Judicialization of Politics in Pakistan & History.

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oER5vy1IZXM

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


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

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPb1yZGaxc

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/

Judges Plots and Public Accounts Committee

Asad Jamal on Judicialization of Politics


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

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

Imran Khan, Saints & APDM.

Dawn Wire Service 02 May 1996. LAHORE, April 25: Expressing his disappointment with the failure of the political system and of politicians to solve public problems and lack of commitment on their part to give the people their rights, former cricket star Imran Khan on Thursday launched his Tehrik-i-Insaaf (Movement for Justice) to bring about a change within the framework of the Constitution. At a news conference, Mr Khan highlighted the problems which his movement would address, and singled out corruption as a major focus of attention. He alleged that it was because of corruption that foreign investment was not coming into Pakistan. He said eight committees would be constituted to prepare recommendations for a change in the current terrible state of affairs in judicial and legal affairs, human rights, governance, health and education, economy, youth affairs and joblessness, women affairs and environment. Mr Khan said every citizen was free to join the movement, but the leaders to be inducted in the proposed committees would have to be men of proven integrity and with an unblemished character. He set no time-frame for the establishment of these committees or how long he could take to bring about a desired change in the country. When it was pointed out that a change would not be possible unless he formed his own political party, he said his movement was the first step towards the formation of a party. He believed that the people would trust and support him. Even the Quaid-i-Azam, he pointed out, was an individual but he got popular support only because the people trusted him and his integrity. REFERENCE: Imran Khan launches Movement for Justice Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 02 May 1996 Issue : 02/18 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1996/02My96.html#imra

Miracles of Saints as per Late. Capt. Dr Masooduddin Usmani http://www.emanekhalis.com/

Imran Khan Request to General Pervez Musharraf in 2002

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv6R8PE3XIw

Pakistani cricket legend-turned politician Imran Khan on Tuesday backed the referendum to be held next month to decide the future of President Pervez Musharraf but his fledgling Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf headed for trouble as some of its leaders have opposed it openly. After considerable dithering, Imran Khan declared that his party has decided to support Musharraf's referendum. In a statement issued from Karachi, Imran said he has decided to support the referendum as he believed that Musharraf wanted "to make Pakistan a modern Islamic, welfare state". Imran said his party wants to play its real role as "we desire that democracy is promoted in the country and a clean leadership come to the fore". Imran launched his party with a lot of fanfare in the last general elections but ended up in a great disappointment after he failed to win a single seat even though he himself contested 22 seats from different regions. A bitter critic of former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, Imran alleged that politicians in the country minted money through corruption during the last 12 years. The referendum has been opposed by all the major political parties including Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party, (PPP) and Sharif's Pakistan Muslim league (PML). While Imran announced the support to the referendum, a section of his party headed by General Secretary Miraj Muhammad Khan openly opposed the party decision to back it. Pakistan Daily quoted a party sources as saying that Miraj was bitterly critical of the party accepting the "undemocratic" move of Musharraf trying to get elected for a five year term through a referendum. REFERENCES: Analysis: Musharraf's referendum gamble Friday, 5 April, 2002, 20:34 GMT 21:34 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1913990.stm  Imran backs Musharraf's referendum, party members oppose Press Trust of India Posted: Apr 09, 2002 at 1518 hrs IST http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=9092 Interview: Justice (retd) Tariq Mahmood By Newsline Editorial Staff 15 MAY 2002  http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2002/05/interview-tariq-mahmood/  How the Referendum was Won By Massoud Ansari 15 MAY 2002  http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2002/05/how-the-referendum-was-won/  Counting the Cost By Nadeem Iqbal 15 MAY 2002  http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2002/05/counting-the-cost/ Constructing Consent By Shahzada Zulfiqar 15 MAY 2002 http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2002/05/constructing-consent/

LAHORE: Leaders of the component parties of the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) have announced that they will not participate in the Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP) long march scheduled to start from Lahore on November 13 (today). Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders declared PPP’s long march as government sponsored. PTI General Secretary Air Marshal (r) Shahid Zulfiqar said Benazir Bhutto had returned to Pakistan under a deal with the government. He said that despite the imposition of Section 144, Benazir was moving freely under state security while several APDM leaders had been detained. MMA Deputy General Secretary Liaquat Baloch said the MMA would not participate in any protest called by the PPP because the PPP had not clearly disassociated itself with President General Pervez Musharraf on the deal issue. PML-N Finance Secretary Muhammad Pervez Malik said that his party was not formally invited to participate in the PPP’s long march. He said that after Bhutto’s reply to Nawaz Sharif’s letter, the APDM would devise its strategy to launch an anti-government drive. staff report REFERENCE: APDM will not participate in ‘long march’ Tuesday, November 13, 2007 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C11%5C13%5Cstory_13-11-2007_pg1_3

Imran Khan & APDM Election Boycott in 2008


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04-wjilvd3w

KARACHI: In a strongly worded speech, a leader of an alliance that has refused to be part of the elections on Feb 18 has predicted that the country would be destroyed by civil war if the boycott movement is thwarted. Mehmood Khan Achakzai, the Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party chairman and All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) Pakistan convenor, delivered these ominous words at Banaras Chowk Sunday, where he said that the alliance would achieve democracy by force. Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Rasool Bux Palijo, Yousif Masti Khan, Dr Abdul Haiee Baloch, Dr Qadir Magsi, and Habib Jalib also addressed the huge crowd that waved flags and shouted slogans. The alliance had planned this anti-election rally at the battered Nishtar Park, the scene where the Sunni Tehreek’s top leadership was decimated in a bomb blast last year. But the authorities refused permission. Achakzai talked about this and the ban on the PTI’s Imran Khan’s entry to Sindh. “Political parties today are divided into two camps: a pro-Musharraf camp, which has no interest in the welfare of the citizens of Pakistan and a second camp, which is fighting against dictatorship,” he said, stressing the APDM belonged to the second camp. “We are not here to pick fights, nor do we want to abuse anyone. We respect our opponents as equal citizens of this country and shall behave accordingly.” Achakzai has been known to be a fiery speaker inside parliament and on the streets; in one Nishtar Park rally three years ago as a nationalist leader for PONM, he hurled expletives at the top leadership of the country. However, on Sunday, a very different Achakzai was presented. For one, this is the first time he addressed such a big rally and that too as the convenor of a big country-wide alliance. In the end of his speech, in a small but significant new tactic, he requested Qazi Hussain Ahmed to the crowd to start a civil disobedience movement. This not only indicates Achakzai’s shift from a nationalist to a more political rhetoric and persona but also hints at some grooming, which may or may not have come from one of the heavyweights who also spoke at the rally. It was also difficult to ignore that Achakzai introduced via quotations, Article 6 of the Constitution, two Quranic verses, first in Arabic and then in translation, one Hadith, and then one saying by Quaid-e-Azam. Achakzai spoke for a short time in Pushto, apologizing to the non-Pukhtoon supporters by saying that if he did not do so, the Pukhtoon present would take offence and leave. Qazi Hussain Ahmed also spoke in Pushto for a short while but in his Urdu address said that everyone was aware of the extensive target killings on “the orders of Altaf Hussain, who controls the establishment from London”. He said that Karachi, that is home to people from all four corners of the country, is on the brink of destruction and that weapons are being amassed here. The stage for the jalsa was set in Shahrah-e-Orangi town instead of at Banaras Chowk, whose vicinity was flooded. REFERENCE: APDM holds first anti-poll rally in city By Fareed Farooqui * Thousands turn up for the anti-election alliance’s rally where Mehmood Khan Achakzai departs from his nationalist rhetoric Monday, February 11, 2008 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C02%5C11%5Cstory_11-2-2008_pg12_1

Imran Khan on 'Benami and Income Tax Issue (Off The Record – 29th May 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt4cACV6iwM

ISLAMABAD: The Tehreek-e-Insaf has again clarified a report in The News on May 27 titled “Why Jemima Khan did a Benami transaction with Imran”. PTI Information Secretary, Shafqat Mahmood, said in a statement Mr Umar Cheema has tried to sensationalise a very simple transaction regarding the land where Mr Imran Khan has built a house in the Bani Gala suburb of Islamabad. Shafqat said: “His argument that this land was purchased through a ‘Benami transaction’ is entirely based on a power of attorney that Ms Jemima Khan had given in favour of Saifullah Niazi. In this document the person drafting it had erroneously used the words “Benami transaction” and Jemima Khan had signed it as she was not supposed to know what this term means or indeed intricacies of law. This was an error on the part of the drafter, as it will be demonstrated below, on which an entire house of cards has been built by Mr Cheema.“First, let us see what a ‘Benami transaction’ is? A ‘Benami’ transaction has been described in Aggarwal’s Law of Benami Transactions (Pakistani Edition 2002) by Mr M. Farani as one in which the real owner of property allows it (the property) to appear in the name of an ostensible owner under a sort of secret trust. In plain English this means that person A buys a property with his or her own money but for a variety of reasons shows person B as the owner. This is in sum a Benami transaction. It also follows that if person A has bought the property and put it in his or her own name, then it is not a Benami transaction. Now let us look at the facts in the case of Mr Imran Khan and Jemima Khan, which were indeed conveyed to Mr Cheema but did not register adequately. The couple were then married and decided to buy the property in Bani Gala. To raise the money for it, Mr Imran Khan put his London flat up for sale. To finalise the deal in the meantime, Jemima Khan used her own money to buy the property and it was so registered in her name. Thus if we look at the definitions given above, it cannot be described as a Benami Transaction. When later on Mr Imran Khan was able to sell his London flat and transfer the money through banking channels to Pakistan, he paid Jemima Khan the amount she had spent to buy the property. Before it could be formally transferred in Mr Imran Khan’s name the couple unfortunately divorced and Jemima left for England. Before leaving she obviously wanted to transfer the property in the name of Imran Khan as she had been paid the amount she had spent on buying it. As this process of transfer would have taken time and she wanted to leave, she gave a power of attorney to Saifullah Niazi to represent her in the legal transfer. These are the facts. It is obvious that there was nothing Benami about this transaction. These words have been sensationalised only because the person drafting the power of attorney included them by mistake in the document. To use a clerical error to question a person of Mr Imran Khan’s integrity, may serve someone’s political purpose but has no basis in law or facts. Umar Cheema adds: My report has stated facts only which were sensational. What are these facts? The clarification said the person who drafted Jemima Khan’s Power of Attorney ‘erroneously’ used the term ‘Benami Transaction.’ The author of draft was not a layperson unfamiliar with terms such as “Benami transactions” and their legal implications. The document bears the seals of solicitors who are certified UK lawyers and experts on matters such as property transfers etc. The document also claims that the property was bought by Imran Khan and transferred in Jemima Khan’s name through a Benami transaction. It contradicts what Imran Khan has been telling the media for a long time that he borrowed money from his ex-wife to buy the land and it was returned after selling his flat in the UK. He never said this before the PTI was approached for version that the land was registered in Jemima’s name at first. Is it a coincidence? By claiming in the affidavit that the property initially belonged to Imran Khan but transferred in her name raises the questions about the source of money and the legal or otherwise channels used to transfer the money that was used to purchase the property and taxes paid. In case this was also a “clerical error”, evidences should be produced about how the money borrowed from Jemima Khan was channeled from UK to Pakistan to purchase the property as claimed. In case Jemima had this hefty sum in local bank, better if clarified and evidences shared. The Power of Attorney bears the signature of Jemima Khan who, one assumes, must have read the document before signing it particularly a document that has legal implications. Again, the land transferred back in the name of Imran Khan was based on this document declaring it ‘Benami Transaction’. One may curious to know what land record said whether it was treated as ‘Benami’ being returned to the actual owner who didn’t want to disclose it earlier for any reason. I have read definition of ‘Benami Transaction’ as defined by the spokesperson. I would request him to read the legal definition. Benami Transaction: Is a transaction where a person buys a property in the name of another person or gratuitously transfers property to another person without an intention to benefit that other person. It defines “Benami Transaction” as the property purchased not in the name of the real beneficiary, but someone who is his representative (Benamidar).” Why Benami transactions are made: “1) Some people Commit fraud on creditors; 2) The desire to evade tax thereby committing fraud on the state; 3) To avoid certain political and social risks; 4) Provides an opportunity for putting black money in to more productive use.” The spokesman should be mindful of Moonis Elahi’s alleged involvement in NICL case was on the same grounds. I may also like to explain that when this question was sent to the PTI, the response was a complete denial of the existence of any Benami transaction. It was not said the word ‘Benami Transaction’ has erroneously been used. Our story was based on a legal document that has not been denied as fake or forged by the PTI. Whether or not the contents including the claim of a Benami transaction was merely a “clerical error” or erroneously mentioned as now claimed by PTI in a document drafted by British solicitors is best left to the judgement of the readers. REFERENCE: Tehreek-e-Insaf again explains Jemima's Thursday, May 31, 2012 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-15019-Tehreek-e-Insaf-again-explains-Jemimas

ISLAMABAD, Sept 23: A crackdown on opposition leaders and activists belonging to parties in the All Pakistan Democratic Movement (APDM) alliance continued across the country for the second day on Sunday with the government having decided to use all means to stop them from staging a demonstration outside the Supreme Court on Monday, sources told Dawn. Over 40 opposition leaders and workers were arrested on Sunday in Islamabad and scores of opposition leaders, mainly from the NWFP, were being stopped from entering the capital. There were reports that the authorities had planned to round up around 700 political activists in an attempt to foil the opposition’s plan to stage an ‘impressive protest rally’ on Monday.

“We have written to all provincial governments that leaders and workers of the APDM and other people would not be allowed to proceed to the Supreme Court,” Chief Commissioner Islamabad Hamid Ali Khan told Dawn. Interior ministry sources confirmed that prominent politicians and activists of the APDM would not be allowed to enter Islamabad. They include Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) leader Iqbal Zafar Jhagra, Jamaat-i-Islami Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Awami National Party chief Asfandyar Wali and Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf chairman Imran Khan. Jamaat-i-Islami Islamabad press secretary Rao Iftikhar said that about 30 leaders and activists of his party had been arrested. PML-N information-secretary Ahsan Iqbal said that over 10 leaders and workers of the party had been picked up by police. There were reports that some main leaders of the APDM, including Imran Khan, PML-N’s Zafar Ali Shah, Iqbal Zafar Jhagrah and Syed Mohammad Bilal of the JI, had gone underground to avoid arrests.

Islamabad’s chief commissioner said that section 144 had been imposed and no public meeting or gathering would be allowed in the capital. “Anybody found violating the order will be dealt with accordingly,” he said. “In the current spate of suicide bombing there is a possibility that terrorists may strike during the APDM demonstration and people would again blame the government for not taking appropriate steps to arrest such incidents,” he said. Opposition leaders claimed that the crackdown would not intimidate the APDM into calling off the demonstration. Interior ministry spokesman Brig (retd) Javed Iqbal Cheema on Sunday said the arrested leaders and workers would remain in detention for the ‘next few days’. Talking to Dawn, he said that leaders and workers of the APDM had been placed house arrest or detained under 16 MPO, a law concerning maintenance of public order. “They were kept in detention so that they could be stopped from holding any demonstrations or surrounding the offices of the Election Commission,” he said.

It is believed that the detained leaders and workers will remain in detention or under house arrest till the presidential election scheduled to be held on October 6. APDM leaders have announced their plan to launch a protest campaign against President Gen Musharraf’s bid for re-election. Under the plan, APDM parliamentarians and members of the provincial assemblies would tender their resignations before the presidential elections and surround the offices of the Chief Election Commission on the day the president would submit his nomination papers. According to the protest programme, the ADMP leaders will meet on Sept 26 — a day before the filing of nomination papers by the president — to collect resignations. The sources said that all entry points leading to Islamabad would be blocked on September 27 to avoid entry of opposition leaders and workers. Roads leading to the Constitution Avenue and the Chief Election Commission building would also be closed, they added. Meanwhile, arrested leaders of the APDM, including Raja Zafurl Haq, PML-N President Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, MMA leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmed and MNAs Mian Mohammad Aslam and Tehmina Daultana and politicians picked up on Sunday, including Adnan Kiani of the PTI and two Jamaat-i-Islami leaders Abdul Nasir and Malik Bland Ajwat, were shifted to the Adyala jail and to the Capital Development Authority’s rest-houses at Simly and Rawal dams.

Some of the opposition workers were kept in lock-ups of different police stations. A PML-N spokesman alleged that Javed Hashmi was manhandled by some police officers when he refused to be moved from the Parliament Lodges to the jail. Police personnel, some in plainclothes, barged into the suite of Mr Hashmi, dragged him to the gate of the building, threw him in a vehicle and drove away, the personal secretary of the PML-N leader said. Additional Superintendent of Police Nasir Aftab told Dawn that police had arrested five leaders and 20 workers of the PML-N, JI and Shabab-e-Milli, a student organisation of the JI. REFERENCE: Move to thwart APDM show: Activists barred from entering capital By Syed Irfan Raza, Munawer Azeem and Muhammad Asghar September 24, 2007 Monday Ramazan 11, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/2007/09/24/top1.htm

Imran Khan in Kingston

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBaIIJ-t2Q

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan who announced to quit politics in case any ‘benami transaction’ (nameless transaction) was established against him is now caught in a dilemma as his ex-wife, Jemima Khan, has hinted that the land deal in Bani Gala, Islamabad in 2004, was a ‘benami transaction’. Not only Imran had opposed such transactions, he has been fiercely advocating a ban on them and pledged last year to do so if PTI is voted to power. But while Jemima has mentioned a benami transaction in a document, lawyers are divided on whether the power of attorney she gave to a PTI leader fits the definition of a “nameless” transaction. The PTI spokesman has denied this on behalf of the party chairman and Imran’s legal consultant offered no comment, but Jemima’s document obtained by The News offers detail contrary to the party position in this regard. In the sworn-affidavit, Jemima Khan says Bani Gala land measuring 300 kanals and five marlas was transferred in her name by ex-husband Imran Khan as ‘benami transaction.’ In Para-3 of her general power of attorney dated September 21, 2004, Jemima Khan had stated: “The land was transferred in my name through mutations No. 7056, 7225, 7361, 7538, by my ex-husband Mr Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi as a “benami transaction.” After the separation/divorce between me and Mr Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, I do not intend to keep the land with me.” In the entire affidavit, no amount of money regarding this transaction has been mentioned. When The News contacted noted lawyer Abid Hasan Manto for comments, he said if something was put on record through a power of attorney, it should be taken as a fact. “When there is a power of attorney and signature of the person concerned, it is prima facie a fact.” Another leading lawyer Athar Minallah says by declaring that it was ‘benami transaction’, Jemima Khan has denied Imran Khan’s claim reported in the media that he borrowed money from her for purchasing the land and returned it on selling his flat in London. “She has put him in an awkward position by stating this. The usage of ‘benami transaction’ in power of attorney (a legal document), indicates that Imran Khan paid from his own pocket but chose to register the land in his wife’s name (and it didn’t appear in his tax return details where he could have been questioned about the source of money),” Athar said. “Also, declaring ‘benami transaction’ means that she was transferring back the property to the real owner without claiming any money (since she was not the real owner),” the leading lawyer said and added: “Once transferred back in Imran Khan’s name, it is not benami. But it was when he transferred it in Jemima Khan’s name.” Through this power of attorney, Jemima nominated Saifullah Sarwar Khan Niazi, now PTI’s additional secretary general, as her representative in Pakistan during the course of transferring back this land to Imran Khan. Since Jemima was unable to come to Pakistan, according to her affidavit, she had stated: “I do hereby appoint Mr. Saifullah Sarwar Khan Niazi son of Imran Ahsan Khan Niazi...to appear before the Revenue Office/Registrar and get the land transferred...” As The News approached Saifullah Niazi for comments he neither denied nor confirmed, saying it was difficult to remember something that happened long ago. However, he confirmed that the full name appeared in the affidavit is his. By mentioning ‘benami transaction’, the ex-wife of PTI leader has raised questions about Imran Khan’s claim that he never had any ‘benami transaction’ (nameless deal) in his dealings, private or public. According to the definition, ‘benami’ is a transaction wherein a person buys a property in the name of another person or gratuitously transfers property to another person without any intention to benefit that other person. In a ‘benami transaction’ the property is purchased not in the name of the real beneficiary, but someone who is his/her unofficial representative (benamidar). Many politicians and bureaucrats are understood to have purchased lands and kept accounts this way. For example, Moonis Elahi’s bank accounts/property was in the name of his wife and a servant in the NICL scam so it does not appear in his personal details, as he has to show the source of income and how the assets were amassed. Legal experts say benami transactions are resorted to by some people either to commit fraud on creditors, to evade taxes and thus defraud the state or to avoid certain political and social risks. It also provides an opportunity for putting black money into more productive use. In the PTI context, why Jemima used this word remains a mystery. When PTI spokesman Shafqat Mahmood was asked about this document, he responded: “The purchase of land in Bani Gala was initially paid for by his wife Jemima Khan. Imran Khan paid her back after his London flat was sold. The property was in Jemima Khan’s name and after their divorce was gifted back to Imran Khan in 2005 by his ex wife.” “It was not a benami transaction and all relevant taxes were paid. Please contact Yusuf Islam Associates in Lahore who are Mr Khan’s tax advisors if you have further questions,” the PTI leader said. When Yusuf Islam was contacted, he said he was not allowed to disclose property details. Yusuf said the PTI spokesman had already taken up this query with him and that he refused to help. REFERENCE: Why Jemima Khan entered into a 'benami transaction' with Imran Umar Cheema Saturday, May 26, 2012 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-110545-Why-Jemima-Khan-entered-into-a-benami-transaction-with-Imran

LARKANA, Feb 5: Pakistan People’s Party (Shaheed Bhutto) held the ‘chehlum’ of late Benazir Bhutto at Al-Murtaza House here on Tuesday where the speakers said that her assassination was an attempt to create anarchy in the country and to destabilise it. A large number of people, including Sindh National Front chief Mumtaz Ali Bhutto, his son Ameer Bakhsh Bhutto and others attended the gathering where strong contingents of Rangers and police stood guard to prevent any untoward incident. Ms Ghinwa Bhutto said that under the prevailing conditions, responsibility lied with Punjab to ‘keep all the brothers together.’ She said all provinces constituted Pakistan and without these provinces Pakistan was nothing. It would have been better that elections were postponed for sometimes, as the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) was boycotting the polls along with certain other political parties. If APDM participated in polls under new schedule, the elections could be labelled as fair and legal, she said. Perhaps, she added, election would now be held due to mounting pressure from European Union and other countries. She urged people to vote for ‘fist,’ the symbol of PPP-SB candidates for the provincial autonomy and powers at the grass root level, making people the masters of their will.

She held the US responsible for all bomb blasts world over and added only organised peoples’ power could defeat it. Referring to his letter addressed to President Musharraf, SNF chief Mumtaz Bhutto said he had expressed doubts through the letter regarding the investigations of Ms Bhutto’s murder. He disclosed that the information he had with him was conveyed to the president demanding of him to include them in the investigations. He said that the killers of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and Ms Benazir Bhutto were same. He claimed that in 1997 as caretaker chief minister of Sindh he had ordered reopening the inquiry into the murder of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and some solid things came out. But, he added, the investigation was hushed up through what he called ‘deals’. He said if justice was denied, he would take his own decision and no one would be allowed to digest this murder. He criticised PPP’s stand of taking revenge with votes, saying that it did not sound sensible. Seema Rafique, provincial head of PPP-SB women wing, Ms Tahzeebul Nisa Mahar and others also spoke on the occasion. Earlier, Quran Khwani was held and food was distributed.

RESOLUTIONS: Nine resolutions were adopted on the occasion, demanding the government to initiate a probe into the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto by honest judges of the superior courts of Pakistan to unmask the forces involved in it. The gathering demanded doing away with the concurrent list and granting maximum provincial autonomy to the provinces and termed the decision of performing no post mortem of Ms Bhutto a criminal negligence. In another resolution, the gathering demanded of the government to release all political prisoners and pay compensation for losses caused in the riots after the assassination of Ms Bhutto. The meeting demanded reinstatement of the judges of Supreme Court who had refused to take oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order and release of detained and arrested lawyers. The gathering urged the government to change the policy of supporting the US and said that it had bent upon capturing the resources of developing countries under the excuse of war against terrorism. The meeting called for suspension of operation in Balochistan, Waziristan and Wana and finding out solution through a dialogue. REFERENCE: BB murder aimed at destabilising country: PPP-SB holds chehlum By Our Correspondent February 06, 2008 Wednesday Muharram 27, 1429 http://archives.dawn.com/2008/02/06/nat26.htm

HYDERABAD, Feb 8: Leaders of the All Pakistan Democratic Movement (APDM) have said that a silent revolution has started in the country, adding that the APDM will launch a civil disobedience movement to oust the rulers. They said Pakistan is governed by ‘a permanent martial law body’ in the shape of the National Security Council (NSC) and urged the chief of the army staff to dissociate himself from the council. They were speaking at a public meeting at SRTC Ground here on Friday to mobilise public for the boycott of Feb 18 elections. Addressing the rally, Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed said that the constitution of 1973 contains a contract that says that the army would not interfere in politics but President Pervez Musharraf has violated this pact. He said if the new COAS is committed to his job then he should announce boycott of the NSC because the president does not have the support of people and cannot hold this august office. He said the Election Commission must gain trust of people and an interim government should be set up after consultation with all political parties. Qazi Hussain Ahmed said that in the present situation the elections would only perpetuate the role of civil and military bureaucracy and no political party would be able to run the government in the presence of President Musharraf. Addressing the meeting, Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party leader Mehmood Khan Achakzai said that the country is facing great dangers and is governed by a ‘permanent martial law body’ in the shape of National Security Council.

He said that 70 per cent of the superior court’s judges were sacked for their refusal to take oath under the PCO, and media was gagged so that it couldn’t speak a truth. “We want to tell the general that no external force can cause harm to us if we set our own house in order and a judicious system is enforced for 160 million strong souls,” Achakzai said while referring to a speech of President Pervez Musharraf in Belgium where he told the European countries that Pakistani people are obsessed with democracy although they did not know its meaning. He warned of a civil war in the country if the system based on equity and justice is not enforced. He said that the APDM demands an end to the role of intelligence agencies and army in politics, supremacy of the constitution and parliament, rule of law, independence of judiciary and peoples’ right over their resources. Mr Achakzai said: “The government comprises of corrupt politicians who have abrogated the Constitution and got innocent people killed on May 12, 2007, in Karachi who were there to welcome the deposed chief justice of the country.

He held the government responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. He urged soldiers and police to not to obey “illegal directives of the government”. “If you (soldiers and policemen) obey these illegal orders you will be violating the constitution,” he said. Mr Achakzai said that the APDM would launch a movement for civil disobedience to oust the rulers. He claimed that the federation was facing danger at the hands agencies. Awami Tehrik chief Rasool Bux Palijo said that people want democracy and an end to military rule so that they could raise their head in comity of nations. Sindh Taraqi Pasand Party chief Dr Qadir Magsi condemned the ban on the entry of Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf leader Imran Khan in Sindh and demanded removal of the Sindh governor, arguing that governors of the three other provinces have been changed National Party chief Dr Hayee Baloch said that Sindh and Balochistan are faced with similar crises as their people have no right over their resources and doors for employment have been shut on them. Abdul Majeed Kanju of Siraiki Party, Khaksar Tahreek’s Abdul Hameed Mashraqi and others spoke on the occasion. REFERENCE: Silent revolution creeping in, warns APDM By M.H. Khan February 09, 2008  Saturday Safar 01, 1429 http://archives.dawn.com/2008/02/09/nat8.htm

NAWABSHAH, Aug 13: All Pakistan Democratic Movement (APDM) has called for immediate resignation of President Musharraf, restoration of judges, and end to army operations in the NWFP and Balochistan. Leaders said this in a seminar on “Real Democracy – Need of Today” organised by the APDM Nawabshah here, on Wednesday. Chairman, Awami Tahreek Rasool Bux Palijo said Pakistan was not an independent state as it was handed over to the US soon after its creation. He called Pakistan illegal and unconstitutional as it was not according to the 1940 Resolution and history based on falsehood. He criticised Abdul Hafeez Pirzada for playing the role of an agent and urged him to return to prove he was son of the soil. Regarding Benazir’s assassination, he said no family can refuse postmortem if asked by a judge. He demanded withdrawal of the US and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq instead deployment of peace keeping forces of the OIC and the United Nations. Senior Vice President of Sindh Taraqi Passand Party, Abdul Hameed Memon slammed Musharraf for destroying institutions. He asked Zardari to stop fooling people by saying that Army and agencies had no role in politics. He said the APDM believed Musharraf and agencies were involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Akbar Bugti. Altaf Hussain was asking women to keep pistol in purses against Talibanisation but the people of Sindh will not allow the MQM to take control of the province, he said. Dr Asadullah Bhutto, Ameer Jamat-e-Islami Sindh said the APDM was the pioneer of impeachment movement as it demanded Musharraf’s removal in London. He said Peoples Party’s refusal to cooperate with the APDM for election boycott extended his stay. He strongly criticised the meeting of rulers with the US delegates and urged not to provide Musharraf a safe passage. REFERENCE: NAWABSHAH: APDM spells out set of demands By Our Correspondent August 14, 2008 Thursday Sha'aban 11, 1429 http://archives.dawn.com/2008/08/14/local9.htm

KARACHI: The APDM’s leadership has failed to shape its provincial organisational set-up, which was to be finalised the first week of August. “The parties that comprise the All Parties Democratic Movement preferred public meetings over a provincial organisational set-up, therefore, it was deferred,” Rasool Bux Palijo, chief of the Awami Tahreek, told Daily Times. Some of the APDM’s Sindh-based parties seem to have their own agenda that they prefer over the APDM’s. The Sindh Taraqi Passand Party, an ethnic Sindhi party, and the Awami National Party (ANP), a Pashto-speakers’ party, have strengthened their ties in the Save Sindh Action Committee, an anti-MQM alliance in Karachi. Amir Bhambhro’s Sindh National Party remains engaged in seminars on human rights instead of making efforts to formalise the provincial coordination committees. Raja Zafar ul Haq, APDM’s joint action committee convener, told Daily Times on July 24 that the organisational structure of the provincial coordination committees would be finalised in a week after consulting with component parties. But it wasn’t. Daily Times also talked to the ANP, Sindh Taraqi Passand Party, Sindh National Party (SNP) and the PML-N’s Sindh-based leaders to find out the current position of the APDM’s provincial coordination committees. None of them were aware of any development. However, they brushed aside the impression that the APDM was working slowly. The changing situation in the country caused the APDM leaders to hold their July 31 meeting a week earlier on July 23, but, no further progress has been witnessed. “We are optimistic that the APDM will be active within a,” said Ali Hassan Chandio, vice chairman of the STPP. Similar views were expressed by SNP Chairman Amir Bhambhro. The ANP’s provincial general secretary, Amin Khattak, said that the central leadership of member parties would consult the provincial chapters and recommend nominees. He said that the composition of the provincial coordination committee has not been finalised yet. The APDM was formed after the All Parties Conference, which was hosted by the PML-N in London early last month. The PPP, an ally of the PML-N in the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (ARD), has not joined the APDM yet. Even though the APDM is considered an anti-MQM alliance, the absence of the PPP might divide the otherwise united Opposition parties and alliances. “The APDM’s public meeting will be held August 22 in Quetta and September 6 in Peshawar. After that, we shall formally discuss the provincial coordination committees’ formation,” said Palijo. irfan ali REFERENCE: APDM fails to shape provincial setup Monday, August 20, 2007 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C08%5C20%5Cstory_20-8-2007_pg7_53

Cracks in the ranks of APDM G.N. Mughul The Frontier Post: The cracks are reported to have started developing in the ranks of All Pakistan Democratic Movement (APDM) on the issue as to what should be APDM's policy on the war currently waged by the fundamentalist & religio-extremists, initially started from tribal areas but now invading whole country. According to inner APDM circles, by and large, wedge is being created between the secular & progressive forces of Sindh, Balochistan and Punjab, and  reactionary & fundamentalist forces like Jamait e Islami (JI) and Tahrik e Insaf, headed by Imran Khan, with a significant development that JI enjoy full-fledged patronage by those elements who have strong roots in civil and military bureaucracy in the past. According to these circles, the close liaison between JI and these "elements" is very old and is responsible for the creation of soft corner for religious parties like JI with in the ranks of Armed forces. These circles recall that in 1970 elections religious parties, headed by JI, with the patronage of Lt. Gen. Sher Ali, Information Minister in Yahya's Martial Law Government, and such other elements, wanted to bring a reactionary revolution in the country in the garb of "Islamic Revolution". In this regard, huge funds reportedly were collected from "here & there" and showered on these reactionary forces. But, in East Pakistan these reactionary forces were defeated by Awami League, led by Shaikh Mujib ur Rehman, while in the then West Pakistan, they were defeated by PP, ANP and such other liberal forces. As such, the plan to bring so called Islamic Revolution through ballot in the country miserably failed. But, now, according to some circles, plans are to forward same fundamentalist forces to conquer Pakistan with the help of bullet and guns. As for Imran Khan, some political observers are of the view that he is a political off shoot of JI one way or the other. In this regard, these circles draw attention that so far Imran Khan has never condemned publicly the suicidal attacks targeting innocent people or the burning of girls schools. On the contrary, he is always found giving tactic as well as direct support, in some cases, to the inhuman activities conducted by these fundamentalists all over the country, including FATA areas & NWFP, in particular. According to these circles, at present, a "gang of three" comprising Rtd. Gen. Faiz Ali Chishti, Rtd. Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, and retired senior bureaucrat Roedad Khan, is providing full patronage to JI and other reactionary forces, in particular. According to inner APDM circles, in the last meeting of the supreme body of APDM, Dr. Qadir Mangsi, Chairman, Sindh Taraki Pasand Party (STP) raised serious objection on the presence of Rtd. Lt. Gen. Faiz Ali Chishti in the meeting of APDM. It is said that Dr. Mangsi complained that in 1983 movement when gun ship helicopters were being used against innocent people of Sindh, including even the lady peasants working in the fields of  Khairpur Nathan Shah & Mehar, in addition to indiscriminate shooting of peaceful MRD workers, Gen. Chishti was part of the then ruling military junta and said that he can not be spared from being held responsible for the atrocities committed against the people of Sindh during that period. Besides, it is said, STP Chairman also criticized the inhuman activities conducted by fundamentalists and also the role of JI Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmad of presenting himself as a the champion of the cause of these fundamentalists. According to these circles, STP Chairman called upon APDM leadership to clearly enact policy on the issue of present trend of terrorism unleashed by the religious fundamentalists. These circles said, since President of Awami Tahrik, Rasul Bux Palijo, was not present in that meeting hence AT delegation did not touch that issue in that meeting. But, AT circles have indicated that AT leadership is also equally concerned on the rising graph of terrorism by the religious fundamentalists. According to reports, at present, AT is holding in - party serious consultations to this effect and the indications are that in the next meeting of APDM expected to be held after Eid, AT as well as STP would raise this issue emphatically. In the meantime, reports say that in the meantime, AT as well as STP may also hold consultations with other secular and progressive member parties of APDM belonging to Balochistan, in particular, on this issue. According to reports, in the previous meeting when Dr. Mangsi criticized the policies of JI on this issue, Mahmod Khan Achakzai, remained silent, perhaps because he is the current head of APDM and was presiding over the said meeting. Similar conduct was that of other Baloch nationalist parties. But, it is indicated, that in the next APDM meeting all these parties including that of Abid Hussain Minto, belonging to Punjab, might also speak out their mind on this  Cracks in the ranks of APDM G.N. Mughul The Frontier Post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pakhtu/message/30025 http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News....&ad=26-09-2008

Imran campaigns for Jemima's brother in London

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

While it is true that Galloway has used mosques and aroused emotional sentiments of Muslim Britons against British foreign policy to “out-Muslim Labour’s Muslim British-Pakistani candidate,” as Jemima puts it, I couldn’t help but wonder if Jemima had ever heard Imran speak at any of his fabled rallies? On 7th February 2012, Pakistani talk show host, Najam Sethi, made a reference to Jemima Khan’s Jewish heritage on his show. The comment was made in connection with Sethi’s daily round-up of political developments in Pakistan. Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, leader of the Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI-F), had made some scathing remarks about Imran Khan being an agent of the Jewish lobby in response to Imran’s criticism of his politics. Sethi rubbished the allegation of Imran being an agent of the Jewish lobby in his analysis but did point out that prior to his marriage Imran used to say that he would opt to marry a conservative and religious Pakistani girl. “It doesn’t matter,” Sethi, who had earlier been described by Imran as “liberal scum” in an interview with Barkha Dutt on Indian NDTV, said, “he fell in love.” What ensued following the show was a public altercation between Sethi and Jemima on twitter. Jemima, apparently riled up by Sethi’s mention of her Jewishness, protested on several counts. “Pathetic and irresponsible that you should use your position to play the race/religion card & stir up the fanatics,” read one tweet. Jemima also objected to her father being categorised as Jewish. “Not that it should matter but the Jewish religion goes through the mother-My father’s mother was a French Catholic,” she wrote in another. Sethi also responded in a tweet. “Brit media described Jemima as a “Jewish heiress”. Google her. But it doesn’t matter. Love transcends. Didn’t she convert to Islam?” he wrote. Sethi had a point. In fact, an August 15, 2008 article in The Jewish Chronicle, entitled, “Jemima Khan rediscovers her Jewishness,” notes that Sir James Goldsmith “seemed comfortable with his Jewish background.” His 21 July 1997 obituary in The Independent moreover states that when Goldsmith wanted to marry his first wife, the daughter of a Bolivian millionaire, his prospective father-in-law objected by saying, “It is not the habit of our family to marry Jews.” To which Goldsmith famously replied, “It is not our habit to marry Red Indians.” Jemima does not seem to have objected to either of these media reports linking her to a Jewish background but appeared most disturbed by Sethi’s comments. Why? The reason is simple. Jemima knows that this information is damaging for Imran’s political career. It is therefore most ironic that Jemima would hone in on George Galloway’s religion in her 26 April 2012 piece for the New Statesman. “George Galloway, MP for Bradford West is a Muslim,” Jemima writes, “He converted more than ten years ago…Those close to him know this. The rest of the world, including his Muslim constituents, does not.” Unsurprisingly, Galloway’s reaction to Jemima’s story was not dissimilar to Jemima’s reaction to Sethi’s show. The Guardian reported that Galloway accused Jemima of reporting “deliberate falsehoods” and “making schoolgirl howlers which would earn banishment from a first-year journalism class.” Unlike Sethi’s passing remark on his show however, Jemima had persisted to corner Galloway in her face-to-face interview. “I know someone who attended your shahada,” she claimed. Galloway refuted any shahada ceremony but refused to divulge his faith. Jemima is unrelenting however. Writing about his marriages to Muslim women, she claims “a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim man—although the other way round is allowed.” Jemima’s interpretation of what is permissible according to Islam is fairly sexist here and not entirely accurate. Yet she makes the case that because George Galloway’s present wife and two previous wives belong to the Muslim faith, he too must be Muslim. She goes on to critique his campaign for using the mosque as a campaign hub, with his “speeches full of ‘inhallahs’, his invocations of the Quran….and his smattering of Arabic words.” While it is true that Galloway has used mosques and aroused emotional sentiments of Muslim Britons against British foreign policy to “out-Muslim Labour’s Muslim British-Pakistani candidate,” as Jemima puts it, I couldn’t help but wonder if Jemima had ever heard Imran speak at any of his fabled rallies? His dharna, or sit-in, against drones in April 2011 commenced at a controversial religious seminary, members of his party have shared platforms with and made speeches alongside those vowing to protect a blasphemy law that has resulted in harassment of religious minorities in Pakistan and most alarmingly, in an interview with talk show host Nasim Zehra, when asked if he would make alliances with other politicians, he repeatedly said in Urdu “only if they become Muslim,” insinuating that only Muslims can be good people. Yet while Imran uses religious symbolism to stir up the emotions of those belonging to the majority faith in Pakistan, Galloway is using similar means to rally together a disgruntled minority in Britain. Not every Muslim in Britain is impressed. There are many Muslims in Britain who refrain from supporting Galloway’s Respect Party because although they may agree with his criticisms of British foreign policy, they don’t appreciate his campaign style of mixing religion and politics and see this as inflammatory and even dangerous, adding fuel to the Islamophobic fire that could potentially surround them. Yet if religion and politics should not mix then Galloway is not obligated to reveal his faith to Jemima or anyone else. Her insistence on this matter is in poor taste and her tweet following Galloway’s objections, “Funny thing is I actually had a soft spot for @georgegalloway besides what’s wrong with being a Muslim? My 2 boys are v proud to be Muslims,” belies a deliberate misunderstanding of why Galloway is upset with her piece. For as she wrote in the article, “There must have been some white constituents in Bradford, who, although natural Labour supporters, preferred to vote for the white Catholic candidate rather than the brown Muslim one representing Labour.” So Jemima realizes that race and religion do play a part in political preferences. Isn’t it a bit silly then to compare Galloway’s refusal to publicly profess his faith with her sons’ ability to do so. Besides, what would Jemima’s reaction be if a Pakistani reporter forced Imran to divulge whether Jemima was still Muslim or not? REFERENCE: Sethi, Jemima, Galloway: toxic mix of religion & politics by Ayesha Ijaz Khan MAY 25, 2012 ONLINE ISSUE NO. 102 http://www.viewpointonline.net/sethi-jemima-galloway-toxic-mix-of-religion-a-politics.html

HYDERABAD, Nov 27: The Awami Tehrik chief Rasool Bux Plaijo on Tuesday urged the All-Parties Democratic Movement to stand by its earlier decision to boycott general elections, arguing that “taking part in the fraudulent elections would be tantamount to accepting dictatorship, Marshal Law, unconstitutional and immoral PCO and rule of generals.” Mr Palijo told journalists after attending a meeting of his party’s central committee that it was a foregone conclusion that elections being held under emergency would not be fair, free and impartial. The central committee believed that even the general elections and Musharraf’s doffing them uniform could not solve the multidimensional crisis the country was faced with, he said.

He demanded that Gen Musharraf should quit power, form a government comprising all the political parties, retired judges, lawyers, journalists and civil society members, which should restore the constitution, reinstate Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and other sacked judges, lift emergency, remove curbs on media and hold elections for a new constituent assembly. Mr Palijo termed Balack Mari’s killing as murder and said it had dealt a telling blow to the oppressed nations’ movement but his martyrdom would infuse new blood in the struggle as “the blood of martyrs never goes in vain”. The meeting observed one-minute silence as mark of respect for Mir Balach Khan Mari who was reportedly killed in mysterious circumstances a about a week ago. The veteran politician welcomed the return of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto and paid rich tributes to Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and sacked judges, lawyers, journalists and civil society members for laying down sacrifices in the struggle for the restoration of democracy. He said the rulers had converted the country into an imperialist colony and Gen Musharraf was bent upon destroying the country by resorting to unconstitutional measures. He said the rule of Gen Pervez Musharraf was a continuation of the dictatorial regimes of Ayoub Khan, Yahya Khan and Ziaul Haq. No less than 50 judges of superior judiciary had been placed under house arrest and senior lawyers, Ali Ahmed Kurd, Aitizaz Ahsan, Tariq Mehmood and Munir A. Malik had been sent to jails, he said. REFERENCE: Palijo urges APDM to stand by decision on election boycott Bureau Report November 28, 2007 Wednesday Ziqa’ad 17, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/2007/11/28/nat16.htm

LAHORE, Dec 9: A crucial meeting of the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) failed on Sunday to evolve a consensus on the election boycott issue and allowed heads of components parties to take whatever decision they deemed suitable for their parties. Pakistan Muslim League (N) leaders Raja Zafarul Haq and Iqbal Zafar Jhagra announced the failure of the alliance in agreeing to a joint stand on the issue after a marathon seven-hour meeting, presided over by Mian Nawaz Sharif at his Model Town residence. The closed-door meeting was attended by heads and representatives of 15 parties of the APDM, including Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Imran Khan and Mian Shahbaz Sharif. Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI (F) abstained from the meeting while a senior member of the JUI (S) represented party chief Maulana Samiul Haq. Mr Sharif was supposed to share the decisions of the meeting with the press but he and other leaders chose to avoid journalists. Raja Zafar claimed that despite the disagreement on the core issue of whether to contest or boycott the elections, the APDM was ‘intact’ and would meet again, if required. He parried a question about which of the parties wanted a boycott and which pressed for contesting it.

“This detail cannot be shared here. Each party will take its own decision whether to contest the elections or not,” he said. Insiders said Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf’s Imran Khan, Jamaat-i-Islami’s Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party’s Mehmood Khan Achakzai pressed for a boycott while PML-N’s leader Nawaz Sharif, Awami National Party’s Ahsan Wyne and Markazi Jamiat Ahle Hadith’s Prof Sajid Mir said that the field should not be left open to others. The PML(N’s) reported point of view was that the APDM parties should launch an election drive but, at the same time, declare that they would withdraw from the race if their demands were not met by Jan 5. Talking to Dawn, PML(N) leader Ishaq Dar, who presented at the meeting a report of the committee which had held talks with Ms Bhutto on APDM’s charter of demands, said the two sides had disagreed on two points. The number one issue they could not sort out was related to the restoration of the deposed judges. “We wanted to take a joint stand about the elections in consultation with the joint opposition. But unfortunately we failed to come up with a joint decision as the PPP and the JUI are contesting them. And my point of view is that we should not leave the field open to others,” said Mr Dar, who is considered a close aide to Mr Sharif. Raja Zafar said the participating parties endorsed the alliance’s charter of demands which included the restoration of the judges who did not take oath under the PCO as its first point.

They also formulated a plan to run a country-wide campaign to mobilise public opinion in favour of the demands. “No consensus could be evolved on whether the alliance should boycott the elections or not. But it was accepted that the component parties could adopt either of the two courses,” he said. He was unwilling to reveal the PML(N’s) stand at the meeting. “We will decide it after the party meeting,” he asserted. However, he said, Mr Sharif was launching a ‘public contact’ campaign with a visit to Faisalabad on Monday. Later, he said, the PML(N) leader would visit Karachi for two days. "He will visit the entire country,” he said. When asked about the Dec 15 deadline the APDM had given to the government for acceptance of its charter of demands, Raja Zafar said that the alliance would now present the demands to the people through its ‘mass contact campaign’. “This is the best way of pressurising the government,” he said, adding that the PML(N) would decide later whether it wanted to consult the PPP over its new strategy. “Right now Ms Bhutto is in Dubai,” he said, implying that a contact could not be established immediately. In its last meeting in Lahore on Nov 29, the APDM had announced that it would boycott the election if the government failed to accept its charter of demands by Dec 15. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, who had not attended that meeting as well, disagreed with the idea of boycotting the polls. Maulana Samiul Haq and the ANP had attended the meeting but did not support the decision. Qazi Hussain Ahmad had supported the idea but left a final decision on the APDM. However, Imran Khan had taken a clear stand from the beginning of the electoral process that even the filing of nomination papers would be tantamount to accepting all ‘illegitimate actions’ of Gen Musharraf. REFERENCE: Sharifs quit boycott camp : APDM parties free to take their own decisions; Qazi Hussain, Imran and Achakzai refuse to change stand By Intikhab Hanif December 10, 2007 Monday Ziqa'ad 29, 1428 

http://archives.dawn.com/2007/12/10/top1.htm

MMA President Qazi Hussain Ahmad, PTI Chairman Imran Khan, PKMA President Mehmood Khan Achakzai and BNP leader Mir Hasail Bezanjo have threatened to quit APDM after the PML-N leadership green signal to the candidates for contesting forthcoming polls. According to reliable sources, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Imran Khan, Achakzai and Bezanjo made telephonic contacts and exchanged views about PML-N leaders’ statements about taking part in the elections. They made it clear on the PML-N Chief Nawaz Sharif to intact on the decision about boycotting of the polls and advised him not to maintain contacts with PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto any more. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Imran Achakzai and Bezajo in their views that taking part in the elections mean to approve unconstitutional and illegal measures of President Pervez Musharraf which he took after November 3 and it would affect the struggle for the independence of the judiciary. They went on to say that Benazir Bhutto intentionally went Dubai to avoid any unanimous decision about the Charter of Demands of the APDM and ARD. They decided to adopt strict attitude at the APDM meeting to be held on Sunday and they would not change their stance about boycotting the polls. On this occasion, Bezanjo said that all Baloch nationalist parties decided to boycott the elections and they did not submit their nomination papers. REFERENCE: Qazi, Imran, Achakzai, Bezanjo threat to quit APDM By: AAJ News Archive, Uploaded: 8th December 2007 http://www.aaj.tv/2007/12/qazi-imran-achakzai-bezanjo-threat-to-quit-apdm/