Saturday, June 23, 2012

Rental Journalists of Pakistan.

Take no side, tell all sides: As Reuters journalists, we never identify with any side in an issue, a conflict or a dispute. Our text and visual stories need to reflect all sides, not just one. This leads to better journalism because it requires us to stop at each stage of newsgathering and ask ourselves "What do I know?" and "What do I need to know?" In reporting a takeover bid, for example, it should be obvious that the target company must be given an opportunity to state their position. Similarly in a political dispute or military conflict, there are always at least two sides to consider and we risk being perceived as biased if we fail to give adequate space to the various parties. This objectivity does not always come down to giving equal space to all sides. The perpetrator of an atrocity or the leader of a fringe political group arguably warrants less space than the victims or mainstream political parties. We must, however, always strive to be scrupulously fair and balanced. Allegations should not be portrayed as fact; charges should not be conveyed as a sign of guilt. We have a duty of fairness to give the subjects of such stories the opportunity to put their side. We must also be on guard against bias in our choice of words. Words like "claimed" or "according to" can suggest we doubt what is being said. Words like "fears" or "hopes" might suggest we are taking sides. Verbs like rebut or refute (which means to disprove) or like fail (as in failed to comment) can imply an editorial judgment and are best avoided. Thinking about language can only improve our writing and our journalism. REFERENCE: Reuters Handbook of Journalism

Dawn News shamelessly accepts advertisement from Bahria Town

Talat Hussain and Hameed Haroon and Rental DawnNews are expert in performing fellatio . General Pervez Musharraf was invited to Dawn by Hameed Haroon in May 2007 whereas Musharraf was a key culprit of 12 May 2007 Tragedy in Karachi.

TEDxKinnaird - Ali Aftab Saeed - Fact vs. Fiction

Ali Aftab Saeed: Journalist, columnist, director/producer, actor, documentary maker; Ali Aftab Saeed is one multi-talented individual. His experience in main stream media production and journalism goes back 7 years. Apart from all these, Saeed also has a knack for writing witty lyrical compositions. This, paired with his passion for singing was what gave birth to the much acclaimed band Beyghairat Brigade. How often do we read the news and consider it to be fact? Using examples from daily news; Ali Aftab divides headlines into 3 typical categories and explains the importance of thinking before believing.

8/Jan/2012: In a detailed front page story of The News on Sunday, Ansar Abbasi asks, ‘How did Musharraf become a billionaire?’ While questions about the source of Gen Musharraf’s personal fortune are legitimate, they typically focus on public information – how was he able to afford his London home? What is his current source of income? But Ansar Abbasi points to new information about Musharraf’s personal wealth, and it is not only the information, but how Ansar Abbasi was able to access it that raises troubling questions. In his article, Ansar Abbasi spends no less than nine paragraphs listing details of Gen Musharraf’s personal accounts with banks and trading accounts in UAE. Not only does Ansar Abbasi list the amounts each account contains, but the account numbers themselves. All of this information is attributed, as usual, to “a source”.

Musharraf has announced that he will return to Pakistan this month to participate in the next parliamentary elections. The question must be asked who would have access to such private financial information as overseas bank accounts, including their account numbers and amounts? And why would those with access to this information be interested in revealing it to Ansar Abbasi? Is it merely a coincidence that Ansar Abbasi’s “source” has revealed this information at this time? Or is Abbasi’s article intended as blackmail to prevent a politician from participating in elections?

This blog has no way of knowing whether the information provided by Ansar Abbasi is true or false. If it is true, we also have no way of knowing where the money came from – whether from looting the national treasury as seems to be implied by the article, or from legitimate sources such as book sales and speaking fees. It is in the public interest to know that politicians are not building personal wealth through corruption, but it is also in the public interest to know how such private information becomes public. Ansar Abbasi does not need to reveal the name of his anonymous source, but it may be in the public interest to know whether his source is an employee of the bank – which is the bank’s concern, or an employee of some other organization – which may be a concern to democracy. REFERENCE: How did Ansar Abbasi get access to Musharraf’s private accounts?

The Jang Group has become so obsessed with quickly seeing the back of the government and is probably salivating so much over the prospects of threatened long marches that sometimes it gets muddled up in its excitement... This is the heading from yesterday's daily Jang about Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani trying to reassure people - dreading a government-Supreme Court showdown in court today (October 13) - that nothing bad would happen. The headline reads: "13 March Ko Kuchh Nahin Hoga..." [Nothing will happen on March 13...]. REFERENCE: Crap All Round WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2010

(Courtesy: Mr. Maaz Abdullah)

One question that should be asked and is being ignored “who aired the news” and CJ “orders” government to find out about the news According to a notification released by the SC, directors of three local TV channels and Chairman Pemra, Mushtaq Ahmed, were informed by a notice to be present at the hearing. The full court will only do the hearings of judges’ restoration notification on 18th October. While other benches will proceed with their normal hearings. -DawnNews SC hearing for restoration notification on 18 Oct Saturday, 16 Oct, 2010

میڈیا اور ججز:’رد عمل ذرا زیادہ تھا‘
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعـء 15 اکتوبر 2010 , 15:46 GMT 20:46 PST

“Burden of Proof”

“The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and the taking of oath is upon the defendant.” (Al-Bayhaqi)”

Guilty by Suspicion is against the Spirit of Islamic Law because when you raise finger then it’s the responsibility of those who allege to produce witness. Benefit of doubt is always given to those who is under trial.

الْبَيِّنَةُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِى وَالْيَمِينُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ

The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the one who is accused (Tirmidhi)

Therefore the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone, unless they perpetrate a crime which Shari’ah considers to be a crime, and the perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge in a judiciary court, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.

Jang Group is master of Spreading Rumors.

ISLAMABAD: Terming the headline —’CJs express concern over judges security; threats from admin’ — of a news report, regarding the security related meeting, that appeared in The News on Sunday as misleading, the Supreme Court office, in its press release issued here, has clarified the same as under: “It is clarified that the above-mentioned caption is misleading in so far as it gives the impression that the judges of the Superior Courts have direct clear threats from administrative officials, which is not the true reflection of the issue discussed in the above mentioned meeting nor the press release issued in this regard refers to any such threats. In fact, the meeting discussed the security related situation in view of the purported information ‘emanating from administrative authorities’ in relation to the alleged plot to target the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Lahore High Court as mentioned in the report of the Special Branch of the Government of Punjab. “Unfortunately, your above-mentioned captions portray the totally different message as if the Hon’ble judges of Superior Courts are being threatened by the administrative officials, which is not the case. It is expected that an appropriate clarification may please be published prominently, preferably at the same spot on the front pages of the two newspapers in order to set the record straight.” REFERENCE: SC clarification Monday, September 20, 2010 Shawwal 10, 1431 A.H.

Watch in the video below, Abbas Ather reveals without naming that it was a newspaper (Jang Group’s (Geo TV’s) newspaper The News) which had first spread a false rumour about the denotification of the Supreme Court judges on 19 January 2010. Try to search that news item via Google. And lo and behold. There is actually a news story in The News on that date. But there is a small problem here. The story has been removed from The News website; most probably very recently. No plan to withdraw judges' restoration notification - 19 Jan 2010 ... ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief ...

Abbas Ather’s conversation with Asma Jahangir in today’s Column Kaar (16 October 2010)- Part 1


Why? The reason is simple. The Supreme Court has ordered an inquiry to investigate those who created and disseminated the rumour; the court has asked Geo TV / Jang Group to produce their record as a part of that inquiry. By removing a culpable piece of evidence, Geo TV / Jang Group are trying to play smart. Ain’t they? However, we have been able to retrieve the removed story (which was reported by none other than the Ansar Abbasi / Muhammad Saleh Zaafir duo) from another website [Pakistan Tribune] (which thankfully copy-pasted this report from The News):

Hamid Mir twisting the facts in Jang, 17 October 2010, claiming that the government did not refute the rumour at any stage; he is also adamant that the Jang Group will not reveal its sources Sunday, October 17, 2010, Zi Qad 08, 1431 A.H

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani refused to cancel the notification for the restoration of deposed judges more than once in last 9 months. The prime minister mentioned this option on the floor of the National Assembly some months back but many of his cabinet ministers advised him not to speak on this issue again because they thought any discussion on this option in the National Assembly might destroy the whole system, luckily sanity prevailed and then prime minister adopted the policy of reconciliation with judiciary. This reconciliation policy later never worked because government was reluctant to implement the SC verdict in the NRO case. Some close aides of President Asif Ali Zardari discussed the possibility of de-notifying restored judges not only with the prime minister many times but they also discussed this option with some top lawyers of the country and that was how this “consultation “became a hot story in the capital first time 9 months ago. This option was again discussed by some close aides of President Zardari on October 12 and after knowing about this development many well informed journalists of Islamabad tried to verify this story from different government sources but nobody was ready to say anything on the record.

However, off the record the government ministers are and have been involved in hectic whispering campaign to malign the judiciary and to give the impression as if it is divided. One federal minister even tried to sell the story to some journalists privately last week that more than 6 judges of the Supreme Court might differ with Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry in the verdict of 18th Amendment case. This minister claimed that some judges were in the “contact “of the government. When he was asked why government was trying to establish secret contacts with judges like the government of Pervez Musharraf did in 2007, the minister just smiled and said, “Only time will tell you that we are different from Musharraf and we will give you ‘shocking surprises”.

Another minister confirmed, “Yes, some people advised us to consider withdrawing the executive order as a last option only if Supreme Court decides to take action against the prime minister under contempt of court. He, however, claimed that there was no threat from judiciary in the evening of October 14 and said, “We don’t know why some journalists claimed that government have decided to sack some judges”. This story was first reported in The News on January 19 2010 by Aslam Khan. Again Mohammad Malick mentioned it as a “plan to take extreme measure of withdrawing executive order reinstating judges” on September 25 2010 in the same newspaper but nobody from the government issued any clarification or denied the claim made by a senior journalist who often meets the president and the prime minister.

Latif Khosa while talking to “The News “claimed on Saturday evening, “Nobody in the government thought even for a second to de-notify the restored judges” but despite his claims some PPP ministers and close aides of President Zardari are still talking against judiciary privately. Their private conversations with media are enough for understanding the “real thinking” and possible designs of their leaders about judiciary. After the latest jolt, the government is now trying to feed the media persons with all kinds of stories. One lawyer very close to President Zardari now blames some judges for leaking information to media because according to him the same judges were contacted by the PPP stalwarts. The fact, however, remained that none of the judges was there for sale and not even one single soul in the superior judiciary was ready to become part of a conspiracy against Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Caught napping, the PPP sources now fear that some of the judges, contacted by the government, might have informed the chief justice about the “attempts “made for changing their loyalty and therefore, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said clearly on Thursday in the court, “Media is not telling any lie I know that this story is correct”. Reliable sources are claiming that judges were aware about the government plan to withdraw the judges’ notification even before this story appeared in media and that was why they moved very swiftly. Another reason for moving swiftly was that the judges had past experience in their view when Musharraf imposed emergency and deposed judges despite categorical assurances by the aides of the former dictator that no such action was planned.

Upset with the situation, now the top aides of the Presidency have started giving new twists to the whole episode to malign the judiciary. According to many legal experts, the prime minister can give a relief to the whole nation by assuring the court in writing that government will not withdraw the notification for the restoration of deposed judges. It is evident that all those who were suggesting Prime Minister Gilani to de-notify the restored judges are now advising him not to send a signed statement to the Supreme Court on Monday. One “legal eagle” of the government said, “The prime minister issued clarification on Thursday night; it was enough now you cannot treat the prime minister of the country like a section officer”. Federal Law Minister Senator Babar Awan insisted in a conversation with The News on Saturday evening that the story about the cancellation of judge’s notification was “disinformation” but he confirmed his routine contacts with some judges as a law minister. He claimed, “Nothing against the chief justice was discussed with any other judge because I am not Sharifudin Pirzada, PM Gilani is not like Shaukat Aziz and President Zardari is not like Pervez Musharraf”. Meanwhile, senior journalists of capital decided that whether it is govt enquiry committee or judiciary, they would never disclose their sources in accordance with the established basic norm. They agreed that if they were called, they would say that they reported what they were being told by the government. REFERENCE: Why did the judiciary move so swiftly? Hamid Mir Sunday, October 17, 2010


No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification The News Tuesday January 19, 2010 (1035 PST)

ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, said an important minister. He was responding to a question of this correspondent about reports that the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)-led coalition government was planning to technically knock out the judiciary in a ‘democratic way’.

But according to sources, the tug of war between the Pakistan People’s Party and the judicial echelon is not yet over. The PPP-led coalition government is planning to deal with the judiciary in a ‘democratic way’. The defiance strategy focuses on the use of constitutional means to make the judiciary toothless and powerless, said a highly reliable source.

However, the important minister who was initially reluctant to respond saying he was not the relevant person to talk on this issue, agreed to express his opinion after told that no other official was available. He said such reports were totally false and whatever steps the government would take would be in accordance with the law and Constitution. He said a propaganda campaign was being launched against the government to mislead the people. He said there may be such a proposal from any quarters, but the government had never committed violation of the Constitution. The government has not done anything which may offend the judiciary, he said, adding every proposal is thoroughly examined by the Presidency and the Prime Minister House and there is no chance that such a proposal can find any favourable response there.

But according to sources, President Asif Ali Zardari has made the PPP to use democracy and constitutionalism as its weapons to fight back. Initially, resilient Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was also given a go-ahead signal on December 19, 2009 to make his allegiance to the president public after his meeting with Zardari. On the same day, the meeting of the PPP Central Executive Committee ended with a defiant mood. Heated speeches in the meeting considered SC decision “as part of a conspiracy”, informed sources said. The source also revealed that the appointment of Dr Babar Awan as law minister is part of the strategy to fight back judiciary with an executive push. Rescinding government notification and introducing a new ordinance protecting NAB beneficiaries are the options to be used by in coming days to put pressure on the Supreme Court.

Under the same procedural defiance strategy, another highly-placed source said the government intends to withdraw the notification of March 17, 2009 through which the deposed judges of the superior judiciary were restored to the November 2, 2007 position.

The source disclosed that by withdrawing the notification of March 17, 2009, the Presidency believes that the office of the chief justice will fall vacant, so neither any bench could be constituted nor could be any stay order issued until the appointment of a new chief justice.

On March 17, 2009, the Law Ministry had issued two separate notifications and Law Secretary Justice Agha Rafiq had read out the notifications in a press conference.

The first notification stated:

“Whereas the prime minister of Pakistan was pleased to announce on 16th day of March, 2009 that the deposed judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, including Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan, shall be restored to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007.

“Now therefore, the president of Pakistan is pleased to restore Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed chief justice of Pakistan to the position he was holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007. Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry will assume office of chief justice of Pakistan on 22nd March, 2009, after retirement of Mr Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan on 21st March, 2009.”

The second notification announced on same day stated:-

“The prime minister of Pakistan was pleased to announce on 16th day of March, 2009 that the deposed judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan, shall be restored to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007:

“Supreme Court of Pakistan: 1. Mr Justice Javed Iqbal; 2. Mr Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday; 3. Mr Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed; 4. Mr Justice Ch Ijaz Ahmad.

“Lahore High Court: 1. Mr Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif; 2. Mr Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry; 3. Mr Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman.

“High Court of Sindh: 1. Mr Justice Mushir Alam; 2. Mr Justice Maqbool Baqar. “Peshawar High Court: 1. Mr Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan.

“Now, therefore, the President of Pakistan is pleased to restore the above mentioned deposed judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to the position they were holding immediately before 3rd day of November, 2007. These judges will assume their office with immediate effect.”

The source has confided that Law Ministry will be playing a pivotal role in the new strategy. Hence, it was important to replace Afzal Sindhu with Dr Babar Awan as law minister. The NAB beneficiaries in the government ganged together in ousting veteran PPP leader Afzal Sindhu. “Muhammad Afzal Sindhu, a veteran PPP leader having the distinction of being a member of the party’s Central Executive Committee during the days of late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, is a respected lawyer and constitutional philosopher and was unlikely to agree to being part of this dirty game plan, hence he was sent to the Ministry of Railways last month,” the sources pointed out.

Secondly, under the same strategy the government will not take any step for reopening of cases in the Swiss court as was directed by the Supreme Court in its short order declared the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) void ab initio,” pointed out the source.

According to the source, had the government been serious in implementation of the Supreme Court, there was no need to wait for the detail judgment.

Thirdly, he said, the government has not appointed Justice (Retd) Khalilur Rehman Ramday as ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court as recommended by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Advice of the chief justice was shelved by Law Ministry.

The recent spree of aggressive statements by Mr Zardari and PPP leadership is in a wake of being not sure about how army may react if SC throws ‘NAB beneficiaries’ out in a bid to make Pakistan corruption free and ensure that corruption is rooted out of society.

They are confident that their aggressive posture will make the military to refuse abiding by the Supreme Court order in case Article 190 of the Constitution is invoked by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the source elaborated.

It may be recalled that Article 190 has so far been invoked only twice and on both the occasions, the military sided with the executive instead of abiding by the orders of the chief justice. He recalled that when Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had invoked Article 190 as chief judge, the-then chief of army staff Gen Jehangir Karamat had forwarded the court order to the Ministry of Defence for further process and hence the military defied the court order because Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif held the portfolio of the minister for defence at that time.

On the second occasion, a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had ordered the state machinery including the corps and formation commanders of the Army on November 3, 2007 not to abide by any unconstitutional order of Gen Pervez Musharraf. But the Army defied the court order and a new Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) was issued by Musharraf, imposing martial law on the pretext of emergency, which was also described as emergency plus.

The source said that top advisers of the rulers are currently weighing all the available options but majority of them believes that there is no provision in the constitution for the restoration of a chief justice and the executive order through which the judges were restored could be withdrawn anytime.

It is, however, pertinent to recall here that the federal law secretary, while reading out the two notifications of March 17, 2009, had said as all the deposed judges were reinstated to the position of November 2, 2007, they were not required to take fresh oath. REFERENCE: No plan to withdraw judges' restoration notification 19 Jan 2010 ... ISLAMABAD: There is no plan to withdraw the notification issued on March 17, 2009 for the restoration of deposed judges, including Chief ... No plan to withdraw judges’ restoration notification Tuesday January 19, 2010 (1035 PST) Breaking News: The News (Jang Group) removes its 19 January 2010 false story to escape legal action 16 October 2010




MUHAMMAD SALEH ZAAFIR, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT OF JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS/GEO TV & CONTEMPT OF COURT - ISLAMABAD: The 13-member full court of the Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted the unconditional apology of a newsman for filing a report pertaining to the alleged preparation of references against four senior judges of the said bench. Following is the text of the order issued by the 13-member full court of the Supreme Court after unconditional apology by journalist Muhammad Saleh Zaafir:

“Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, editor special reporting of daily Jang and The News, has entered appearance on our call in connection with the news items appearing in the Rawalpindi edition of the daily ‘Jang’ and daily ‘The News’ on 11th June, 2007, regarding some references being made against four senior hon’ble judges of this Court who, presumably also happen to be the members of this bench. The said news item appeared to be open to further serious exception because such a news item had been published, more than boldly, on the front pages of the said two newspapers on the day when the bench was expected to announce its decision on the maintainability of the petition filed in this court questioning the presidential reference against the chief justice of Pakistan. It may be added that certain insinuation have been made in the said news items pointing towards some alleged misconduct committed by the four un-named senior judges of this Court.

2. Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.

3. He tendered verbal unconditional apologies in open Court and also placed on record his statement to the above noted effect, in writing.

4. The regrets offered by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, reporter/editor, appear to be sincere and the remorse expressed by him appears to be genuine. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to proceed with the matter any further except warning him to be careful in future.

5. On our call, Muhammad Afzal Butt, president of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Union of Journalists, also entered appearance for assistance.

6. The reporting of the proceedings which have taken place in Court in connection with the matter in question shall be made only to the extent that the apology tendered by the said Muhammad Saleh Zaafir shall be published in full and so would be published this order passed thereon. The daily ‘Jang’ and daily ‘The News’, which have published the news items in question, shall publish the apology and this order, prominently, on their front pages. Muhammad Saleh Zaafir undertakes to do the same and has been ordered accordingly.”

Meanwhile, the following is the text of unconditional apology tendered by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

“I, Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, do hereby tender an unconditional apology to the hon’ble court in relation to the contents of the story that appeared in daily The News/daily Jang on June 11, 2007.

“I have been directed by the hon’ble court to submit any proof in relations to the contents of the said items. I would humbly submit that I have no proof whatsoever in relation to the matter discussed in the said story.

“I keep this hon’ble court in the highest esteem and respect. I can never ever think of bringing about a bad name to the hon’ble court or to any learned judge of the hon’able court. I would submit that I can never think of committing contempt of this hon’ble court.

“I undertake to be careful in future and am ashamed for the publication of the story. I would humbly seek pardon in relation to the grievous lapse. “I pray to the hon’ble court that no further action may kindly be proceeded in relation to the matter. I would entreat that my unconditional apology may graciously be accepted.” REFERENCES: SC warns newsman, accepts apology Wednesday, June 13, 2007  Reporter apologises to SC for ‘baseless report’ Wednesday, June 13, 2007\13\story_13-6-2007_pg7_3

REAL FACE OF GEO TV/Jang Group of Newspapers & The News International

LAHORE: Iftikhar Ahmed, the host of Geo TV show ‘Jawabdeh’, resigned on Sunday after the channel administration refused to air an interview with former Pakistan Television managing director Shahid Masood. The interview was recorded last week and was being advertised in the group’s The News and Jang newspapers. On Sunday, the Geo TV administration seized the original recording and declined to run it. Iftikhar Ahmed told Aaj Kal he was being pressured to censor parts of the interview but he did not compromise on principles and resigned. aaj kal report REFERENCE: Geo ‘Jawabdeh’ host Iftikhar Ahmed resigns in protest Monday, November 17, 2008\11\17\story_17-11-2008_pg7_34

Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 1

Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 2

Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 3

Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 4

Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 5

Real Face of Dr Shahid Masood Part 6

During the infamous "Sindhi Cap Fiasco of GEO TV" Kamran Khan lied through his teeth by saying that Dr. Shahid Masood’s words against Sindhi Culture were Unintentional. When something goes ON AIR you [GEO TV] better own it that these were the Real Intentions of GEO TV. REFERENCE: GEO TV/JANG GROUP: Lies of Kamran Khan. GEO TV/JANG GROUP: Sindhi Cap, National Dress & General Musharraf. JANG GROUP/GEO TV: Contempt of Court, Media Trial & EX. Senator Saifur Rehman. Former President Rafiq Tarar Sabotaged & Subverted the Judiciary.

The tailpiece

Correspondents of The News International/Jang Group/GEO TV often fight with each other

ISLAMABAD: Top constitutional expert and former chief justice of the Sindh High Court (SHC) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim has said that he met President Asif Ali Zardari before the hearing of the NRO case on the request of Chairman Senate Farooq H Naek who wanted to seek legal guidance on NRO and his meeting was never secret, known to everyone and he never gave any assurance to President Zardari on any possible court verdict. Justice Fakhruddin, generally known as Fakhro Bhai, has written a letter to the president and the prime minister to set the record straight after reports that President Zardari had told his PPP parliamentarians that a former judge had trapped him not to defend the NRO in the Supreme Court. Zardari did not name the judge but it was widely speculated that it was Justice Fakhruddin G Ibrahim. In his letter he said senior journalist Hamid Mir was also witness to the whole developments in this regard. Hamid Mir while talking to The News also confirmed that no secret meeting ever took place between President Zardari and Fakhro Bhai and when the latter met the former it was an open secret and was even discussed in Hamid Mir’s Geo News programme Capital Talk. Hamid Mir also verified whatever was stated in the letter of Fakhro Bhai was absolutely correct. The letter makes it repeatedly clear that he never desired to meet President Zardari and only went to the Presidency on the request of his old colleague Farooq H Naek and during the said meeting the prime minister had also arrived. The issue of Swiss cases never came under discussion. He termed the allegation leveled against him defamatory and an attempt to malign him.

Mr Ibrahim sent the following details of the letter to The News:

“I write to you with reference to two columns dated 28.9.10 and 30.9.10 in The News titled “Backdoor channels played key role” and “Zardari admits he was trapped, vows to fight on” authored by Rauf Klasra. In the said articles, Mr. Klasra cites an “inside source” and levels the following defamatory allegations against me”:

1. “At the time of hearing of the NRO case in the SC, a Karachi based former judge who enjoyed good reputation and was considered to be a credible person had visited the Presidency and secretly met Asif Ali Zardari. In this meeting, the former judge had told Mr Zardari that he should not worry about the Swiss cases, as they were closed transaction.”

2. “The former judge advised Mr Zardari to believe in him and should not defend the NRO in the court and he assured him that the judges would not open the cases against him.”

3. “Mr Zardari later discussed this judge’s advice with his top legal aides and Babar Awan was the only minister who had strongly opposed the idea. But Awan’s advice was ignored as Zardari tended to believe in the so-called assurance given by the former judge, who had also taken some drafts with him to convince Zardari how it was in his own benefit not to defend the controversial law promulgated by a military dictator.”

4. “Zardari was said to have commented after reading the explosive contents of the NRO judgment that a former judge had clearly used his credibility to trap him.”

5. “According to this former judge, the Swiss cases were already a “closed transaction” and the court would not touch it at all. Based on this broad understanding given by the former judge in the presence of the legal team of the top constitutional personality, it was decided not to contest the NRO in the court.”

6. “The PPP government was feeling betrayed at the hand of a Karachi based retired judge who had met one of the top constitutional personalities of the government in Islamabad.”

“It is obvious to all that the “Karachi based former judge” repeatedly cited in the above articles is a reference to me, as my meeting with President Zardari and also my candid advice in this matter is a matter of public record and the same was even acknowledged in Hamid Mir’s Capital Talk as far back as 2009. Therefore, there was never any secrecy with regard to my meeting with President Zardari on this issue.”

“For the sake of good record, please note that I met President Zardari prior to the hearing of the NRO case at the request of an old friend and former colleague, Farooq Naek, the Chairman Senate. My advice to Farooq Naek and also to the president on the NRO was clear: The NRO was indefensible and the federation should not defend an immoral law made by a former dictator. The suggestion that I appear in the NRO case on behalf of the federation was politely declined.”

Importantly, at no time have I offered any advice in relation to the Swiss cases nor has the same ever been sought. The Swiss cases did not even come up for discussion in my meeting at the Presidency. Therefore, the despicable allegation, “I assured the president that the judges would not open the cases against him” and other equally defamatory assertions that my opinion was meant as a “trap” callously made in the aforesaid articles are highly deplorable. Kindly, note that it is not in my character to proffer any assurance as to the outcome of a court proceeding. I have not done this in my near 60-year law career, and I have no reason to start now.”

“Contrary to the defamatory allegations published in the above articles, I did not meet the president “secretly” or to “convince” him. I met the president, because I was requested to do so. I never sought any meeting on my own accord. When asked, I stated my honest legal opinion on the NRO. Even otherwise, I have never made any secret of my views on the vires of the NRO or my meeting with President Zardari. At the meeting in the presidency, where many others including the prime minister and the law minister also joined in, it was the Advocate General Sindh who openly stated that the NRO should be defended. At such stage, I left the meeting at the presidency and was not contacted by any person thereafter.” “In conclusion, I regret that a newspaper of your standing and record sought fit to make the aforesaid scandalous allegations without even the courtesy of a phone call to consider the version of the person Mr Klasra so callously sought to defame.” Yours sincerely Fakhruddin G Ebrahim. REFERENCE: Karachi judge denies president’s defamatory allegations By Ahmad Noorani Saturday, October 02, 2010 Shawwal 22, 1431 A.H.

ISLAMABAD: With reference to the report, “Karachi judge denies President’s defamatory allegations”, published in ‘The News’ on October 2, I may be allowed to ask the honourable retired judge Fakhruddin G Ibrahim that why does he consider himself the only respected former judge of Karachi who could be invited to meet the president and advise on NRO or even offer a deal. Has Karachi no other distinguished person who could have been my ‘unnamed judge’? This correspondent had only reported that President Asif Zardari had told his partymen at the Presidency in the PPP parliamentary party meeting that a former judge from Karachi had met him and advised him not to contest NRO case in SC and that the SC would not touch his Swiss cases, as it was a “closed transaction”. Mr Zardari had further claimed that he had believed the words of this former judge but he was shocked to know the court had ordered reopening of all cases against him. Mr Zardari had commented before his party men that now he was feeling betrayed because this judge had trapped him by advising him not to contest the NRO. He confessed that he had made a mistake to believe in the words of this judge.

I have a right to ask Mr Ibrahim as to where have I misquoted President Zardari and when and where did I name him in the entire story. I could not have misquoted Mr Zardari in the presence of his big media team comprising top professionals like Farhatullah Babar, Faouzia Wahab, Farrah Ishphani, Jamil Soomro, Qamar Zaman Kaira and others. I could not have misquoted the president while dozens of PPP ministers and more than 100 PPP MNAs were present in the same meeting. After the story appeared in the press Senator Dr Safdar Abbasi who had actually triggered this debate on NRO in the Presidency was the first one in the morning to call me. Dr Abbasi said, “Mr Klasra, your story is 99.9 percent correct. This is what I had said in the meeting and this was the response of the president.” After Raja Pervez Ashraf, this is second case in which a person has volunteered to confirm something without being named or asked to. I simply followed the ethics of journalism by not quoting any judge’s name in my story as I will repeat not because I was afraid of someone. I did so simply because Mr Zardari did not name the unknown judge, who according to him had trapped and deceived him. Had he quoted anyone name, I might have used his name even in the start of my story and also took his version. REFERENCE: Neither Zardari misquoted nor ‘retired judge’ named By Rauf Klasra Sunday, October 03, 2010 Shawwal 23, 1431 A.H.

No comments: