudhry Nisar expressed the hope that the judges would “review” their comments. “Such sweeping and one-sided statements do not strengthen the dignity of the Supreme Court nor do they ensure fairness and justice in an environment where justice is the need of the hour.” He said: “While making these observations, the honourable judges should also have the trouble to elaborate how the opposition with 90 members in a house of 342 could have stopped the passage of the bill short of snatching it from the minister’s hands and creating a violent scene.” He particularly “expressed his amazement” at the reported comments of a judge that the opposition had violated the people’s mandate by staging walkout.“How can such a statement be made about a party which has over the years often single-handedly raised aloft the banner for a free judiciary and rule of law in Pakistan?” REFERENCE: Nisar urges judges to review their remarks 27th July, 2012 http://dawn.com/2012/07/27/nisar-urges-judges-to-review-their-remarks/ Opposition should have resisted contempt law: SC Iftikhar A. Khan | 26th July, 2012 http://dawn.com/2012/07/26/opposition-should-have-resisted-contempt-law-sc/
Asma Jahangir on Judicialization of Politics Part 1
SC Registrar oversteps jurisdiction June 22, 2012 In a sheer case of over stepping jurisdiction, Supreme Court of Pakistan Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain has directly approached companies that provided services to Dr Arsalan, seeking their tax returns and verification of receipts. According to well-placed sources told Online, the companies that provided services to Arsalan, allegedly on Malik Riaz’s expense, received multiple emails from the Registrar last night. “The emails from Dr Faqir remained pouring in till 3:30 am,” said a source in one of these companies. These mails were perturbing as “he (the Registrar) was asking about our tax returns and details of postings of income from Arsalan in our accounts,” he added. “From the text of the emails, the Registrar appeared to be either in panic or simply unaware of his attempts replicating ‘coram non judice’. Before righting to us, the apex court’s administrator must know that businesses based or operating in London are protected under the Data Protection Act, especially in matters related to personal finances.”
“Even if a London-based authority or investigator intended to inquire about the details of some personal expenses from a bank or a hotel, it needs to go through a high court judge or Crown Court Judge,” a local attorney told Online. The way in which apex court’s Registrar has moved is tantamount to be contamination of the evidence. The sources said the said companies were not answerable to the Registrar of Supreme Court and they would contact their counsels through their respective governments at the earliest. It may be mentioned here that Malik Riaz, during his press conference, had presented the receipts of the companies/business concerns that provided services to Arsalan Iftikhar, as evidence. These included Hellen Park Hotel London, Habib Bank A.G. Zurich London, Marriot Hotel and the company which rented out Range Rover to Arsalan. The Supreme Court is not authorised to probe against anybody, whereas the inquiry from its Registrar has flared up apprehensions among the legal and constitutional circles of the country. Malik Riaz has submitted record comprising 83 pages in Supreme Court, highlighting that a total of Rs340.25 million were incurred on three tours of CJP’s son to London. Meanwhile, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry Wednesday granted another two-year extension in the service of Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain. “Chief Justice re-employed Dr Faqir Hussain, as registrar (of) Supreme Court for a period of two years with effect from March 25 on usual terms and conditions,” an announcement by the apex court said. Mr. Hussain had told a section of press on Tuesday that March 24 would be his last day in office. Dr Hussain retired from service in March 2010 when he got his first extension for two years. An order passed by the chief justice said: “Dr Hussain, the incumbent registrar of the Supreme Court, is a person of high integrity, moral calibre and qualification. He carries MA and LLB degrees from University of Peshawar, LLM degree from the University of London, PhD in Constitutional Law from the University of Peshawar, and has completed Post Doctoral Fellowship from the University of London. “Dr Hussain’s re-employment due to non-availability of suitably qualified/experienced staff does not infringe upon the promotional prospects and rights of the other officers.” The order said the chief justice discussed the issue with four other judges of the apex court who said he should be given another extension. It said the option of hiring services of an official from any other department on deputation was also considered. “But this option could not be exercised in view of the fact that any new officer will take time to get acquainted with the complex working of the apex court of the country. No right of promotion of any officer of the Supreme Court is being affected because currently there is no officer in BPS-21 in Supreme Court establishment,” the order stated, adding that the extension in period of re-employment of Dr Hussain was in line with the relevant government rules and judgment of apex court in PLD 2011 SC 277. Dr Hussain served as registrar throughout with Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry from July 1, 2005 to March 9, 2007. He left the post on March 9, 2007, when a reference was filed against the CJ. He was again appointed on July 20, 2007, when Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was restored under a judgment of the apex court. With the promulgation of Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) on Nov 3, 2007, and deposition of CJ and other 60 judges, Dr Hussain was reverted to his previous position of law secretary. REFERENCE: SC Registrar oversteps jurisdiction June 22, 2012 http://weeklypulse.org/details.aspx?contentID=2453&storylist=2
Asma Jahangir on Judicialization of Politics Part 2
Justice Louise Arbour has a distinguished career devoted to promoting the principles of justice. Currently serving as the President of the International Crisis Group, Justice Arbour is the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario and a former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. As such, she knows a thing or two about the importance of an independent judiciary in developing countries and emerging democracies. That’s why, when Justice Arbour expresses concerns about the looming constitutional crisis in Pakistan, her concerns merit serious consideration. An ardent supporter of Pakistan’s 2007 “Lawyer’s Movement” to restore judges deposed by Gen. Musharraf, Justice Arbour had hoped to see a new era for the Court, one that broke with its past of supporting military dictators and their mangling the Constitution and the rule of law. Today, she fears that those same justices have become “intoxicated with their own independence,” and that the current direction of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justices threatens to upend the very democratic order that restored them to the bench. Speaking to a crowded auditorium at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC, Justice Arbour noted that the current tension between Pakistan’s Supreme Court and its elected officials might seem like a political soap opera were it not for Court’s history of collusion with the military to suppress democracy. Judges “who took an oath to a military dictator are not well placed to make the decision” to remove democratically elected officials, she observed, referring to Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s 1999 oath under Gen. Musharraf’s Provisional Constitutional Order http://americansforpakistan.com/2012/07/12/pakistans-suprema-lex/ While not inevitable, Justice Arbour said, it is possible that Pakistan’s Supreme Court could end up dissolving the democratically elected government with the help of the military, putting in place an extended caretaker government in what would be, for all intents and purposes, another coup. During her visit to Pakistan, she assured the room, she met with no government officials. Her interest was in the views of the legal community, whom she found deeply divided, seemingly on political lines. This troubled the former Justice, who worries that Pakistan’s Supreme Court has become increasingly politicized, threatening its credibility. She pointed to the memo commission, which she said “reflected very poorly on the judiciary,” and added to the appearance of growing politicization. The present case, in which the Supreme Court has ordered the Prime Minister to write a letter to Swiss authorities requesting that criminal cases be reinstated against the President, adds to the appearance of an increasingly politicized judiciary. From a legal perspective, the issue centers on one of separation of powers. In fact, Pakistan’s Chief Justice has repeatedly stated recently that “parliament is not supreme.” http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/07/08/news/national/parliament-is-not-supreme/ In questions such as these, where the Supreme Court has a vested interest in the outcome, Justice Arbour suggests that it is all the more important that court show self-restraint and frame its decisions in a way that “advances the authority of all institutions,” not only its own. Justice Arbour was also clear that her concerns about the Supreme Court’s actions do not imply a disinterest in accountability. There is a misconception that presidential immunity is unprecedented, she explained, reminding the audience that former French President Nicolas Sarkozy enjoyed immunity from prosecution during his term in office and, now that he is out of office, faces possible charges for campaign finance violations. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/03/156216624/sarkozys-home-searched-after-loss-of-immunity Article 248 of Pakistan’s Constitution, which grants temporary immunity to Pakistan’s President, Prime Minister, and Governors, is clearly worded, said Justice Arbour; and that privilege exists for a reason – to allow government officials to perform their official duties without distraction. Asked by a member of the audience whether President Zardari should be subject to accountability, Justice Arbour responded that all officials should be subject to accountability. The issue is not one of accountability, but timing. Rather than wait six months for Pakistan’s next general elections, she said, the Supreme Court is unnecessarily undermining not only the present government, but the democratic system, which is weak from decades of neglect under military regimes. Justice Arbour is not the only former Supreme Court justice to express grave concern about the direction of Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Last month, Justice Markandey Katju, a former member of the Supreme Court of India, wrote a detailed explanation http://tribune.com.pk/story/399427/judicial-responsibility-and-organs-of-state/ for his concern that Pakistan’s Supreme Court is “playing to the galleries and not exercising the self-restraint expected of superior courts.” As a growing chorus of international jurists expresses concerns about the actions of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, we hope that Pakistan’s Honorable Justices will consider Justice Arbour’s words carefully if for no other reason than their own self interest. Historically, Pakistan’s courts suffered greatly under undemocratic regimes. Should Pakistan’s democracy become derailed as a result of the present crisis, there’s no reason to believe the judiciary would fare better this time around. REFERENCE: Justice Louise Arbour Concerned About Direction of Pakistan’s Supreme Court JULY 19, 2012 • BY AMERICANSFORPAKISTAN • http://americansforpakistan.com/2012/07/19/justice-louise-arbour-concerned-about-direction-of-pakistans-supreme-court/
Marvi Sirmed on Judicialization of Politics Part-1
Whigs, Robes and Shirwanis - ‘We have too many high sounding words and too few actions that correspond with them’. Abigail Admas - Civilian and military rulers have been helped by eminent legal minds in judicial and constitutional matters. These legal celebrities change their own ideas depending on the situation. Governor General Ghulam Muhammad after dismissing Nazimuddin’s cabinet appointed A.K. Barohi as his law minister. Barohi was a strong advocate of a secular constitution and agreed with all those who wanted to keep religious leaders out of political arena. However when winds changed, then Barohi’s ideas also changed. Barohi later became legal advisor to General Zia and helped him to Islamize the country. Another bright legal mind is S. M. Zafar who had pleaded many cases of those in power. In 1997, while representing prime minister Nawaz Sharif in a contempt of court hearing, he argued that ‘another reason why the chief justice should drop the charges was that he was from Sindh and in Sindh there was a tradition that if someone comes to the house of a Sindhi, then all complaints against the guest were dropped’. (20) Very few lawyers can boast about presenting such arguments in defense of their clients in a court of law. Shareefuddin Peerzada is an old hand who is nicknamed ‘jadugar’ (magician). He has an unbeatable record of faithfully serving military rulers spanning almost the whole history of Pakistan including Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Haq and Pervez Mussharraf. He has been gifted with the rare ability to pull different varieties of rabbits from his legal hat to fulfill the needs of military rulers.
Under the shadow of judicial activism, many judges crossed the fine line and many at times conveyed their biases prior to evaluating the full body of evidence. Chief justice Nasim Hassan Shah at the start of hearing of dismissal of Nawaz Sharif government stated that he will not be another Munir (referring to chief justice Muhammad Munir’s decision of validating Ayub Khan’s coup in 1958) and that ‘the nation will hear a good news’. During 1997 elections, chief justice Sajjad A. Shah toured Lahore for few hours and made his mind about low turn out of voters. Later that evening talking to Governor of Punjab Khawaja Tariq Rahim he remarked that if there was such a low turn out of elections and ‘if the results of the election were challenged in court on the ground that it lacked participation by the majority of the people, it was possible that the court could reject the result’. He later repeated these remarks to caretaker prime minister Malik Meraj Khalid. (21) At other times justices have actively taken the side of the executive even at the expense of the independence of their own institution or given judgments for petty personal interests. In November 1977, chief justice Anwar ul Haq upheld Zia’s martial law under the doctrine of necessity. One day before the judgment, he called Zia’s legal advisor Shareefuddin Peerzada to inform him about the judgment. Peerzada asked chief justice if he had given the authority of amending the constitution to General Zia. Haq replied that he had not given that authority to General Zia. Peerzada told him that without giving Zia the authority to amend the constitution, chief justice will be out of his job and a new chief justice will need to be sworn in. Hearing that Anwarl ul Haq inserted the words of ‘including the power to amend it (the constitution)’ in the judgment in his own hand writing. (22) He had done this without consulting other justices who were unaware of this last minute back channel communication between chief justice and government’s legal advisor. It is ironic that in 1979, chief justice of Supreme Court Anwar ul Haq and chief justice of Lahore high court Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain held brain storming sessions with General Zia ul Haq at his residence to help the military ruler draft a Constitutional Amendment (Article 212-A) to curtail the activities of their own institution. This amendment removed any oversight by civilian courts against the judgments of military courts. (23)
The conflict between judiciary and executive in 1997 showed that there was very little if any regard for the most important institutions of the state. The high office holders merely used their positions to fulfill their narrow personal interests rather than defending any high ideals. Prime Minister used his absolute majority in the parliament in a very irresponsible way by hastily enacting new laws and even amending the constitution without any serious debate. It made mockery of the whole concept of representative government. On the other hand, bitter infighting among Supreme Court justices and reckless attitude of the chief justice shocked everyone. Chief justice really became a loose canon acting way beyond the legal norms. In an unprecedented manner, he was issuing orders from the bench ordering the president to nominate justices which he had selected. He was also issuing and suspending executive orders and even suspending constitutional provisions in a cavalier manner simply to humiliate Prime Minister.
A former chief justice Saeeduzaman Siddiqui long after his retirement pontificated that ‘by legitimizing military takeovers, the judges have abdicated their role to defend the constitution. (24) Siddiqui was the judge who colluded with the sitting government to oust his own chief justice. In addition, he served as chief justice for three month after General Mussharraf’s take over before being sent to the retirement wilderness . He conveniently forgot that during his tussle with chief justice, a number of senior lawyers came as mediators requesting supreme court judges to sort out their differences amicably to safeguard the sanctity of the institution of the supreme court but he went ahead and played a leading role in writing a sad chapter in the judicial history of Pakistan.
In 1996, supreme court deliberated about appointment of judges. Government fearful of the fact that the judgment will hamper its efforts to induct favorite judges pre-empted supreme court. The judgment was to be announced on March 20, 1996. On March 19, government announced the appointment of twenty judges to Lahore high court and seven to Sindh high court. Acting chief justices of both courts; justice Irshad Hasan Khan of Lahore court and justice Abdul Hafeez Memon of Sindh court were Supreme Court justices who were deputed as acting chief justices, administered oaths to new judges without even informing let alone consulting with the chief justice of the Supreme Court. (25) Both acting chief justices were appointees of Benazir and they returned the favor by administering oaths to newly inducted judges favored by government without informing the chief justice. Supreme Court justices finalized the draft of the order to be issued in case of recommendations about appointment of judges to higher courts. Government had pre-empted their move by appointing 27 additional judges to Lahore and Sindh high courts. Judges had decided to adhere to seniority principle and the short order was announced on March 20. One week later, chief justice Sajjad A. Shah held a meeting with president and agreed to confirm three acting/ad hoc judges (Justices Mukhtar A. Junejo, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri) as a ‘gesture of good will’ to the government. Within a week, chief justice had back tracked from the consensus opinion of the supreme court justices. He did not consult his fellow justices and it was no wonder that three justices (Ajmal Mian, Saeeduzaman Siddiqi and Munawar Mirza) admonished Shah for flouting the judgment regarding ‘judges’ case’. (26)
In an effort to avoid conflict with fellow judges or to be on the correct side, some justices didn’t live up to the expectations. In 1996, during the final version of the judgment of ‘Judges case’, there was disagreement between chief justice Sajjad A. Shah’s and justice Ajmal Mian’s version. Justice Fazal Ilahi Khan singed on Mian’s judgment on March 20 but when chief justice pressed him, he also signed on Shah’s judgment on April 3 even without reading it. When asked whether he had read the judgment because there was discrepancy between two judgments, he replied that he had no time to read it before signing it. (27) Fazal Ilahi Khan wanted to hedge his bets and did not want to ruffle any feathers even if meant an indefensible action. Retired justice Rafiq Tarar who had played an important role in splitting the judiciary at the behest of Nawaz Sharif became president of the country. When he had retired from Supreme Court in November 1994, he was not given a reference at his own request. Five years later, Supreme Court decided to honor him and he was invited for a dinner at supreme court where he was given a shield which was signed by all justices. (28)
The complex relationship of personal and professional responsibilities can be judged from one example. Agha Rafiq Ahmad, a junior session judge was a close friend of Benazir’s husband Asif Ali Zardari and he had helped in Sajjad A. Shah’s elevation to the post of chief justice of Sindh high court through Sindh chief minister Abdullah Shah, during Benzair’s first tenure (1988-1990). When Benazir was considering Sajjad for chief justice slot, Zardari held several meetings with Sajjad A. Shah and Agha Rafiq was present in some of those meetings. When Sajjad became chief justice of Supreme Court, he paid back his old friend. Agha Rafiq was serving as Director of PIA. Sajjad advised Benazir to appoint Rafiq as law secretary in the Sindh government and after sometime there he will be qualified to be appointed as a judge of higher court. (29) However, everyone was impatient and when Zardari wanted to elevate Rafiq to high court, Shah told prime minister that Rafiq was a very junior session’s judge (number 34 on the seniority list of 37) and it would create problems. However, Rafiq was elevated as Sindh high court justice. Chief justice of Sindh high court Abdul Hafeez Memon was pressured by a senator to nominate another junior session judge Shah Nawaz Awan (number thirteen on seniority list) for high court appointment. When chief justice Sajjad A. Shah asked Memon why he nominated him, he was told that he was being pressurized and the senator who wanted him to be elevated told Memon that if a judge who was number thirty four was being nominated then what was wrong with nominating number thirteen on the same list. (30)
Nawaz Sharif government elevated justice Mehbood Ahmad as chief justice of Lahore high court and second aspirant justice Muhammad Ilyas felt let down. Sajjad A. Shah, who was justice of supreme court at that time visited him and told him that ‘he should put his faith and trust in God, who would not let him down and would compensate him in some other way’. When Shah became chief justice, he nominated Ilyas who was by then retired for justice of supreme court. After taking oath, Ilyas was sent as acting chief justice of Lahore high court. (31) A judge was appointed to the supreme court not because he was fit for the post but to compensate him for some alleged injustice done to him and legal balls were juggled to give him the satisfaction to end his career serving as chief justice of a high court. A special accountability court headed by justice Malik Abdul Qayyum sentenced Benazir Bhutto and her husband on corruption charges during Nawaz Sharif’s government. In April 2001, supreme court set aside the judgment during the appeal when 32 tapes of secret conversations between justice Qayyum and then head of Accountability Cell and Nawaz Sharif’s aid Senator Saif ur Rahman were played. Sharif government had pressurized justice Qayyum to convict Benazir and her husband. (32)
Appointing judges as acting head of executives (Governor General, President, and Governor) gives some leverage to government. This practice has been followed for a long time in Pakistan. In 1950s, Munir served as acting Governor General when Ghulam Muhammad was away from country. Acceptance of positions in government during active service and openly joining politics after retirement also tarnishes the image of judiciary and creates doubts about their impartiality. Chief justice Muhammad Munir gave the historic decision of validation of General Ayub Khan’s martial law in 1958. Immediately after his retirement he accepted a government job in Japan. Later he also served as law minister during General Ayub’s rule. Political governments take care of their favorite justices even if they are pushed aside by their own brother justices. In 1996, Supreme court laid down guidelines for appointment to higher judiciary. This affected two retired justices who were appointed ad hoc justices of the Supreme Court and they were removed from Supreme Court. Benazir government obliged them by appointing one (Justcie Munir Khan) as provincial ombudsman and the other (Justcie Mir Hazar Khan Khoso) member of high powered Federal Public Service Commission.
Justcie Irshad Hasan Khan served as federal law secretary during the Martial Law of General Zia. He later rose to become chief justice of the Supreme Court (January 26, 2000 - January 06, 2002). High court justice Ghaus Ali Shah joined Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif and served as Sharif’s confidant for long time. Supreme Court justice Afzal Lone was sitting on the bench which restored Nawaz Sharif government in 1993. Later he headed the Lone Commission which absolved Nawaz Sharif of any wrongdoing in the cooperative scandal. Later, Sharif paid Lone back by nominating him to become senator. Supreme court justice Muhammad Rafiq Tarar after his retirement served Sharif’s business interests and was later elected senator on Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League ticket. He was duly rewarded by appointing him president for his loyal services. Tarar paid back by retaining his post when he agreed to general Mussharraf’s request to stay on as president when the later had booted out Nawaz Sharif and assemblies. Mussharraf in turn returned the compliment by unceremoniously sending Tarar home in June 2001. Tarar was booted out of the presidency by putting him in a private car and sent home in the most humiliating way. Mussharraff needed to act in this way not for a great national cause but he needed to get the lofty title of president to get the correct protocol during his upcoming visit to India.
If one takes into account the relationship of various judges with their political patrons and their judgments on crucial cases, then some questions arise about the motive of their judgments. Justcie Tarar saw everything wrong with Nawaz Sharif dismissal by president in 1993 and was as one of the justice of the Supreme Court bench which decided to restore Sharif government. Justcie Sajjad A. Shah saw everything wrong with Benazir’s dismissal in 1990. He was one of the two dissenting judges (the other one was Justcie Abdul Shakurul Salam) in a 1991 decision who did not approve of president’s decision to dismiss Benazir. He wrote that president had exercised his power with ‘malafide intention’. (33) In 1993, Shah saw everything right with Sharif’s dismissal and was the lone dissenter in a ten to one decision of Supreme Court which restored Sharif government. In 1997, when his relations had gone sour with Benazir, he viewed dismissal of Benazir kosher and even called president’s discretion of sacking prime minister as a balance of powers and ‘a safety valve to prevent imposition of martial law in the country’. (34) When president dismissed Benazir government in 1990, the dismissal was challenged in courts. Peshawar high court bench dismissed the petition by majority but justice Qazi M. Jamil was the dissenting judge. Jamil was also on the bench which restored provincial assembly. For these ‘crimes’, he was not confirmed by the president. Benazir duly rewarded Qazi M. Jamil by appointing him attorney general during her second term.
Chief justice Nasim H. Shah’s favorable tilt towards Muslim League and his antipathy towards Pakistan Peoples Party were well known. He had exchanged harsh words with chief justice Muhammad A. Zullah when later received Benazir at a function when she was opposition leader. He headed the bench which restored Sharif government in 1993. He had been humiliated earlier during Benazir government when Benazir refused to sit on the same table with him. The reason was that Nasim H. Shah was one of the justices who had upheld the death sentence of Benazir’s father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1979 (Nasim H. Shah was one of the majority justices on the bench which had given a four to three verdict of rejection of appeal of death sentence).
When chief justice Sajjad A. Shah was booted out by his own brother judges, the new court decided to clear up some contentious issues. All cases involving government and Prime Minister were dealt with judgments favorable to the government’s position. In March 1998, a seven member bench dismissed the petition challenging the 13th Constitutional Amendment. Interestingly, the petitioner was now not enthusiastic about perusing the case which suggests that the petition was part of the tussle between then chief justice (Sajjad A. Shah) and Prime Minister (Nawaz Sharif) and after the ouster of chief justice no one was interested in it. In May 1999, the court acquitted all who were charged with contempt of court including prime minister and several members of parliament. After the dismissal of Nawaz Sharif’s government an appeal was field against acquittal in September 2000. A five member bench of supreme court heard the appeal and convicted seven accused of contempt of court sentencing them to one month imprisonment and 5000 rupees fine. (35) Such decisions only degrade the image of judiciary and average citizen loses faith in the institution. REFERENCE: Judicial Jitters in Pakistan – A Historical Overview Hamid Hussain Defence Journal, June 2007 http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007/05/judicial-jitters-in-pakistan-scholarly.html
Marvi Sirmed on Judicialization of Politics in Pakistan Part-2
Sharing with you this important document, which has left me shocked and extremely disappointed in the ‘wisdom’ of those who need to be the wisest. Amid all kinds of corruption allegations on politicians being pursued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCOP), one case got special treatment by the worthiest men of of this country – the graft case of Mr. Arsalan Iftikhar. Iftikhar is a 34 years old ‘innocent boy’ who was reportedly ‘lured’ into accepting a not-s-small sum of money from one Malik Riaz, the real estate tycoon who knows how to make the mare go. The innocence of Mr. Iftikhar is further proven by the fact that he happens to be the son of Chief Justice of Pakistan. The case was thus, taken up by none other than CJP himself, as a suo-moto action under Section 184(3) which allows the CJP to move the court if the case pertains to violation of fundamental rights and is of public interest. The case, definitely is of public interest and violates Mr. Iftikhar’s right to remain innocent for the rest of his life! The case, as was right thing to do, was disposed of by mildly lecturing all parties to ‘behave’. Why is it important to recall Mr. Iftikhar? Because his was not the only case where the worthy court to be partisan for its own interest. Responding to Public Accounts Committee, the elected watch body over the Auditor General of Pakistan that called Registrar of Supreme Court to present himself before the Committee and explained some overspending by the SCOP. Guess what happens next? The wise men in SCOP, came up with a document that conveniently leaves everyone in the SCOP outside the ambit of any elected watch body that oversees the transparency of financial transaction by public institutions including SCOP. Have a lok over how the Registrar of SCOP – an official who is not a judge – exonerates himself from legislature’s scrutiny. One wonders who is going to ensure transparency when even the most responsible institutions of this country try to evade law on the pretext of law. Ironic and sad. The language used in this document and disregard for transparency makes my wish it must not be what the worthy men in SCOP meant. Have a good reading experience please! Supreme Court, Pakistan, Chief Justice, Arsalan Iftikhar, Auditor General, Public Accounts Committee, Parliament, Judiciary, Pakistan. REFERENCE: SUPREME COURT AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE July 8, 2012· by Marvi Sirmed http://marvisirmed.com/2012/07/08/supreme-court-and-public-accounts-committee/
2012: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms Gabriela Knaul: I am worried by the number and nature of reported cases of serious threats and attacks of judges. Physical security is an essential condition for judges to be able to carry out their duties without hindrance or interferences. I encourage the Government to consider setting up a special system of protection for judges in consultation with professional bodies and other associations of judges. I would like to commend the use of inherent powers of the Supreme Court in recent cases related to gross human rights violations, for instance in the case of enforced disappearance referred to as “missing persons” in Balochistan. I believe that by using this procedure in some cases, the Supreme Court is upholding human rights law and contributing to combating impunity. However, I am concerned by the lack of clear criteria guiding the use of suo moto, which can undermine its own nature and may jeopardize other pending cases from being timely considered by the Supreme Court. REFERENCE: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms Gabriela KNAUL, Preliminary observations on the official visit to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Islamabad, 29 May 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12194&LangID=E
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday ordered President Asif Ali Zardari to relinquish his post as co-chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) before September 5, DawnNews reported. The court has completed the proceedings on petitions of contempt of court, filed against the president for holding dual posts. A three-member larger bench headed by, Chief Justice of Lahore High court, Justice Umar Atta Bandial, was hearing the case. Various lawyers presented their arguments and said that the president should follow the court’s orders. The chief justice responded to the arguments and said that the issue under consideration has constitutional importance and the verdict will also be in accordance with the constitution of Pakistan. He further added that court has provided the president with ample time to resign from his post as the co-chairperson of the PPP and suspend all political activities in the Presidency before September 5. REFERENCE: LHC orders Zardari to relinquish PPP office before Sept 5 http://dawn.com/2012/06/27/presidents-contempt-of-court-hearing-adjourned/
2012: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms Gabriela Knaul: I am worried by the number and nature of reported cases of serious threats and attacks of judges. Physical security is an essential condition for judges to be able to carry out their duties without hindrance or interferences. I encourage the Government to consider setting up a special system of protection for judges in consultation with professional bodies and other associations of judges. I would like to commend the use of inherent powers of the Supreme Court in recent cases related to gross human rights violations, for instance in the case of enforced disappearance referred to as “missing persons” in Balochistan. I believe that by using this procedure in some cases, the Supreme Court is upholding human rights law and contributing to combating impunity. However, I am concerned by the lack of clear criteria guiding the use of suo moto, which can undermine its own nature and may jeopardize other pending cases from being timely considered by the Supreme Court. REFERENCE: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms Gabriela KNAUL, Preliminary observations on the official visit to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Islamabad, 29 May 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12194&LangID=E
2011: LHC tells President Zardari to curtail political activities
The News International 2007: Musharraf gets new lease of life, thanks to MMA Rauf Klasra Saturday, September 29, 2007 ISLAMABAD: The three-year-old political sins of top MMA leaders have once again given a second lease of political life to General Pervez Musharraf at a very crucial phase, as the infamous 17th Amendment becomes the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a uniformed president to get himself re-elected for the next five years from the present assemblies. For many, the most-important thing is that the verdict of the Supreme Court has justified the recent claim of Musharraf that he had made with a lot of pride and arrogance in his choking voice that “let the agitators do their job, he would have the last laugh”. Likewise, the government’s prediction that it would win the case with a majority also turned out to be right. Meanwhile, the critical role of the MMA in facilitating the rule of Musharraf in uniform is so definite and irritating that during the two-week-long proceedings on the case, some judges did not forget to remind the religious parties about their ‘deeds’. It is now widely believed in the political circles that the MMA would go down in the history as a force which used political Islam not only to validate the rule of General Musharraf since October 12, 1999, but also helped him to become president in uniform first after the general election in 2002 and now in 2007 by providing legal and constitutional excuses to the Supreme Court to extend a favourable decision to a military general.
One political observer said that if Musharraf gets himself re-elected as the president on October 6, it would be only because of the MMA leaders who had decided to vote in favour of 17th Amendment after striking a deal with a uniformed general and distorted the Constitution of 1973. Likewise, General Musharraf once again would be feeling grateful to the MMA leaders, particularly Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, whose single act not only gave him the crucial support when he needed it most, but it continued to yield results when he once again needed it. At the time of passage of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in 2004 after the MMA leaders decided to betray the political forces engaged in desperate struggle against the rule of Musharraf, it was widely assumed that it might be only one-time “political sin” of the MMA leaders. But, now the SC verdict on Friday confirms the wild doubts of critics of the MMA that the country would continue to suffer from the havoc created by the decision of Qazi and Fazl.
The MMA, nicked named as a “B team” of General Musharraf, had given a false impression after the 2002 elections that it would fight for the supremacy of the Parliament when President Musharraf would push his LFO for approval from the Legislature. In the absence of two former prime ministers – Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto – Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Fazlur Rehman simply hijacked the agitation movement of the opposition parties to oppose Musharraf and his LFO in the Parliament. The movement became so aggressive and popular in nature that at one stage, it emerged that Musharraf might yield to the rising political power of these forces. The international media and community were also giving serious attention to the political turmoil in Pakistan amid the rising pressure from the Commonwealth and the European Union on Musharraf to get legitimacy from the Parliament or he might lose their vital support.
The agitation movement within and outside the Parliament against the LFO was so effective that it crippled the Jamali government. At that time, Musharraf appointed two of his top and trusted generals, Maj Gen Zaki and Maj Gen Ehtasham Zamir, assisted by S M Zafar, to negotiate a secret deal with the MMA. Qazi, Fazl and Liaquat Baloch started meeting these generals late nights. Finally, a deal was brokered between the generals and the MMA, which exclusively benefited both the parties. The first reward was the continuation of the MMA-led NWFP government, share in the Balochistan cabinet and slot of the Opposition Leader in the National Assembly. Likewise, the MMA also got the references against its MPs blocked after certain forces tried to get them disqualified on account of educational qualification. After initial dents in its lost credibility, the MMA leaders once again revived their political credentials when they used Nawaz Sharif who, too easily, accepted their role as a major opposition when he started giving them more importance despite being partners of Musharraf in the government.
The MMA got the real boost as a major opposition alliance, despite being part of Musharraf regime, when Nawaz Sharif gave them importance at London during the All Parties Conference and later formed an alliance with them. But, soon Nawaz realised that he was only being used by smart and shrewd politicians of the MMA to defuse his rising popularity as none of them turned up at the Islamabad airport on September 10 to receive him. It is interesting to note that the MMA leaders are so smart that they have not only been facilitating Musharraf in power but they have also been successfully acting as the real opposition to the regime. When contacted by The News, MNA Liaquat Baloch did not agree with the conclusion that the religio-political alliance was actually responsible for the continuation of Musharraf rule. He said the 17th Amendment had given benefits to all the parties, including all the women parliamentarians, minorities and other segments. He said that under the agreement with Musharraf, he was to take off his uniform by December 31, 2004, but he backed out. Likewise, the MMA leader said Musharraf was given concession only for one term and now he was allowed to contest the election in uniform without any valid justification. He said the doctrine of necessity was once again revived and the MMA should not be blamed at all. “What is our fault,” Baloch put a counter question. REFERENCE: Musharraf gets new lease of life, thanks to MMA Rauf Klasra Saturday, September 29, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10367&Cat=13&dt=9/29/2007
2007: Ahmed Quraishi in Worldview from Islamabad Judiciary and Musharraf's Election
Daily Dawn 2007: The day of the General: •Musharraf to run for president in uniform •Petitioners, lawyers’ leaders livid By Nasir Iqbal September 29, 2007 ISLAMABAD, Sept 28: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed on technical grounds petitions against Gen Pervez Musharraf holding two offices, giving a legal boost to the president to contest the election for the second term in uniform. It was a majority (six-three) verdict by a nine-member bench headed by Justice Rana Bhagwandas. The bench threw out the petitions challenging the dual offices of the army chief and the president held by Gen Musharraf, declaring that these were not maintainable. In other words, the merit of the cases which had been debated for two weeks along with the issue of maintainability, became irrelevant as the majority of judges dismissed the challenge by declaring that the petitions could not be entertained at this forum. After suffering a series of setbacks from the superior judiciary over the past few months, such as the restoration of the chief justice, acceptance of Nawaz Sharif’s right to return from exile and bail to Javed Hashmi, President Musharraf received the first good news from the Supreme Court. Government supporters termed the verdict a ‘great victory’ and said the day clearly belonged to Gen Musharraf. The verdict received an immediate adverse reaction inside the packed courtroom the moment the bench rose for the day. Though the short order was heard in pin drop silence by scores of lawyers and some political leaders, the courtroom echoed with slogans of ‘shame, shame’ and ‘go Musharraf go’ which later turned into real protest as lawyers and supporters of the petitioners walked out to join a much bigger crowd. Some of the lawyers described the judgment as revival of the doctrine of necessity in the country’s chequered judicial history. Former vice-chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council Ali Ahmed Kurd asked lawyers to lay siege to the Election Commission on Saturday -- the day of scrutiny of nomination papers of the presidential candidates. “For reasons to be recorded later, as per majority view of 6 to 3, the petitions are held to be not maintainable within the contemplation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution (court’s original jurisdiction under the fundamental rights),” the judgment announced by Justice Rana Bhagwandas said. “As per minority view of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, all these petitions are held to be maintainable under Article 184(3) and hereby accepted. As per majority view these petitions are hereby dismissed as not maintainable,” he said. Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum appreciated the judgment and said it was a correct decision and the dissent in the bench reflected that judges had applied their independent mind. Soon after the verdict, police escorted president’s counsel Sharifuddin Pirzada and the AG out of the courtroom to ensure their security from the wrath of a furious crowd outside. Reacting to the judgment, PML (N) acting president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi said the infamous doctrine of necessity, under which all military rules had been validated by the apex court, was still continuing. “We thought the judiciary has become totally independent, but this impression proved to be wrong,” he deplored. He announced that a campaign would be launched against the regime and for complete independence of the judiciary. MMA parliamentarian Farid Paracha said the judgment did not reflect the aspiration of the people, rather it strengthened the rule of a military dictator. He said the people of Pakistan had rejected it, adding that the MMA would file a review petition. He said that the struggle for restoration of genuine democracy in the country would be intensified. Supreme Court Bar Association president Munir A. Malik said it was not a verdict which had been unexpected. “Though the July 20 judgment of restoring Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was a step ahead, we still have a long way to go for complete independence of the judiciary. Although the judgment is disappointing, our battle is not over,” he added. He said the three dissenting judges would always be remembered as Justice A.R. Cornelius and added that history would record its own conclusion regarding the other six judges. Senior Advocate Hamid Khan said judges had abdicated their jurisdiction in deciding the matter, adding that the order was a continuation of the Tameezuddin and Dosso cases (in which the concept of the doctrine of necessity was introduced). However, he said, the judgment would not dampen lawyers’ struggle which would continue till the end of dictatorship. Advocate Akram Sheikh said that by dismissing the petitions under the cover of technicality, the Supreme Court had resurrected the infamous decision in the Maulvi Tameezuddin case dismissing the petition on technical grounds. He said he had been asked by his client (Jamaat-i-Islami) to move a review petition against the decision which he would file on Monday. Earlier, Advocate Akram in his arguments before the court emphasised that it was the duty of the court to scrap the uniform of President Musharraf because it had allowed him to keep the uniform. Any validation by the court, he said, would not be accepted. Advocate Hamid Khan said President Musharraf’s holding of two offices derogated the constitutional provision of equality before the law because he was holding the gun. A.K. Dogar said that Article 63(1-d) allowed President Musharraf to hold one office, but the President to Hold Another Office dealt with the dual-office law which was against constitutional provisions. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, appearing as amicus curiae, said: “We as a nation have reached the final stage of transition where there is an opportunity to all candidates for the presidential election that they would enter upon the office of the president as civilians.” REFERENCE: The day of the General: •Musharraf to run for president in uniform •Petitioners, lawyers’ leaders livid By Nasir Iqbal September 29, 2007 Saturday Ramazan 16, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/2007/09/29/top1.htm
2011: LHC asks Zardari to stop political activities
The News International 2007: SC saves the day for Musharraf Sohail Ahmed Saturday, September 29, 2007 ISLAMABAD: A larger bench of the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed as not maintainable six identical petitions challenging the dual office held by President General Pervez Musharraf. The verdict, according to observers, gave a new lease of life to the president. “For reasons to be recorded later, as per majority view of six to three, these petitions are held to be not maintainable with the contemplation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution,” said Justice Rana Bhagwandas, heading the nine-member SC bench, while announcing the verdict in a short order in a jam-packed courtroom here. The court also disallowed the petition filed by Professor Dr Anwarul Haq seeking permission to contest the presidential election despite being in service of Pakistan. Six judges on the bench – Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice Falak Sher and Justice Javed M Buttar – declared that the petitions are non-maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. However, the three other judges on the bench – Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan – favoured the petitions as maintainable. The short order reads that as per the minority view of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, all the petitions are held to be maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and are hereby accepted.
The constitutional petition No 63 of 2007 of Dr Anwarul Haq versus the Federation of Pakistan and another are disallowed to the extent of seeking permission to contest the election to the office of president, says the order, adding that as per the majority view, these petitions are hereby dismissed as non-maintainable. The Jamaat-e-Islami, through its Ameer, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, had filed two petitions in the apex court while Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan and Pakistan Communist Party chief Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik had filed identical petitions challenging the dual office of the president and his candidature for the presidential election. The Pakistan Lawyers Forum had also filed a review petition challenging the 17th Amendment while Dr Anwarul Haq had filed a petition seeking permission to contest the presidential election being in service.
Soon after the announcement of the judgment, a large number of lawyers present in the courtroom expressed their resentment at the verdict and chanted “Shame”, “Shame” and raised slogans against the government lawyers as well as Attorney-General Malik Qayyum and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who was appointed by the court as amicus curiae. “The decision is the continuation of the past judgments given by the apex court in cases of Maulvi Tameezuddin, Begum Nusrat Bhutto and Syed Zafar Ali Shah,” Hamid Khan, counsel for the petitioners, Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain Ahmed, told reporters after the verdict.
“The verdict has no doubt revised the decisions made by the apex court during the past 50 years which were made on technicalities instead of merit,” Hamid Khan added. However, he expressed his determination that they would continue their struggle for the independence of the judiciary. “We were of the view that the judiciary got independence after the historic verdict on July 20 this year; however, today we came to know that we were at fault,” Khan said. Ali Ahmed Kurd, former vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, “rejected” the verdict and said that the judges could not digest the honour and pride given to this prestigious building on July 20 this year.
“This is not a verdict but a dictation, taken by the six judges and we don’t accept it,” Kurd said. He said today’s verdict refreshed the doctrine of necessity. Kurd, however, appealed to the people belonging to all walks of life to reach the Election Commission today (Saturday) and strengthen the hands of the legal fraternity.“I appeal to all the people, even (those) who cannot walk or see should come to the EC with black flags and extend their support to the lawyers,” he said. Earlier, after hearing the concluding arguments of Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, an amicus curiae, as well as of counsel for the petitioners, Hamid Khan, A K Dogar and Muhammad Akram Sheikh, the court had announced that the verdict of the identical petitions would be announced at 2.15 pm. However, it gave the verdict at 3.30 pm. Amicus curiae Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, continuing his arguments, submitted that under the Constitution qualification and disqualification for the election of the president have been defined in a separate Article; therefore, disqualification under Article 63 could not be applied to the president.
He further contended that once he is elected as president, his election cannot be challenged and he can be removed only through the process of impeachment. Giving their replies, Akram Sheikh, Hamid Khan and AK Dogar submitted that fundamental rights have been violated; therefore, the court is competent to hear and decide the petitions under Article 184-3. They said all citizens are equal before the law and equality of right does not belong to individual, but it is a collective in nature. They said all of them have been reduced to inferiority with the participation in the presidential election by the chief of Army staff. Akram Sheikh submitted that this case is not less (important) than the case of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, but the difference is that the holder of the office of the president is also holding a gun in his hand and he is holding this office in violation of the Constitution. “This court has given uniform to President Musharraf and now it is the responsibility of the court to make him doff the uniform,” he concluded. In his reply, AK Dogar submitted that the common citizen, other than a candidate, cannot raise objections before the chief election commissioner; therefore, he is raising these objections before the court to decide the issue. “The core issue before the court is how to separate the Army from the politics of the country,” Dogar concluded. REFERENCE: SC saves the day for Musharraf Sohail Ahmed Saturday, September 29, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10357&Cat=13&dt=9/29/2007
The News International 2007: Musharraf terms SC judgment positive Saturday, October 06, 2007 ISLAMABAD: President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Friday, terming the National Reconciliation Ordinance a milestone, said it will lay the foundation for political future of the country. “It is a conviction-based document and not need-based...it is general and applies to all politicians to ensure a free and transparent election,” the president said in a live PTV programme on the eve of the presidential election about the ordinance that gives amnesty to politicians and bureaucrats. The president responded to direct telephone calls and e-mails from the public, parliamentarians and professionals during the hour-long Presidential Election Special Transmission that covered the political situation, the high prices of everyday commodities and development projects. The president termed the Supreme Court decision earlier in the day as “positive” that gave a go ahead to the presidential election, but barred issuance of the official results till the announcement of final judgment. He said the judgment has also recognised that the current parliament will choose the next president. “I hope the Supreme Court will give a balanced judgment, after hearing both sides,” the president said. To a question about the need for the NRO ordinance, the president said the country faced several challenges and it was time to move ahead from the days of politics of victimisation and politics of vendetta. President Musharraf recalled the time when there was stiff confrontation between the president, the prime minister and the Chief of Army Staff and said with the threats of extremism and terrorism looming, there was a need for political consensus and reconciliation. When asked whether former prime minister Nawaz Sharif will be part of the NRO, he said: “It is a transition phase...there should be reconciliation with everyone.” He said the run-up to the presidential election and the general elections should be smooth and harmonious. “After the election, we will see about (Nawaz’s) return and reconciliation,” the president said. The president said his entire focus was on national and political reconciliation and good governance. “I will take two steps forward, if someone wants reconciliation,” the president said. To a question as to who will run the government, the president said it will be the new prime minister. “If needed I will advise, if the prime minister so desires,” he added. President Musharraf said the government was being run by the prime minister, his cabinet and the secretaries. “I have already given up my authority as the chief executive... I do not want any ‘thanedari’, I want decentralisation and give the people the authority to run their affairs.” He said as an Army Chief he had also to look after other affairs like the situation in Waziristan, etc. He said economic progress and socioeconomic development were the key elements and said he will ensure their continuation in future and would not like to see them collapse. Our priority is to sustain the economic progress, otherwise we might fail as a nation,” the president said. President Musharraf to a question said it was not only Punjab that was witnessing progress, but similar development was going on in all the provinces. “We have set up a direction...Pakistan was otherwise a rudderless ship and now we are taking it towards a direction.” REFERENCE: Musharraf terms SC judgment positive Saturday, October 06, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10494&Cat=13&dt=10/6/2007
2011: LHC orders President to stop political activities
The News International 2007: EC gives Musharraf go-ahead Mumtaz Alvi Sunday, September 30, 2007 ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission on Saturday rejected objections to the candidature of General Pervez Musharraf for re-election as president and accepted his nomination papers along with five other persons. The opposition and lawyers staged a walkout on this occasion and boycotted the proceedings of the Election Commission. One out of 18 nomination papers filed on behalf of President Musharraf were accepted by the Commission. The one submitted on his behalf by a stranger in Lahore was rejected. The chief election commissioner made a verbal judgment on this occasion. Besides, General Musharraf, the nomination papers of Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Justice (Retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed, Mohammadmian Soomro, Chaudhry Amir Hussain and Faryal Talpur were declared valid by the CEC, who is also the returning officer for presidential election. Hence, barring these six candidates, the papers of all other candidates were rejected.
The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the lawyer fraternity, after storming out of the Commission hall following the eruption of violence on the Constitution Avenue, told journalists that they would be going to the Supreme Court against the validation of General Musharraf’s papers.
The returning officer conducted the scrutiny of nomination papers and proposers and seconders of President Musharraf raised no objection to the candidature of Amin Fahim, Wajihuddin Ahmed and Faryal Talpur.
“Why they are being treated as VIPs. They are proposers and seconders like us,” Babar Awan pointed out, while referring to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and PML President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.
Three brief interruptions hit the activity. First, when Senators Babar Awan, Farooq Naik and Abdul Latif Khosa objected to the arrival of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and PML President Shujaat Hussain from a separate entrance and giving them separate seats. Twice the journalists and lawyers tried to draw the CEC’s attention towards clashes and shelling outside, yards away from the Commission office.
Without wasting time, Premier Aziz and Shujaat joined the rest of the audience comprising chief ministers of Punjab Pervaiz Elahi, Sindh Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim and Balochistan Jam Muhammad Yousaf, and scores of ministers who were also President Musharraf, Soomro and Amir Hussain’s proposers and seconders. Leaders of the ruling coalition including Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, Rao Sikandar Iqbal, Dr Farooq Sattar and Babar Ghauri were also present on the occasion.
Talking to The News after the proceedings, PPPP Senator Babar Awan rejected the CEC’s acceptance of General Musharraf’s nomination papers and said they would seek the apex court’s intervention in the matter.
Justice Tariq Mehmood, who is a supporter of Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed, also announced that they would go to the Supreme Court as General Musharraf did not qualify to contest the election for the presidential slot.
Senator Khosa, who spoke on the president’s candidature for over an hour, strongly objected to the army chief vying for a slot that was purely political and said if allowed to do so, this would undermine the constitutional status of state institutions.
The CEC gave half-an-hour to a presidential candidate Zahid Anwar Wahla to produce copies of attested identity card of his proposer, PML (Nawaz)’s Tehmina Daultana. But he never returned to comply with this order.
Responding to one of the objections over the educational degrees of General Musharraf, Senator Wasim Sajjad said that his presidential candidate had got bachelor’s degree in 1980 and then MSc degree in War Studies from the Quaid-e-Azam University in 1982, as at that time, the National Defence College was associated with it.
About the declaration of Musharraf and his spouse’s declaration of assets, the senator conceded that these documents were yet to be submitted to the Election Commission. Some parts of the proceedings were inaudible due to heavy presence of parliamentarians and aspirants of presidential election.
Khosa, Hamid Khan and Naik based their arguments against President Musharraf’s candidature and called it sheer violation of his oath according to which Musharraf was not supposed to take part in any kind of political activity whatsoever, whereas the office of president was a political one.
They asked the CEC to reject his papers, as he was not acting with neutrality and had been promoting the ruling PML. The jurists also tried to prove that already Musharraf had served two terms as president and, hence, could not qualify for another term.
They contended that his taking part in election in uniform was a total negation of the Constitution and the parliamentary form of the government and above all the political ethos and norms.
Musharraf should wait for two years as per the Constitution after quitting as the army chief, they said. The jurists also noted that how Musharraf self-appointed him first as the chief executive and then president to go to India to hold talks with then Indian Prime Minister AB Vajpayee by dismissing an elected president Rafiq Tarar. Then he held a referendum to justify his own appointment. “He himself had to admit in his book that there was overdoing as for as the number of votes polled in his favour were concerned,” Khosa noted.
Hamid said that under the 17th Amendment, Musharraf was given immunity for a limited period and, therefore, he could no more retain two offices simultaneously. He questioned how come an assembly mandated for five years could elect someone for ten years.
All the jurists who spoke against General Musharraf’s candidature, had thrust of their arguments on the breach of commitment General Musharraf had made to the nation and an alliance of political parties, adding he was not “Amin” and a righteous man under Article 62 of the Constitution.
Rejecting their objections, Senator Wasim Sajjad made it clear that the present was a transitional period and from November 15, democracy would be completely restored. He also justified the 17th Amendment, which he maintained, was made to take the system forward and then restore a complete democratic order. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment vis-ˆ-vis Article 63, he said that the said article could not be applied to the president.
APP/NNI add: The Election Commission on Saturday evening issued a notification for validly-nominated candidates to contest the Presidential Election 2007.Issued with the orders of the Chief Election Commissioner Justice (Retd) Qazi Muhammad Farooq, the notification declared the six candidates validly nominated.
The notification said, “In pursuance of paragraph 5 of the second schedule to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan hereby announces the names of the following persons, who have been validly nominated for election to the office of the president of Pakistan: (1) General Pervez Musharraf (2) Mohammadmian Soomro (3) Ch Amir Hussain (4) Wajihuddin Ahmed (5) Makhdoom Mohammad Amin Fahim (6) Faryal Talpur.”
Those whose nomination papers were rejected for having not been supported by proposers and seconders included Syed Iqtidar Haider, Rao Javed Khan, Khurshid Anwar Qureshi, Shaukat Hussein, Maulana Mohammad Ayaz, Major (Retd) Ramzan, Dr Fazlur Rehman, M B Khan, Nawab Amber Shahzada, Dr Zahoor Mehdi, Ashfaq Chaudhry, Shahbaz Khan, Shahzada Sardar Mohammad Rafique, Aitbar Khan, Riaz Chandio, Khalid Iqbal, Muneza Asif, Nawab Ali, Syed Sakhawat Hussein, Engineer Abdullah, Amir Ali, Shakeel Hussein, Noushad Hussein, Azam Kamal, Nafees Ahmad, Syed Habibullah, Iqbal Tiger and Haider Ali. REFERENCE: EC gives Musharraf go-ahead Mumtaz Alvi Sunday, September 30, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10384&Cat=13&dt=9/30/2007
Who "Really" Pressurized the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to Resign in March 2007
2007: Affidavit filed in SC on events of March 9-13 Muhammad Qasim Wednesday, May 30, 2007 ISLAMABAD: Lead counsel for Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Ch Aitzaz Ahsan, on Tuesday filed an affidavit of his client in the Supreme Court covering four days of events that he faced from March 9 to 13, when he was rendered non-functional. The affidavit, filed in support of the constitutional petition filed by the CJ under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, reads that on March 09, 2007, he headed bench No 1 of the apex Court as chief justice and heard several cases till about 10.30 a.m. “The bench rose briefly and had to reassemble for the day except the CJ who left for the Army House, Rawalpindi, to meet the president.” The CJ arrived at the Army House at about 11:30 a.m. along with his staff/protocol staff and was shown to a waiting room/visitors room. After five minutes of his arrival, President General Pervez Musharraf, wearing his military uniform, came into the room along with his military secretary and ADC. As soon as the president took his seat, a number of TV cameramen and photographers were also ushered to the room. They took several pictures and made movie footage, reads the affidavit.
The affidavit states that while discussing the Saarc Law Conference, Saarc Chief Justices Conference and the concluding session of the golden jubilee ceremony of the Supreme Court, the president said a compliant against him had been received by him from a judge of the Peshawar High Court. The CJ replied that it was not based on facts as his case had been decided by a two-member bench and that attempts were being made to maliciously involve other members of the bench as well. On this, the president said there are a few more complaints against the CJ as well and after saying so, he directed his staff to call the other persons. The other persons, who entered the room on the president’s direction, included the prime minister, DG MI, DG ISI, DG IB, COS and another official. All officials (except DG IB and COS) were in uniform, reads the affidavit.
At this moment, the president started reading from small pieces of paper. However, he had no single consolidated document. The allegations, which were being put to the CJ had been taken from the contents of a notorious letter written by Naeem Bukhari with absolutely no substance in them, the affidavit said. The CJ strongly refuted these allegations as being baseless and engineered to defame him personally and the judiciary as a whole. On this, the president said that the CJ had obtained cars from the Supreme Court for his family. However, the CJ vehemently denied the allegation. The affidavit further reads that the president went on to say that the CJ was being driven in a Mercedes, to which the CJ promptly replied; “here is the prime minister. Ask him, he has sent me the car himself”. The CJ states that the PM did not reply even by a gesture. Surprisingly, the president went on to say that the CJ had interfered in the affairs of Lahore High Court and had not accepted and taken heed of most of the recommendations of the chief justice of the LHC.
The president insisted that the CJ should resign and in case of his resignation, the former would accommodate the latter. The president also said in case of refusal to resign, the CJ will have to face a reference, which could be a bigger embarrassment for him. The CJ states that he said resolutely that he wouldn’t resign and would face any reference since he is innocent and has not violated any code of conduct or any law, rule or regulation. “I believe that I am myself the guardian of law. I strongly believe in God who will help me”. This ignited the fury of the president who stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS and the PM, saying that others would show evidence to him (the CJ). The meeting continued for not more than 30 minutes, reads the CJ’s statement. The DG MI, DG ISI and DG IB remained behind and continued to sit with the CJ but did not show him a single piece of evidence. They (except DG IB) insisted that the CJ should resign while the CJ continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and for a collateral purpose.
The CJ said he was forced to stay in the same room during the subsequent hours till 5 p.m. and despite requests, he was not allowed to see his staff/protocol officer. Sometimes, all the persons would leave the CJ alone in that room but would not allow him to leave. Despite several attempts to leave the room and the Army House, the CJ was made to stay there on one pretext or the other and was kept there ‘absolutely against his will’ till past 5 p.m., says the affidavit. “After 5 p.m., DG MI came in again and told the CJ that his car was outside to drive him ‘home’. DG MI came out of the room and once outside, told the CJ, ‘this is a bad day, now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained to work as a judge of the Supreme Court or chief justice of Pakistan’,” reads the affidavit. The CJ’s car was stripped of both the flags of Pakistan and the emblem and his staff officer informed him that Justice Javed Iqbal had taken oath as the acting chief justice and it had been shown on TV. “The driver also informed the deponent that he had been instructed not to take the deponent to the Supreme Court while on way to the residence of the deponent.” On the way, the CJ directed the driver to go to the Supreme Court but an Army official prevented his car from proceeding further near the Sports Complex. Meanwhile, Tariq Masood Yasin, SP, appeared and ordered the driver to come out of the car so that he could drive the deponent and also asked the deponent’s gunman to come out of the car.
The CJ states that he said, “Okay, I will not go to the Supreme Court but my driver will drive my car and my gunman will escort me home’. Only then, did Tariq Masood Yasin agreed to let the car be driven by the CJ’s driver”. The CJ states that he reached home at 5:45 p.m. and was shocked to see police officials and agencies personnel without uniform all around his residence. Landline phones had already been disconnected; cell phones, TV, cables and DSL had been jammed or disconnected. The CJ and his family were completely cut off for several days from the outside world. On March 10, 2007, the CJ received a ‘Notice’ from the Supreme Judicial Council whereby he came to know that a reference had been filed by the president before the Council. There was also a copy of the order passed by the Council whereby the CJ had been restrained to function as a judge of the Supreme Court and or as the chief justice of Pakistan. The affidavit said that the meeting of the SJC was called on March 9, 2007 after 6 p.m. in an indecent haste and he was restrained to perform his functions as a judge or chief justice of the Supreme Court. “In fact, no meeting had been called by the secretary of the Council namely Faqir Hussain. No one had issued either agenda for the meeting or notice thereof.”
The CJ further states that he had been detained along with his family members including his young child of seven years from the evening of March 9, 2007 till March 13, 2007. He could not use any vehicle since there was none and 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, the CJ stated. An attempt was being made to fabricate evidence against the CJ through the SC staff attached to him by coercive means and even employees working at his residence were taken and made to appear before some agency officials. The CJ’s chamber was sealed and certain files lying therein were removed and some of them handed over to the ISI under the supervision of the newly-appointed registrar. No one was allowed to meet the CJ freely, in as much as his colleagues were not allowed access to him, says the affidavit.
The CJ further states that his children were not allowed to go to school, college and university. He and his family members were deprived of basic amenities of life, i.e. medicines and doctors, etc. They were 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. The affidavit says all these tactics were used to put pressure on him to tender his resignation ‘but after March 13, 2007, when the CJ succeeded in establishing at least some contact with his lawyers’ team during a brief appearance before the Council, and after March 16, 2007, the ongoing pressure to resign the office was released to some extent.’ The CJ states that his children were so scared that they could not go to school or university and one of his daughters failed to appear in her 1st year exams while the other is not being allowed to take her examination (1st semester) at Bahria University due to lack of attendance. “My younger son is also not in a position to attend his school because of circumstances through which I am passing,” the CJ concluded. Meanwhile, Ch Aitzaz Ahsan on Tuesday concluded his arguments before the full court regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by the CJ. He submitted that the CJ’s petition is maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution because the matter is of the highest public importance (interest) and the issues concern the fundamental rights. The full court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday). Later, while talking to mediamen, Aitzaz Ahsan said, “Some of the details that are necessary and relevant to the petition have been spelt out in the affidavit by the chief justice.” REFERENCE: Affidavit filed in SC on events of March 9-13 Muhammad Qasim Wednesday, May 30, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8181&Cat=13&dt=5/30/2007
Ambassador strongly denied these allegations, stating that the USG had not/not had any such discussions with the Sindh Governor.
Minister Malik inquired as to whether the Ambassador was aware that the “establishment” — local short-hand for the military and the intelligence services — was involved in working against the NRO and for President Zardari`s departure. Ambassador told Rehman that we were aware of such allegations. Minister Malik reported that the MQM had told him directly in the Dubai meetings that the military was involved, although Malik personally did not/not believe that Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani was involved in the plotting. Malik also claimed that the MQM was meeting regularly with the Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) and that PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif was, in turn, pressuring Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to disqualify President Zardari. Malik also assessed that Saudi Arabia was working to unseat President Zardari. Malik intended to visit Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, Chief of Saudi General Intelligence, in Saudi Arabia and then travel on to London to meet with MQM Convener Altaf Hussain.
Malik suggested that the best way to deal with military pressure would be for President Zardari to make internal changes within the military hierarchy. Malik proposed that Zardari recreate the Deputy Chief of Army Staff position and move Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director General Ahmad Shuja Pasha into that position in March 2010. Zardari could then commit to elevating Pasha to COAS in October 2010 on the expiration of Kayani`s term. Malik suggested that Kayani could then be moved to Chairman of the Joint Staff. Comment: Malik seemed to believe that ISI DG Pasha was unilaterally behind the push to oust Zardari — which we know is not/not the case.
Despite these concerns, Malik reiterated the government`s line that Zardari is not in any real danger on expiration of the NRO. He asserted that the Chief Justice would not/not revoke Zardari`s presidential immunity. Even if he did, Malik claimed that the Interior Minister can instruct prosecutors to dismiss charges in any court case. He shared that, in one of his own corruption cases, this had been done, and that in another case, the Supreme Court had ruled his imprisonment illegal. Malik also added that President Zardari had the ability to pardon anyone.
Malik pressed the Ambassador for issuance of a strong statement from the United States. Ambassador inquired as to the content and the audience. Malik suggested that it be a public statement saying that the United States supported democracy in Pakistan.
Malik was clearly worried that President Zardari and his inner circle of advisors — including Malik — had lost the support of the international community. Malik appeared to believe that such support was essential for their survival in the face of military plotting against them. Malik`s view that ISI DG Pasha is behind the moves against President Zardari and that COAS Kayani is not involved is either naive or intentionally misleading. It would be impossible for Pasha to move without Kayani`s acquiescence. Malik`s views on Zardari`s legal troubles presuppose that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry will be bound by normal interpretations of the law and precedent. Such an assumption ignores Chaudhry`s penchant for ignoring both in recent rulings and his personal animosity towards Asif Ali Zardari. REFERENCES: MQM retreated on NRO on US, UK pressure December 05, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-6580-MQM-retreated-on-NRO-on-US,-UK-pressure Ansar Abbasi on Altaf Hussain 2 Feb 2009 Daily Jang WikiLeaks episode III: ‘Britain, US pressing MQM to oppose NRO’ http://tribune.com.pk/story/85786/wikileaks-episode-iii-britain-us-pressing-mqm-to-oppose-nro/ MQM took back NRO support on US, UK pressure: WikiLeaks | The Nation December 05, 2010, http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/05-Dec-2010/MQM-took-back-NRO-support-on-US-UK-pressure-WikiLeaks
