Terrorist Lawyers of Pakistan.

Zahid Bukhari, counsel of Malik Riaz, was earlier barred from Lahore Bar Association. PHOTO: AGENCIES/ FILE - KARACHI: Advocate Zahid Bukhari and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan have been banned from entering all law bar associations in Sindh, Express News reported on Saturday. The decision to bar the entries of Bukhari – the counsel for Malik Riaz – and Aitzaz was taken during a meeting of Sindh lawyers, organised by the Karachi Bar Association. The Karachi Bar Association president, while announcing the decision, said that the step was taken to express support for the Supreme Court. Earlier, Bukhari’s was also barred to enter the Lahore Bar Association. The Lahore bar had also adopted a resolution assuring its support to the Supreme Court and announced a two day boycott from the courts. REFERENCE: Zahid Bukhari, Aitzaz Ahsan barred from Sindh law bars By Web Desk Published: June 16, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/394639/zahid-bukhari-aitzaz-ahsan-barred-from-sindh-law-bars/

Mumtaz Qadri, murderer of Salman Taseer, showered with rose petals by Lawyers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ7kO4fAE4A

Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the bodyguard arrested for the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, shouts religious slogans while being taken away by police after he was presented at a court in Islamabad. -Reuters Photo -- LAHORE: Lawyers showered the suspected killer of a prominent Pakistani governor with rose petals when he arrived at court Wednesday and an influential Muslim scholars group praised the assassination of the outspoken opponent of laws that order death for those who insult Islam. Mumtaz Qadri made his first appearance in an Islamabad court, where a judge remanded him in custody a day after he allegedly sprayed automatic gunfire at the back of Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer while he was supposed to be protecting him as a bodyguard. A rowdy crowd slapped him on the back and kissed his cheek as he was escorted inside. The lawyers who tossed handfuls of rose petals over him were not involved in the case. As he left the court, a crowd of about 200 sympathizers chanted ”death is acceptable for Muhammad’s slave.” The suspect stood at the back door of an armored police van with a flower necklace given to him by an admirer and repeatedly yelled ”God is great.” More than 500 clerics and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of the governor. The group representing Pakistan’s majority Barelvi sect, which follows a brand of Islam considered moderate, also issued a veiled threat to other opponents of the blasphemy laws. ”The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” the group warned in a statement, adding politicians, the media and others should learn ”a lesson from the exemplary death.” Jamat leader Maulana Shah Turabul Haq Qadri paid ”glorious tribute to the murderer … for his courage, bravery and religious honor and integrity.” Mumtaz Qadri told interrogators Tuesday that he shot the liberal Taseer multiple times because of the politician’s vocal opposition to the harsh blasphemy laws. REFERENCE: Lawyers shower roses for governor's killer AP | 5th January, 2011 http://dawn.com/2011/01/05/lawyers-shower-roses-for-governors-killer/

The UN special rapporteur urged the government to apply jurisdiction of highest courts enshrined in the Constitution to the whole of Pakistan since many could be deprived of their constitutional rights. She avoided elaborating her observation when asked, but said she believed that “a uniform legal system enshrined in the Constitution is necessary in order to avoid ambiguities and discrepancies in the administration of justice”. In the preliminary report, Ms Knaul said that the recognition of another superior higher court, the Federal Shariat Court, in the Constitution has created an ambiguity. “The existence of two superior courts in the Constitution is problematic and leaves space for interpretations which might be contradicting,” she believed. The UN special rapporteur expressed concern over cases brought under blasphemy law for which she used the term ‘so-called’ and explained that judges had been coerced to decide against the accused even without supporting; as for the lawyers, in addition to their reluctance to take up such cases, they were targeted and forced not to represent their clients properly. In addition, judges, prosecutors and lawyers working on cases related to terrorist acts and organised crime were also often the target of serious threats and attacks from various actors, including non-state actors, she said. As part of her mission, the UN special rapporteur paid attention to the integration of a gender perspective and women’s rights in the justice system, and expressed concern that there were currently no women sitting on the Supreme Court and only two women in the high courts. Ms Knaul said that she was further struck by reports of existing laws, such as the blasphemy law, being misused to target women and strip them off of their fundamental rights. Many stages of the justice system, starting with filing a case with the police, to accessing lawyers and appearing and testifying before courts, were gender-biased, and therefore impeded the full functioning of justice for women, she said. She expressed deep concern over the poor quality of investigations carried out by police service. REFERENCE: UN rapporteur calls for clear criteria for suo motu action http://dawn.com/2012/05/30/un-rapporteur-calls-for-clear-criteria-for-suo-motu-action/

US Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report 2012

LAHORE: Former chief justice Lahore High Court Khawaja Sharif will defend Mumtaz Qadri, the accused killer of former governor Punjab Salman Taseer, DawnNews reported on Monday. The hearing of the appeal against the death sentence of Qadri will be heard by a two-member bench led by Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman. The panel of Qadri’s lawyers including Khawaja Sharif, Malik Jawad, Malik Rafiq and Shuja-ur-Rehman, will be appearing before the court. Qadri signed his appeal papers today in Adiala Jail. Qadri confessed to shooting Taseer dead outside an upmarket coffee shop close to his residence in the leafy capital Islamabad on January 4. He said he objected to the politician’s calls to amend the blasphemy law. REFERENCE: Former CJ LHC to fight Mumtaz Qadri’s case DAWN.COM | 10th October, 2011 http://dawn.com/2011/10/10/former-cj-lhc-to-fight-mumtaz-qadris-case/ http://dawn.com/2011/10/06/mumtaz-qadri-files-appeal-against-death-penalty/

Former CJ LHC Khawaja Sharif defends Mumtaz Qadri in High Court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thEsyl9nT2I

ISLAMABAD: A reported statement by Lahore High Court Chief Justice (CJ) Khawaja Muhammad Sharif that the Hindu community was funding terrorism in Pakistan, irked members of the National Assembly, as many of whom joined minority members and walked out in protest. The lawmakers also demanded Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry take suo motu notice of the CJ’s remarks. Ramesh Lal, a minority lawmaker from the Pakistan People’s Party, raised the issue on a point of order and censured the CJ’s remarks, saying the Hindu community in Pakistan was as patriotic as the rest of the country and the remarks were highly uncalled for. Lal announced a token walkout and was joined by a few other members belonging to different parties, including the Awami National Party. He said the remarks hurt the over three million Hindus in Pakistan, adding the statement was against national unity. Labour and Manpower Minister Khursheed Shah tried to defend the CJ, saying he could not have made such a statement and might have referred to India and not the Hindu community. staff report REFERENCE: LHC CJ’s remarks irk NA members Wednesday, March 17, 2010 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C03%5C17%5Cstory_17-3-2010_pg7_6

BARELY days after the Punjab chief minister was caught playing to the Taliban gallery, another high official from the province is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. This time, Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif has sparked outrage for reportedly saying that Hindus were responsible for financing acts of terrorism in Pakistan. The remarks came while the judge was hearing two identical petitions against the possible extradition of Afghan Taliban suspects. It may well have been a slip of the tongue by Mr Sharif, who might have mistakenly said `Hindu` instead of `India` — nevertheless it was a tasteless remark to say the least. Although such remarks warrant criticism what makes them worse is the position of the person who makes them. These sort of comments are the last thing one expects to hear from a judge, that too the chief justice of a provincial high court. What sort of message are we sending to our minorities, as well as to the world, when the holder of such a respected public office makes comments that come across as thoughtless? The Hindu members of the National Assembly walked out of the house on Tuesday to protest the remarks. The members said the comments had hurt the feelings of Pakistani Hindus — and there is no doubt that they had. As it is, Pakistan scores quite poorly when it comes to treating minorities fairly. Remarks such as these put our already marginalised minorities in an even tougher spot, as the patriotic credentials of non-Muslims living in this country are put into question. Though foreign elements may be involved in terrorist activities within Pakistan, maligning a whole community based on its faith is totally unacceptable. Before making such tactless remarks, our public figures should consider how much they dislike it when others equate Muslims with terrorism. A member of the National Assembly quite correctly advised our judges to concentrate on the dispensation of justice in Tuesday`s session. In the meantime, one hopes that Justice Sharif explains his comments. REFERENCE:Tactless remarks Dawn Editorial Thursday, 18 Mar, 2010  http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32510

ISLAMABAD, March 16: It was a rare, judge’s turn to be judged in the National Assembly on Tuesday as Hindu members staged a walkout to protest at reported remarks by the Lahore High Court (LHC) chief justice alleging Hindu financing of terror attacks in the country. Some members of the Awami National Party too joined the first walkout against the judiciary in Pakistan’s parliament before the protesters were brought back to hear words of sympathy for the injured sentiments and some advice for judges to focus on delivering justice rather than publicity despite a government minister’s statement that the remark by Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif while hearing a case in Lahore on Thursday seemed to be “a slip of the tongue”. The protest was the second raised in the house over press reports in as many days after sharp criticism of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif over his appeal to Taliban in a speech to a seminar in Lahore on Sunday to spare his province terror attacks because of some shared views with his PML-N party. PPP’s Hindu member Romesh Lal, who raised the issue, said sentiments of an estimated four million Pakistani Hindus had been injured by the LHC chief justice’s remarks, as reported in a section of the press, that while terrorist bomb blasts were being carried out by Muslims, “money used for this came from Hindus”. The member said if a country was suspected of sponsoring such attacks it should be named, but blame should not be put on just Hindus who, he said, were as good patriots as other Pakistanis. While drawing attention of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to what he called worry caused to Hindus, he appealed to Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry to take suo motu notice of Justice Sharif’s remarks. As Inter-Provincial Coordination Minister Pir Aftab Shah Jilani and some other members of the ruling PPP went out of the chamber to persuade the protesters to return, party chief whip and Labour and Manpower Minister Khurshid Ahmed Shah told the house the judge seemed to be blaming India for financing the Taliban rather Hindus, adding he was sure a clarification would come “by tomorrow”. PML-N’s Rashid Akbar Niwani said judges should devote to dispensation of justice instead of seeking publicity as he also advised the media to exercise “restraint”, particularly blasting unspecified television anchorpersons who, he said, should also be held accountable for their earnings together with “heads of (government) institutions” as often-maligned elected politicians. REFERENCE: A judge is judged in NA, with walkout By Raja Asghar Wednesday, 17 Mar, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/44079

Policy Matter Imran Khan on Asia Bibi Case Blasphemy Laws (November 27, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU2KBkMvfj4

Lawyer slaps civil judge in Faisalabad FAISALABAD A lawyer slapped a civil judge across the face on Monday when an observation made by the latter in a case relating to a rent dispute angered him. Advocate Liaqat Javed had appeared before civil judge Tariq Mehmood and complained to the judge that a court bailiff had taken into custody his client Shehzad Mehmood, the accused in the case, although he had deposited the amount of default. The judge reportedly told the lawyer that he had not yet received the receipt of the payment. The remark angered the lawyer who allegedly started abusing the judge and the staff of the court. When other civil judges of district courts heard about the incident, they suspended work and demanded a stern action, including registration of a case against the lawyer. The district bar has convened a meeting to discuss the matter and suspended the membership of the lawyer. A delegation of the district bar association met the judge and informed him that the membership of the lawyer had been suspended and his case would be forwarded to the Punjab Bar Council for cancellation of his licence. Faisalabad bar president S.M. Iqbal, who met the district and sessions judge on Monday night, denied reports that some judges had resigned in protest against the incident. Talking to Dawn, he said the district and sessions judge and other judges were satisfied with the bar`s decision to suspend the Mr Javed`s membership and recommend to the PBC to cancel his licence. He said the judges would resume work on Wednesday. REFERENCE: Lawyer slaps civil judge in Faisalabad By Muhammad Saleem http://archives.dawn.com/archives/43878

Lawyers torture ASI in LHC premises

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qhfn9xTB4

Lawyer slaps civil judge in Faisalabad courtroom - FAISALABAD/LAHORE: A lawyer slapped a civil judge in a court in Faisalabad, a private TV channel reported on Monday. Liaqat Javaid advocate slapped Civil Judge Tariq Mehmood, the channel reported. The judge was hearing a loan default case. Javaid, lawyer for the accused, asked the judge to release the accused as the amount had already been deposited. The judge after thoroughly reading the record of the case said the contention of the defendant’s lawyer could not be entertained as no such receipt of payment had been recorded. This flared the lawyer up and he started abusing the judge. He rushed to the dais and allegedly slapped the judge repeatedly. Court officials and lawyers succeeded in rescuing the judge, who went into his retiring room, APP reported. Reacting to the incident, the Faisalabad sessions judge ordered all judges to stop working immediately and demanded suspension of the lawyer’s licence. District bar office-bearers also held an emergency meeting and decided that the judges would continue to boycott the courts until the suspension of Javaid’s licence, the channel reported. The civil judges of Jaranwala, Samundri and Tandlianwala tehsils boycotted the courts. They condemned the incident and called it a shameful act. Forty-five civil judges submitted their resignations to the senior civil judge and said they would not resume their duties the next working day (Wednesday) if a case was not registered against the lawyer for disgracing, misbehaving, manhandling, abusing, threatening and attempting to kill the judge. They said Javaid had committed contempt of the court. District and Sessions Judge Sohail Nasir also held a meeting with the civil judges and assured that their grace and dignity would be protected at all costs. app/daily times monitor. REFERENCE: Lawyer slaps civil judge in Faisalabad courtroom Tuesday, March 23, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\03\23\story_23-3-2010_pg7_11

Lawyer hurls a shoe at judge in Faisalabad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPtAVdgzZ28

Lawyer slaps judge in Faisalabad - FAISALABAD/LAHORE: A lawyer at the Faisalabad Sessions Court on Monday slapped a civil judge for rejecting a bail plea of a man accused of robbery. According to witnesses, Advocate Mohsin Nabeer appeared in the court of Civil Judge Azhar Ali Jaffari to seek bail for the accused. The civil judge rejected the bail, which provoked Nabeer to attack the judge. The lawyer slapped the judge, dragged him out of the court, and passed abusive remarks against him. Staff in the court caught the lawyer and handed him over to police, but some other lawyers freed him from the police custody. The lawyers also attacked some other judges, using abusive language against them. All judges left work in protest and gathered in the court of Civil Judge Azhar Ali Jaffari. Taking action against the lawyer, Punjab Bar Council (PBC) suspended his practice licence. The PBC Executive Committee chairman issued the order. The lawyer was also directed to appear before the disciplinary committee on March 22. agencies/staff report . REFERENCE: Lawyer slaps judge in Faisalabad Tuesday, March 20, 2012 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\03\20\story_20-3-2012_pg7_4

Judge stays away from court FAISALABAD, Feb 11: The Banking Court No 2 judge stayed away from court on Friday after some lawyers hurled threats at him for he had issued a contempt of court notice to one of their colleagues on Wednesday. Sources said when judge Mahmood Ahmad Shakir issued a contempt notice to him, lawyer Sohail Anjum called his colleagues to besiege the court. They asked the judge to withdraw the notice or face consequences.The police manned the court to avoid any mishap on Friday as the lower staff of the court was on duty. District Bar Association Secretary Haris Amin said the issue had been taken up with District and Sessions Court Judge Abdul Razzaq Bhatti and shortly it would be resolved. He said the judge got annoyed when the lawyer`s client shouted in the court. Judges and lawyers often have rows. Earlier on March 22, 2010, lawyer Liaquat Javed slapped civil judge Tariq Mahmood Kahot in Faisalabad which triggered a judges` strike in the district. On June 20, 2009, hundred of lawyers shoved judge Aslam. REFERENCE: Judge stays away from court By Our Staff Correspondent 12th February, 2011 http://dawn.com/2011/02/12/judge-stays-away-from-court/

Lahore High Court Terrorist Lawyers beating Police Officer outside a court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MO0BJzVVPo

Civil judges in Punjab rally against lawyer LAHORE, March 26 Judicial officers took to the streets on Friday in protest against slapping of a civil judge by a lawyer in Faisalabad earlier this week, highlighting tensions between the bench and the bar. The civil judges wearing black armbands marched from civil courts to the district and sessions courts after performing judicial duties in their chambers instead of courts. In Arifwala tehsil of Pakpattan district, four civil judges resigned to protest against the incident. In Faisalabad, where the ugly incident took place on Monday, 45 sessions and civil judges from all over the district are on a strike. On Friday, they went on leave saying they would not resume work until the accused advocate, Liaquat Javed, was appropriately penalised for insulting Civil Judge Tariq Mahmood Kahut. The Lahore High Court on Thursday issued arrest warrants for Mr Javed and directed police to produce him handcuffed on March 30. The LHC move annoyed the Faisalabad bar, which put its weight behind the accused and went on an indefinite strike, saying only the Punjab Bar Council was authorised to penalise a lawyer. As if this were not enough, the entire judiciary in Kasur district, comprising 30 sessions and civil judges, went on a two-day strike on Friday to protest against “the blackmail and pressure tactics being employed by the bar”. They also submitted to the LHC applications for month-long leave with a request to transfer them from Kasur. REFERENCE: Civil judges in Punjab rally against lawyer Dawn Report http://archives.dawn.com/archives/41810

PML N Lawyers Terrorising Police in Front of Lahore High Court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XdHn57Ifo

Lawyers torture police officer in front of judge IN yet another episode of hooliganism, a group of lawyers on Thursday brutally tortured a sub-inspector, injured him with a pistol butt, in front of an additional district and sessions judge in the courtroom after he refused to investigate a theft case as per their desire. The incident took place in the courtroom of Additional District and Sessions Judge Khawja Zafar Iqbal where Sub-Inspector Imtiaz Wahla was appearing regarding proceedings of a theft case (number 79/2012) registered with Quaid-e-Azam Real Estate Police Station by former Lahore Bar Association Model Town Seat President Qamar Shahid Mayo SI Imtiaz was the Investigation Officer of the theft case in which it was alleged that one Atif had stolen jewelry from a wedding hall located on the PECO Road.

The complainant had stated in FIR that the accused had stolen jewelry of her sister. On Thursday, the IO had to submit a report in the court and while submitting his report, he stated that police had no concrete evidence against Atif and his arrest was not possible. He said further investigation was under process. The statement of the IO flared up Qamar Shahid and his associates, including Sajid Aiwan, Tauseef Ulfat and 35 others. The lawyers while keeping aside prestige of the courtroom attacked SI Imtiaz and started thrashing him brutally. One of the lawyers even took out his pistol and hit the SI’s head with its butt, causing a severe injury. The lawyers also slapped the SI and took him to the committee room while taking him hostage. When the judge saw the whole episode, he left his seat and took shelter in his retiring room to save himself. However, a senior police official reached the court and rescued the SI.

It has been learnt that SI Imtiaz Wahla has registered a case against Qamar Shahid, Sajid Aiwan, Tauseef Ulfat and 35 other lawyers under the PPC sections 353, 506, 365, 342, 449, 448 and 186 with the Islampura Police Station. Later, the aforesaid lawyers also secured their pre-arrest bails from a court on submission of surety bonds of Rs50,000 each. Sub-inspector Imtiaz Wahla, talking to The News, said the lawyers had pressurised him to maneuver the investigation report and declare accused Atif guilty but he refused to accept their heinous demand. He alleged that Qamar Shahid advocate along with his henchmen was working as mafia and used to register fake cases against innocent people with different police stations. He said a case of the same nature was also registered with Kot Lakhputt Police Station, accusing the lawyer of registering cases and blackmailing people by using his law practice. It is pertinent to mention that it was the second consecutive day when lawyers subjected police officials to severe torture. A group of lawyers on Wednesday had tortured ASI Zohaib of Green Town Police Station in the Sessions Court. Meanwhile, the IG Punjab while addressing a press conference said that no one would be spared whether lawyers, journalists, politicians even police officials who would try to violate the law. REFERENCE: Lawyers torture police officer in front of judge Numan Wahab Friday, May 11, 2012 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-5-107572-Lawyers-torture-police-officer-in-front-of-judge

"LIE" with Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Last November, 30 of Pakistan's most influential journalists boarded a plane bound for Saudi Arabia. The occasion was the hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are expected to perform at least once in their lifetimes, if they can afford it. On this trip, however, money wasn't a problem: The Pakistani government picked up the tab. For months, the story of the government-sponsored hajj went unreported. The fact that reporters were accepting gifts from the government hardly qualified as news. Plus, reporters in Pakistan have an unspoken rule, a kind of omerta: You don't write about other reporters. Unless you're Matiullah Jan. Jan, an anchor for Dawn News in Islamabad, launched a new show in January called Apna Gareban—the name means "under our collar," an Urdu idiom that translates as "our own underbelly"—in which Jan investigates the conduct of his fellow journalists. On the show, he acts as a kind of one-man ombudsman for all of Pakistan, badgering reporters, ambushing them Bill O'Reilly-style, and guilt-tripping them on air for their alleged misdeeds—behavior unheard of in the Pakistani media. "This is a very revolutionary thing," says Mehmal Sarfraz, op-ed editor at the Daily Times in Lahore. "Somebody had to do it." REFERENCE: The Ombudsman How one TV reporter tried to reveal the underbelly of the Pakistani media. By Christopher Beam|Posted Friday, May 20, 2011, at 4:17 PM ET http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2011/05/the_ombudsman.html

PAKISTAN: International Commission of Jurists http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/pakistan.pdf The independence of the judiciary was largely undermined by the order by General Musharraf in January 2000 that Pakistani judges take a fresh oath of loyalty to his administration. In May 2000, the Supreme Court, reconstituted after the dismissal of six judges who refused the oath, upheld General Musharraf’s military coup of 1999, under the doctrine of state necessity. Pakistan is a constitutional republic. On 15 October 1999, the Government promulgated the Provisional Constitution Order, (PCO), No.1 of 1999, overriding the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, previously suspended following the 12 October 1999 military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. The PCO provided for the suspension of the National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate and mandated General Musharraf to serve as the new Chief Executive. On 20 June 2001, General Musharraf became President of Pakistan after dismissing the incumbent President, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar. On 12 May 2000, the Supreme Court validated the October 1999 coup under the doctrine of state necessity. However, the Court ordered that the Government hold national and provincial elections by 12 October 2002. In response, President Musharraf presented a four-phase programme aimed at returning the country to democratic rule, with local elections to be held from December 2000 until August 2001. Subsequently, a series of local elections were held in December 2000, March 2001, May 2001 and July-August 2001. However, political parties were prohibited from participating in the contests and party leaders were disqualified from holding political office.

"LIE" with Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday - 1 (Dawn News Nov 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eStDw-ZPOCg

LAHORE, June 27: The Lahore High Court summarily dismissed three writ petitions challenging the assumption of the President's office by Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf. The petitions were filed by Advocates MD Tahir, Amir Sohail and Hanif Tahir. The first-mentioned two argued at some length while the last-mentioned told Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday, who heard the petitions, that he had reservations about him on account of his pro-government sympathies but would, instead of seeking transfer, leave the matter to his conscience. Advocate MD Tahir said frequent military interventions, prompted by politicians and invariably condoned and validated by the judiciary, have greatly damaged Pakistan in all spheres of life. Advocate Amir Sohail submitted that the Supreme Court recognized Gen Pervez Musharraf as chief executive for three years and his elevation to the office of President was repugnant to the SC judgment in Zafar Ali Shah's case. Under the judgment and the provisional constitution order validated by it the country is to be governed as nearly as possible in accordance with the provisions of the 1973 Constitution. Mr Rafiq Tarar could not have been removed except by impeachment. Justice Ramday observed that the 1973 Constitution was in existence by virtue of the PCO as amended from time to time and dismissed the three petitions. REFERENCE: LHC rejects pleas against Musharraf's presidency Staff Reporter DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 30 June 2001 Issue : 07/26 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2001/jun3001.html#lhcr

"LIE" with Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday - 2 (Dawn News Nov 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG8nRV9B3Zo

ISLAMABAD, Oct 30: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it took oath under the PCO to preserve the judicial system, and due to its judgment in which it validated the military takeover the army was going back to barracks by restoring democracy. The apex court, responding to the statement of the Supreme Court Bar Association that arguing a case before the present judiciary was a futile exercise “as it had ceased to be independent,” observed that it reserved its right to take action against the president of SCBA, Hamid Khan, for his “disparaging remarks” about the independence of the judiciary. The SCBA had asked the SC bench on Monday to return its review petition as the bar was of the view that the judiciary, after taking oath under the PCO and by upholding various orders and acts of the present military regime, had ceased to be independent and no substantial question of constitutional importance should be argued before this court in its present composition.” The SC bench called the president of the SCBA, “Hamid Khan, contemner,” and said the SCBA statement was “motivated by malice, extraneous considerations and for political reasons.” In its five-page order, authored by Chief Justice Riaz Ahmad, the SC held that the contents of the application constituted gross contempt of court as it used disparaging remarks about the judiciary through the language which could not have been expected from the pen of the SCBA president. The SC asserted that democracy was being revived in the country and the regime would go back to barracks because of the SC judgment in Zafar Ali Shah case and the oath taken by judges of the SC (under PCO). “It is because of the judgment in Zafar Ali Shah case and oath taken by the judges of the Supreme Court that a time schedule was given and the regime had to hold elections and to go back to barracks after restoration of democratic institutions.”

The court said that in compliance with its judgments, elections were held in the country on Oct 10, 2002, and the process of transfer (of power) was in progress. The SC said that taking oath under the PCO by judges of the superior judiciary was welcomed by the senior lawyers like Khalid Anwar and SM Zafar. It said that those judges who had refused to take oath under the PCO did so according to their conscience and “heavy responsibility lay upon the judges who took oath (under PCO) for dispensation of justice.” The SC stated that its judgment, validating the military takeover, was universally acclaimed and had been described as a landmark judgment.

The court said it could proceed to take action against Hamid Khan, president of SCBA, but it was always appropriate to exercise restraint. “However, we reserve the right to take the proper action at an appropriate stage.” The SC said: “Unfortunately, some members of the Bar, motivated by malice, extraneous considerations and for political reasons or ill-will, make irresponsible statements to tarnish the image of the judiciary which is not at all in the supreme national interest.” The SC said it “strongly deprecate and condemn this attitude on the part of Hamid Khan and considering the contents of this application scandalous, malicious and irrelevant, we order that paragraph (I) and (II) therefore be struck off.” The SC said it had highest respect for those members of the bar, who have shown respect to the judiciary. By making such attempts the members of the bar were abusing the sacred elected office, it said. The court further observed that by taking oath under the PCO the judiciary had “saved the independence of (the) judiciary as well as the system of administration by preserving the Bar as well.” “Failing which the bar would have been replaced by all together a new system unknown to a civilised society.” It said that judges took oath under the PCO “in the highest national interest, and therefore we have deliberately not chosen to proceed against Hamid Khan in view of the interest of the institution, “but we reiterate that we reserved our right to proceed against Hamid Khan, contemner.”

The court observed that Hamid Khan knew that all the points which had been raised in the review petition had already been dealt with in the judgment, and the court would not allow re-hearing of the matter. The court said that knowing full well the consequences of the review petition, the counsel deliberately declined to argue the case “motivated by malice, ill-will and extraneous considerations.” The court said that review petition was fixed for hearing on Oct 28 when a request for adjournment was moved on behalf of Hamid Khan, expressing his inability to appear before the court on the said date due his unavoidable personal obligation and prior commitments. The bench assembled in the court to consider the aforesaid request for adjournment when, surprisingly, the court noticed the presence of Hamid Khan in the courtroom who came at the rostrum and submitted an application under the caption “Statement at the Bar”. The court said that it was high time that counsel like Hamid Khan and the members of the bar realised their responsibility towards the courts and the society. “If this state of affairs continues then God be with us and nothing more could be said about it. As a consequence of the above, this review petition has no merits and the same stands dismissed accordingly”, the court concluded. REFERENCE: Supreme Court says its verdict has helped revive democracy By Rafaqat Ali October 31, 2002 Thursday Sha’aban 24,1423 (DAWN) http://66.219.30.210/2002/10/31/top9.htm

"LIE" with Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday - 3 (Dawn News Nov 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvZE9384bOM

ISLAMABAD, March 1: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Irshad Hasan Khan, on Wednesday observed that when the politicians are in power, they try to become dictators but when they are out of power, they become champions of the rule of law. Presiding over a 12-member bench seized of the seven petitions challenging the military takeover, the chief justice directed the attorney general to provide details of the expenditure on holding elections, including the expenses made by the candidates on their election campaigns. The Supreme Court announced that it would decide the issue of maintainability and merits of the case simultaneously. The chief justice said the court had entertained the petitions. The bench started regular hearing of the petitions on Wednesday. The court first took up the petition of Syed Zafar Ali Shah, suspended MNA of PML from Islamabad. The representative petition of PML would be taken next and Khalid Anwer would argue the case on behalf of the party.

Other petitions before the court are of Syed Imtiaz Hussain Bukhari, Challenging the PCO; Fazal Ellahi Siddiqui, challenging the PCO; Shahid Orakzai, seeking restoration of Senate, office of speakers and provincial assemblies; Al-Jehad Trust, seeking restoration of Constitution to the extent of judiciary; and Syed Iqbal Haider of MWM, seeking validation of PCO. The bench consisted of Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri, Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar, Justice Abdur Rehman Khan, Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Justice Chaudhry Mohammad Arif, Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Rashid Aziz Khan, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq and Justice Rana Bhagwandas. The chief justice made it clear at the outset that the counsels should try to be relevant and unnecessary repetition of arguments should be avoided. He said the whole work of the court was suspended due to the present case.

Chaudhry Farooq, the counsel of Mr Shah, said that on the last hearing the petitioner had apprehended that the judges of the court would be asked to take fresh oath under the PCO and his apprehensions proved to be true. He said the PCO (1) of 1999 and subsequent orders were unconstitutional, having no force of law. The chief justice asked the parties to avoid mud-slinging, and added that: "we will perform our function without intimidation." He observed that the bar and the bench were integral part of the chariot of justice. He said his effort was to save the system and referred to the decisions of the Chief Justices Committee. The counsel said: "Pakistan was a gift of our forefathers, but unfortunately the rule of law had been interrupted at regular intervals. In its total life, Pakistan had suffered military rule for 30 long years".

He said the government in its reply to the petitions had said that the elections of Feb 3, 1997, were farce. The elections in which PML obtained heavy mandate were monitored by the observers across the globe, he said, and added the armed forces were employed to supervize the elections. On the court's query, Barrister Khalid Anwar stated that 36 per cent of voters used their right of franchise in the 1997 elections. Chaudhry Farooq said if the government of Khawaja Nazimuddin would not have been dismissed, the fate of Pakistan would have been different. He said Pakistan was created with the force of vote and not through any military operation. "Both citizens and soldiers are subject to Constitution alike."

Referring to Article 6 of the Constitution, he said abrogating the Constitution was treachery with the country. When he stated that the respondents had not replied to the Politicians in power try to be dictators: CJ challenge he raised in the petition, the chief justice observed that the counsel was trying to be hyper technical. The CJ made it clear to the counsel that notice of the case to the chief of the army staff was there. The counsel said he was firm believer that the Kafir (infidel) could not be a friend of Muslim and Hindus being Kafir could not be trusted. When the counsel referred to a judgment from the Indian jurisdiction, the court asked him not to cite Indian judgments in the present case. When the counsel started reading an old judgment from Pakistani jurisdiction, the chief justice asked the counsel to first read the speech of the chief executive in which he had spelt out the reasons which forced him to come into power. The counsel was still reading the speech of Gen Musharraf when the court rose to assemble again on Thursday (March 2). Politicians in power try to be dictators, says CJ Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 4 March 2000 Issue : 06/10 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/mar04.html#poli

"LIE" with Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday - 4 (Dawn News Nov 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Tsl0s93VA

The SCBA president said the judiciary should not act like trade unions, political parties and bar councils because such acts did not suit it. — File Photo - LAHORE: Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jahangir criticised on Tuesday a resolution unanimously passed at a full-court reference of the Supreme Court on Monday proposing an extension in service for Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday as an ad hoc judge for another year. Addressing a press conference, Ms Jahangir said the bar associations were showing resentment against the resolution. The SC judges had taken a political step by adopting a resolution for the appointment of ad hoc judges and the lawyers would also handle the issue politically, she added. The SCBA president said the judiciary should not act like trade unions, political parties and bar councils because such acts did not suit it. The judiciary was acting against its own decisions, she said. “The judiciary should do what it preaches.” She demanded of the government not to adopt the policy of leniency while appointing judges and said the resolution passed by a full court had no legal authority and it could not make the appointments. “But the judges should also think before taking such steps.” Ms Jahangir said she herself avoided uttering words which could hurt the feelings of the judiciary, but in this matter one of the beneficiaries (judges) also attended the full-court reference, which did not suit the judges. She said ad hoc appointment of judges could only be made in case of an emergency or shortage of judges. The appointment of a judge on an ad hoc basis would tarnish the image of the judiciary. Ms Jahangir said the bar associations would resist the decision when it came to the judicial commission for approval. She said she respected Justice Ramday very much for his one or two good decisions, but he was often found humiliating senior lawyers and litigants. She suggested that additional judges should be confirmed and the SC judges should review their resolution passed for the appointment of ad hoc judges. The resolution also proposed the appointment of Justice (retd) Rehmat Husain Jafferi as an ad hoc judge, who had reached superannuation on Nov 22 last year. REFERENCE: SCBA chief condemns proposal for Ramday’s extension By Our Staff Reporter | From the Newspaper http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/16/scba-chief-condemns-proposal-for-ramdays-extension.html

"LIE" with Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday - 5 (Dawn News Nov 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbmMnWkb858

The Foot in Mouth award is awarded each year by the Plain English Campaign for a baffling comment in English language by a prominent figure. The comment can be inappropriate for being queer in grammar or content or both. The English proverb after which the award is named, 'foot in the mouth', simply means a distasteful or foul oration. The proverb I believe is self explanatory. It further goes without saying that if similar award was to be given in Pakistan, despite tough competition from Chief Justice Lahore High Court Khwaja Sharif, the outright winner would be Justice Khalil ul Rehman Ramday. While all of his golden quotes can fill volumes, some select few and their apparent fallacy or foolishness have been reproduced here to impress his exemplary personality upon the readers.

Not few days ago,

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said in his remarks, " the courts had been left with no task but to pocket insults." October 2010

So sir, you do finally realise your public standing? Had you paid a bit more attention to serving the people of Pakistan than focusing on lynching their elected representatives day and night, you would be receiving some accolades, but since you are not doing so, enjoying your well deserved share of insults.

He also observed,

“CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was held by hair and dragged, but we did not take any action. Whenever such an incident takes place, a strategy is adopted with wisdom. We did not take revenge on anyone for what happened with us after March 9, 2007,” October 2010

Are you suggesting that in following the course of law you did me or the people of Pakistan a favor? The fact that why the Chief Justice of Pakistan did not get a FIR registered is another matter.

Another member of the bench, Justice Ramday said that wherever judges try to raise their heads, they are immediately showered with hammers. September 28, 2010.

When did they raise their heads? Can you quote one incident other than 9th March? Also, may I suggest that you refrain from basking in CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudry's glory, using it to put yourself on a pedestal.

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said: “We judges cannot sit as silent onlookers if someone is committing suicide before us.” 30 September, 2010

What?! Didn't you guys do exactly that during the eight year Mush rule? Yes, before your sudden awakening! When all the banks, flour, sugar and rice mills, stocks in power plants, PTCL, KESC and many other institutions had been given away in shady privatisation deals and stock market had crashed twice.

These two quotes both part of the 18th amendment case proceedings, in response to different arguments pertaining to the amendment with respect to appointment of judges.

Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday remarked that the judiciary was separated and detached from the executive, but now the latter’s role was being enhanced while in the UK, the executive’s role was minimised in appointments.

“Judge is appointed by the Senate in US. But here in Pakistan ground realities will have to be looked into,” Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday remarked.

So sir, do you think people of Pakistan are stupid? We are not ignorant fools, heads-I-win, tails-you-lose is not going work. Be ethical and pick a side.

Justice Ramday cited in a judgment that Article 248 came up for interpretation in Ch Zahur Ilahi’s case (PLD 1975 SC 383), which stated the scope and the operational area of the said provision as “...the immunity provisions must, in accordance with the accepted principles of interpretation, be construed strictly and unless persons claiming the immunity comes strictly within the terms of the provisions granting the immunity, the immunity cannot be extended. The immunity is in the nature of an exception to the general rule that no one is above the law.”

The matter was further explained thus: “Hence, since neither the Constitution nor any law can possibly authorise him to commit a criminal act or do anything which is contrary to law, the immunity cannot extend to illegal or unconstitutional acts.”

Okay, so the immunity extends only when you convict people for actions permissible under law, got it!

On the formation of a judicial commission Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said, during a hearing

‘Thank God that our ministers and bureaucrats are honest and angels. The sheer fault lies only with the judges; hence, they must be set right.’

No sir they aren't but the bureaucracy is not (directly) governed by the Constitution, hence their appointment was not covered in the eighteenth amendment. Seems you missed out on some crucial lessons at law school. As for the ministers, why do you question their eligibility, did you yourself not say in Court that it was up to nation to decide to whom they wanted to see as judge or otherwise. So why do you not honour their decision when it is not in your favour.

At a different date he further remarked,

The judiciary had rendered sacrifices, judges faced detention and hunger along with their children and had to let go numerous competent brother judges by way of the July 31 verdict (for taking oath under the PCO) only to save the democratic system. But, he said, the hands of the same judiciary were being tied.

Honourable sir, you with your fellow lordships suffered four months of detention in your house with your families. This was done at the hands of a dictator whom you strengthened and served unconditionally for eight years. For such support you deserve a minimum of life imprisonment. Moreover, while you walked hand in hand with the dictator, hundreds of politicians and political workers were tortured until they changed loyalties.

Should your logic be accepted why don't you give the political leadership of the country a free pass they have earned as per your logic? Each one of them has sacrificed more than the entire judiciary put together.

But above all his quote for which he truly deserves an award is his outright admission in the Court, ten days before the 3rd November emergency, while Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan was pleading the case of Justice Retired Wajihuddin.

“I am not ashamed if I had taken the oath under the PCO,” Justice Ramday observed. “We have made our country, its institutions and the Constitution a matter of laughing stock in the world.” He said that whatever ‘burble and verbal jugglery’ might be behind the changes made since 1977 in the Constitution, the country had been ruled under the Constitution.“But we sit here and waste days and weeks trying to understand (interpreting things).”

Sir, this was at the peak of the historic lawyers movement. You had the audacity to not only defend your oath under the PCO but also question why should you be ashamed. One is forced to wonder that had you been offered an oath by Musharraf again, would you have stood by Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry?

While, his lack of shame on committing treason deserves recognition, it is for his persistent shamelessness two years on that we award him Foot in Mouth.

Justice Ramday recalled that, "all the validations accorded by the judiciary were temporary in nature, but asked why the one who committed treason by abrogating the Constitution and the institution (parliament) which indemnified such actions had not been touched, but the judiciary was being singled out unnecessarily."

“All the subsequent abrogation and martial laws were not only accepted by the people but also given permanency by political leaders,” the judge regretted.

He said the 8th Amendment was one such example when the 1985 parliament indemnified all extra-constitutional actions taken by Gen Ziaul Haq.

“Why did the parliamentarians not stand up by refusing to validate Ziaul Haq’s martial law if the judiciary had given a wrong decision in the Nusrat Bhutto case?” Justice Ramday asked. He also cited the Zafar Ali Shah case in which the judiciary had given three years’ time to Gen Pervez Musharraf to hold elections. Mr Ramday in his desperation has forgotten that the eighth amendment ratification by the sham parliament was challenged by Benazir Bhutto in Courts as it was un-Constitutional for being even the house so elected was unicameral in nature. He has also forgotten the non-partisan elections of Zia, the low voter turnout and the suppression of people by the dictator. Both the eighth amendment and the seventeenth amendments were carried out by parliaments which were a result of heavily rigged elections, yet you would go to any length to deny any blame on your part. For all the above comments and your lack of shame in putting such thoughts into words, you deserve Pakistan's first Foot in Mouth Award. Congratulations!! REFERENCE: Foot in Mouth Award 2010: Justice Ad-hoc Khalil ul Rehman Ramday Thursday, October 14, 2010 http://green-goats-hide.blogspot.com/2010/10/foot-in-mouth-award-2010-justice-ad-hoc_14.html

SC takes suo motu notice of Karachi violence!

ISLAMABAD: With political forces struggling to contain outbreaks of extreme violence in the country’s largest city, the Supreme Court stepped in on Monday – taking suo motu notice of the continuous bloodshed over the last three months. The court has directed all television channels to submit related video footage within 24 hours. A statement issued by the court’s human rights cell said that notices have been issued to all channels. The cell will review the footage and then forward the matter to Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry for further orders. The suo motu follows an appeal by religious scholar Dr Tahirul Qadri, who wrote a letter to a local newspaper urging the court to intervene as the federal and Sindh governments have failed to control the situation. Meanwhile, in a first instance of a petition calling for the armed forces to protect civilians, Advocate Tariq Asad has petitioned the court to direct the federal government to proclaim an emergency and call in the armed forces to assist civil authorities to protect the lives and liberties of Karachi’s citizens as guaranteed in the Constitution. REFERENCE: Judicial intervention: SC takes suo motu notice of Karachi violence By Qaiser Zulfiqar Published: August 22, 2011 http://tribune.com.pk/story/236881/karachi-violence-cjp-takes-suo-motu-notice/ 

Chief Justice of Pakistan takes suo motu notice of Karachi situation

URL: http://youtu.be/1yk4Dw1AzMY

KARACHI - Police and Rangers have failed to provide security to citizens and the politicians of Karachi should stop their politics of extortion, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Asma Jahangir said on Monday while speaking to the members of the bar. “The country is in crisis from Karachi to Khyber Pakhunkhwa and politicians should play their role to restore peace,” she said. She said that the government is only engaged in forming useless committees instead of taking the required actions. “Rangers are only occupying plots and buildings of the educational institutions in Karachi and police leave their posts instead of providing protection to citizens,” she added. She said that the situations in Balochistan and Karachi are similar and this is not a matter in which the chief justice of Pakistan should take suo motu notice or army needs to interfere. “It is the politicians that can restore peace and harmony in the city,” she added. She said that the judges in the Sindh High Court and other high courts should be appointed on the basis of merit. REFERENCE: Politicians need to stop politics of extortion, says Asma Tuesday, 23 Aug 2011 http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/08/politicians-need-to-stop-politics-of-extortion-says-asma/ 

KARACHI: President Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Asma Jehangir has alleged that everyone was well aware of the fact that Pakistan People's Party's Aman Committee is actually its extortion-collecting wing, Geo News reported. Addressing lawyers at a meeting of Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA), Asma Jehangir mocked that allocation should also be made in annual budget for the extortion mafia so that people could be spared. "Get ready to stage a sit-in," she asked the lawyers, promising, she would join the sit-down no matter how tense the situation gets that day. The SCBA President said it appears as if there was no presence of law in the city while the "Rangers are present in the city only to occupy schools and colleges". She said the situation was worsening every passing day and that it would itself invite the army to take control. To a question she said people knew very well as to which elements were responsible for disrupting the peace of Karachi. REFERENCE: Asma terms Aman Committee as PPP extortion wing Updated 3 hours ago http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=21267&title=Aman-Committee-is-PPP-extortion-wing 

Monday, August 22, 2011, Ramzan Al Mubarak 21, 1432 A.H Updated at: 1750   |    

http://jang.com.pk/jang/aug2011-daily/22-08-2011/u79491.htm

ISLAMABAD: The man who has ruled Sindh as a de facto chief minister for many years finally lost his powers on Saturday. Brigadier Huda, who was an ISI commander in Sindh, was in fact the caretaker of the MQM-PML-Q provincial coalition government. He was responsible for running the coalition in a smooth manner. All major decisions were taken after his consultation. He resolved the differences between former CM Arbab Ghulam Rahim and the MQM many a time. Many provincial ministers even used to say “ooper Khuda aur neechay Huda”. The brigadier’s name figured in the power circles of Islamabad in the evening of May 12, 2007. Brigadier Huda was given credit for the show of massive government power in Karachi on that day. Initially, the MQM was reluctant to hold a rally in Karachi on May 12. The then ISI DG Gen Ashfaq Kayani also had the same opinion that the MQM should not come out on the streets when Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry would visit Karachi. It was Huda who played an important role in convincing the MQM not to cancel its rally. He assured the MQM leadership that there will be no riots on that day though he was proved wrong. He was supposed to be very close to the then Army chief General Pervez Musharraf. However, no action was taken against him. REFERENCE: De facto Sindh CM finally transferred Monday, April 21, 2008 By Hamid Mir http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=14221&Cat=13&dt=4/21/2008

The blasts in the rally of Benazir Bhutto on October 18, 2007 in Karachi were another failure of Brigadier Huda. He was responsible for the security of Benazir Bhutto on that day more than anybody else. However, he was not transferred despite his repeated failures. His downfall started on April 9, 2008, when many people including lawyers were killed in the Karachi violence. It was another failure on the part of Huda. The new PPP government in Sindh felt that Brigadier Huda was still having immense political influence. It believed that he was in contact with the anti-PPP forces. Many important bureaucrats reported to the provincial government that Huda was interfering in different departments. He was more interested in “political makings and breakings” than doing his security job. After the episode of April 9, PPP leaders asked ISI Director General Lt Gen Nadeem Taj through the prime minister that Huda must be transferred. It took just a few days and Huda was transferred. He was replaced by another brigadier. The PPP gave a message that it means business and it will not tolerate any ambitious spymasters. There are rumors in the capital that the ISI DG will also be transferred soon but highly-placed sources in the new government dispelled all these rumours. “The prime minister has the authority to change the ISI DG anytime but right now we don’t need to change him,” claimed a top PPP leader. REFERENCE: De facto Sindh CM finally transferred Monday, April 21, 2008 By Hamid Mir http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=14221&Cat=13&dt=4/21/2008

MQM on Asma Jahangir & 12 May 2007 Tragedy

URL: http://youtu.be/PrTxi2seSSY

Altaf Hussain Exposing Nawaz Sharif on Judiciary & Long March.

URL: http://youtu.be/ugtZ2K9qTps

KARACHI, Aug 29: The Muttahida Qaumi Movement and the Human Rights of Commission of Pakistan continue to trade allegations following the release of an HRCP report in Lahore on Aug 27 on the May 12 violence. Terming the report baseless and biased, the MQM has asked HRCP chairperson Asma Jahangir to desist from playing politics under the shelter of the human rights body. Speaking at a press conference here on Tuesday, deputy convenor coordination committee Dr Farooq Sattar said the report issued by the HRCP chairperson amounted to contempt of court as a larger bench of the Sindh High Court was hearing a case about the May 12 violence. “This is an attempt to influence the proceeding and the court should take notice of it,” he remarked. He criticised Ms Jahangir for her “mala-fide intention to malign the MQM”. Dr Sattar, however, said that a day before May 12, Ms Jahangir called at the party’s London secretariat and spoke to a senior leader, Mohammad Anwar, telling him that a conspiracy was being hatched against the MQM and there would be bloodshed on May 12. “If she was not involved, then how could she know about the conspiracy and bloodshed in advance?” He said the party had sent all pieces of evidence and details of MQM workers killed on May 12 to national and international rights organisations. However, it was surprising that the HRCP in its report did not bother to incorporate the evidence provided by the MQM, he added. He said the SHC was hearing the May 12 incidents case and any decision to fix responsibility could only be taken by the court. In a press statement on Wednesday, the HRCP said it welcomed comments and critiques on all its reports and in that sense the press conference held by Dr Farooq Sattar was not unexceptional. However, it termed baseless his allegations against the HRCP and its chairperson. “Reports compiled by HRCP are independent of all influences and are not initiated at the behest of any group or individual. HRCP believes in collective decision making by its representatives and those associated with the fact-finding process. All credible information is included,” the statement said. It further said: “Dr Sattar has alleged in his press conference that the MQM sent a bundle of material to HRCP regarding the May 12 violence. HRCP has received no such material. “He has further made malicious allegations of contacts made by the Chairperson of HRCP warning the MQM of a conspiracy against them through bloody ethic violence. This is also baseless. It is amazing that MQM found it fit to disclose such a scandalous fact only after the publication of the HRCP report.” REFERENCE: KARACHI: HRCP report on May 12 violence irks MQM By Our Staff Reporter August 30, 2007 Thursday Sha'aban 16, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/08/30/local7.htm  

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Asma Jahangir on Wednesday accused the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of having involvement in the bloody incident of May 12, 2007, in Karachi, and requested an independent inquiry into the incident. As many as 49 people were killed and many others wounded four years ago on May 12 when a deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry visited Karachi. Talking to reporters on the Supreme Court premises, the SCBA president along with Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Vice Chairman Latif Afridi announced that the legal fraternity would observe May 12 (today) as black day to express solidarity with those 49 killed. Asma said that on May 12, 2007, lawyers, journalists and members of civil society, who wanted to accord a rousing welcome to Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry deposed by former dictator Pervez Musharraf, were killed in Karachi. She demanded a free inquiry into the incident, and announced that on Thursday (today) the SCBA was convening a “protest meeting” at the apex court. The PBC vice chairman appealed to the CJP to take suo motu notice of the May 12 incident. REFERENCE: Asma blames MQM for May 12, 2007 incident Staff Report Thursday, May 12, 2011 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C05%5C12%5Cstory_12-5-2011_pg7_2 

LAHORE, Aug 29: The Labour Party Pakistan has criticised the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) for launching a propaganda campaign against the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) for presenting a report on May 12 incidents in Karachi. Party Secretary-General Farooq Tariq said there was no justification for the MQM to initiate a whispering campaign against HRCP Chairperson Asma Jehangir because the commission was a non-political organization which continued investigating the incidents of individual and state terrorism and issue reports. Asma Jehangir was a human rights activist and had nothing to do with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). Mr Tariq said the MQM had been irritated over the HRCP report because it showed its involvement in the carnage. He said workers of Labour Party and other organisations had expressed fears about violence when the government and the MQM decided to organise a rally in Karachi on May 12 on the arrival of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. He said that if the MQM had any videotape about May 12 incidents in Karachi it should make it public without editing. REFERENCE: MQM rapped for ‘drive against Asma’ By Our Reporter August 30, 2007 Thursday Sha'aban 16, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/08/30/nat43.htm 

KARACHI, Aug 30: A top official of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) said on Thursday that the organisation tried to restrain the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) from creating “mayhem” on May 12 when the independent rights body’s chief telephoned the MQM leadership a day before and advised them to avoid conflict during the chief justice’s visit to the city. “Our chairperson tried to persuade the MQM leadership to hold its rally on any other day and avoid the possibility of conflict. She did nothing else. The MQM leaders’ allegations against her are baseless and concocted,” Iqbal Haider, secretary-general of the HRCP, said at the launch of their report on the May 12 events at the organisation’s Karachi office. Referring to the recent statement of Dr Farooq Sattar, deputy convener of the MQM’s coordination committee, in which he termed the HRCP report “partisan” and said the report was not appropriate considering that the matter was sub judice, Mr Haider said that in fact the HRCP was assisting the Sindh High Court in the suo motu case pertaining to the May 12 violence. “Such statements do not befit those who attacked the judiciary and detained lawyers. They themselves committed the greatest contempt of court by not allowing the chief justice of Pakistan to come out of the airport. Their allegations against the HRCP contradict their own role,” he said.

He asked Dr Sattar to produce the “unedited version” of the tape of Asma Jehangir’s conversation with the MQM leadership so that the truth was told in its “real sprit” to the public. “The tape should be genuine, unedited and not distorted to let people know what she had advised to the MQM,” he said. Mr Haider said the report, titled “A City Under Siege: Carnage in Karachi,” had been submitted to all the seven judges of the larger bench of the SHC conducting proceedings into the May 12 events on Thursday. “We’ll appear in court on Monday when the proceedings of the case are scheduled to resume,” he said. Mr Haider said the investigations were conducted by impartial volunteers and prepared without any political influence or partiality. According to him, the May 12 killings had no precedence in the past because never before had the police and other law-enforcement agencies been asked to relinquish control of law and order and adopt the role of “mere spectators.” “The government failed to discharge its duties in protecting and safeguarding the lives of its citizens, and it failed deliberately,” he claimed.

‘15 million held hostage’

The report says May 12 represented something quite unprecedented in the history of Pakistan. “In quantitative terms the violence perpetrated on that day might find parallel only very occasionally. Well over 40 people lost their lives, and the number of the injured ran into the hundreds. But it was in qualitative terms that the events were truly without historical comparison. “An entire city of nearly 15 million was held hostage by people who appeared to be private citizens. The violence and the threat of violence engulfed nearly all localities of this huge city – in the east, west, north, south and the centre,” says the report.It says the escalation of tensions in the build-up to May 12 was entirely avoidable. The idea of a showdown between supporters of the CJ – who, despite the reference, was a serving functionary of the state – and supporters of a political party was “almost entirely artificially created.” “There was nothing inherently antagonistic in the two positions held by the supporters of the lawyers’ movement and the MQM that warranted any form of violence or bloodshed. It appears almost incomprehensible that large-scale violence of various types – roadblocks, ambushes, armed clashes, abductions etc – was meticulously planned and executed across the city, while the state security apparatus was effectively withdrawn.” The report says May 12, 2007 will be remembered as the day the state withdrew. “While the loss of precious lives is the most deplorable aspect of the day, a matter of grave concern from the perspective of institutional integrity of the state is the virtual withdrawal of the state’s security apparatus for almost 20 hours and the actual takeover of the city by armed cadres of one or more than one political party,” it says. “For some apparently inexplicable reason, the objective was to stop the CJ – a serving state functionary – from being received by his lawyer and political supporters. It is clear from the benefit of hindsight that all of the actions of the Sindh government – which was the main state organ responsible for security – were geared to achieve this aim.” The report holds responsible the Sindh provincial government and the federal security agencies such as the Rangers and military – “that arrogate and retain de facto and de jure policing duties in Karachi” -- for the gory events. “To this extent the functionaries of the federal and provincial governments and military and paramilitary forces stationed in Karachi bear responsibility.” It says that the MQM, to a great extent, and other political parties, to a smaller extent, have a case to answer. “All the evidence shows that these parties, particularly the MQM, acted like organised military forces, which mobilised large numbers of people to carry out acts of brutal violence against their opponents as well as non-partisan citizens. For this the level of responsibility needs to be more specific and direct than the one implied in the notion of collective political responsibility.” “The MQM, or at least its military organisation, bears the direct and specific responsibility for the majority of the violence. Residual responsibility lies with the armed supporters of other political and religious parties,” the HRCP report says. REFERENCE: KARACHI: ‘HRCP urged MQM to avoid May 12 conflict’ by Hasan Mansoor August 31, 2007 Friday Sha'aban 17, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/08/31/local1.htm

Way Back in 2007: KARACHI, May 12: Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain on Saturday asked Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to resign from his post for violating his oath of office. “Mr Chief Justice, you had breached the oath taken under the Constitution by taking another oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order. I demand that you make an apology to the whole nation for this act, tender resignation and then come forward for the cause of the independence of the judiciary,” he said while addressing a rally called by the party against what was described as political jugglery in the name of the independence of the judiciary.  Mr Hussain was of the view that opposition political and religious parties were using the issue of CJ for dissolution of the government. “This should be stopped forthwith as solidarity of Pakistan lies in a true democratic government,” he added.A large number of people reached M.A. Jinnah Road to take part in the MQM rally. Mr Hussain, who was sad and grieved over the loss of lives on Saturday, said that no untoward incident had taken place in any part of the city but with the landing of CJ’s flight at Karachi Airport the situation started deteriorating. “After noon when the CJ’s plane landed in Karachi, terrorists started targeting MQM rallies in different areas by firing indiscriminately.” He informed the participants that over a dozen workers of the MQM were targeted while hundreds of workers and supporters were injured. However, he declared that nothing could stop the struggle of the MQM for the rights of the oppressed people. The MQM leader said that the Sindh Home Department requested the CJ to cancel his visit to Karachi on the basis of certain intelligence reports but he did not accede to the request. “I believe now you [the Chief Justice] are feeling relaxed after so many people lost their lives due to your programme.” “Mr Chief Justice, kindly recognise political jugglers around you. On the occasion of your arrival, miscreants and enemies of the country killed innocent people,” he said. He wondered why the participants of a procession in Punjab to welcome the CJ in Lahore were raising the slogans of “Go Musharraf Go” instead of “Go Military Go”.

He also asked the legal fraternity why they did not hold rallies and demonstrations when former chief justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and other honorable judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts were asked to take another oath on the PCO which they refused. He said that MQM would support the CJ if he apologised to the nation for taking another oath under the PCO and tender resignation for doing an unconstitutional act. Mr Hussain said that opposition political and religious parties were jealous of rapid development work in Karachi. “Miscreants in the name of the independence of the judiciary tried to engineer Pakhtoon-Mohajir riots in the city but they will not succeed in their evil designs,” he said. He demanded that the judiciary be given independence and all institutions be restricted to their assigned tasks only. He asked the participants to disperse peacefully and not be provoked. REFERENCE: KARACHI: Altaf wants CJ to tender resignation By Our Staff Reporter May 13, 2007 Sunday Rabi-us-Sani 25, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/dawnftp/72.249.57.55/dawnftp/2007/05/13/local3.htm

"QUOTE"

Riposte to Ansar Abbasi by Mustafa Azizabadi: 05 February 2009 - A Riposte to Ansar Abbasi by Mustafa Azizabadi, Member Central Rabita Committee & In charge Central Media cell. MQM In the Urdu daily Jang of February 2, 2009 there was a column titled “Would Altaf Hussain participate in long march ?”, by the famous journalist Mr. Ansar Abbasi known for his research and investigative journalism. This column was a direct response to MQM’s Quaid Mr. Altaf Hussain’s address to MQM’s rabita committee Aonther Riposte to Ansar Abbasi, 10 Feb 2009

http://www.mqm.org/news-2009/feb/art-musaziz050209.pdf

http://www.mqm.org/news-2009/feb/art-mustafa-100209-part2.pdf

On Thursday, February 05, 2009; 2:44 AM….In the Urdu daily Jang of February 2, 2009 there was a column titled “Would Altaf Hussain participate in long march ?”, by the famous journalist Mr. Ansar Abbasi known for his research and investigative journalism. This column was a direct response to MQM’s Quaid Mr. Altaf Hussain’s address to MQM’s rabita committee in London on Jan 27, 2009. During the address Mr. Altaf Hussain put a simple question to Mr. Nawaz Shareef vis-à-vis PCO judges. that “what does the Charter of democracy’s article 3, clause (a) & (b) says about those judges who took oath under the PCO and if Mian sahib can answer this question then MQM too would diligently work with them towards the enforcement of Charter of Democracy.”. But in case Mian Nawaz fails to answer the question then it will be morally binding on him and an obligation to reconsider his decision to participate in long march. Principally & professionally speaking the answer should have come from Mian Nawaz Shareef. Alas it never came; nevertheless Mr. Ansar Abbasi took upon himself to issue a rejoinder. Peoples Party’s Shaheed Chairperson Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Shareef put their signatures on the Charter of Democracy (COD) comprising of 7 pages, 4 important topics and 36 articles in London on May, 14, 2006. But here we will only talk about the relevant points brought up by Mr. Ansar Abbasi, explained and deliberated upon in the aforementioned column. Mr. Abbasi says that COD’s article 3(a) explains the procedure for appointment of new judges and that Article 3(b) addresses the already appointed judges of higher courts with relevance to their oath taken under PCO. Indeed this is true that Article 3 (b) addresses the oath taken by superior courts judges under the PCO and this is exactly said in the COD that “No judge shall take oath under PCO and nor shall he take any oath whose language stands at odds with the 1973 constitution’s defined language for oath of judges”. Let’s read the exact text of the relevant Article from the COD. Under Article 3(a) it says “The recommendations for appointment of judges to superior judiciary shall be formulated through a commission, which shall comprise of the following: (i). The chairman shall be a chief justice, who has never previously taken oath under the PCO.”

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 1 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/LqdniTc8j2c

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 2 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/Zuv8Nn4EeSg

Ansar Abbasi in his column translates it as “The recommendations for the appointment of judges for the superior courts shall be undertaken through a Commission. This commission will comprise of following individuals.

1) The Commission’s chairman shall be a Chief Justice, who has never previously taken oath under PCO”. Mr. Ansar Abbasi himself mentions that “according to this Article Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) Chief Justice cannot become the chairman of this commission which has been entrusted with the task of making recommendations for the appointment of new judges. And for this any chief justice who in past did not take oath under PCO stands eligible to become chairman of this commission”. Our question to Mr. Ansar Abbasi when he openly admits that according to COD’s Article 3(a) Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry (deposed) CJ cannot become chairman of the commission that will make recommendations for the appointment of judges to superior courts and is not eligible for the task then how can he according to Article 3(a) be eligible to hold the highest and honorable office of the superior court? Knowing this reality in its totality and fully well would it be right and legal to demand his restoration?

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 3 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/0K4o__N5Fys

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 4 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/DD6o6VlFPUs

A very amusing point that MR Ansar Abbasi brings forth with regards to Article 3(a) in his column; it says “this sub-article has nothing to do with the current judges and that few people according to a well thought of plan are interpreting Article 3(a) in such a way so as to make the restoration of Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial and create confusion in common people”. But after explaining Article 3(a) he says “the authors of COD after much thought did not use the word “The Chief Justice” of Pakistan but used “a chief justice” since they knew that the chief justice of that time and those who will follow as chief justice will be those who took oath under the 2001 PCO”.

Quite strikingly Mr. Abbasi accepted the fact that in May 2006 this particular Article in the COD was specially included for the chief justice in office at that time and his brother justices who had taken oath under PCO so that Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry and other justices who took oath under General Pervez Musharraf’s PCO will stand disqualified for appointment as superior court judges. Moreover this is absolutely true that on May 14, 2006 when Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed and Mian Nawaz Shareef signed the COD, both the leaders had no clue and nor did the senior leadership of two parties knew anything or for that matter the leaders of lawyers movement had any idea that on march 9 a reference would be filed against Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry the sitting chief justice of Pakistan, that on November 3 General Musharraf would again impose emergency in the country and that judges would again be required by him to take new oaths under the PCO. As for making Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry controversial, it is those parties who are dragging him into political rallies and processions that are to be blamed. As a justice Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry deserves the respect and protocol that comes with the office. Sadly & with due respect the chief justices and judges of superior courts are not only and strictly prohibited from public appearances, attending or endorsing political rallies and agendas, but even barred from attending private functions of such nature. But the honorable justice thought it right to go ahead with attending political rallies and processions and let the exalted office of chief justice go to the street and let himself become a spectacle on top of being controversial.

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 5 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/NviAmAY1S08

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 6 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/Nw1pNj8EK9E

PML (N) leadership came up with the ludicrous argument that PCO’s mention in the COD is with reference to those judges who took oath on November 3, 2007. The question is that when the signatures were being put on charter of democracy on May 14, 2006 it was way before November 3, 2007, then whether PML (N) leadership got the premonition that on November 3, 2007 judges will take oath under the PCO? As per Ansar Abbasi if Article 3(a) of COD has no relevance with current judges or of any consequence to them then who are these particular PCO judges mentioned in the COD, since before January 2000 the PCO came in General Zia-ul-Haq’s martial law in 1977 and none of those PCO judges from General Zia’s time were present in the judiciary of 2007. Accordingly it proves that in the COD announced on May 14, 2006 the very mention of PCO refers to the PCO of General Musharraf introduced in January 2000 and those who took oath on it. The fact is that in the COD the issue of judges taking oath under PCO has been dealt with utmost seriousness and in Article 3(a) clause (2) with reference to procedure for appointment of judges in superior courts that it clearly says commission that makes recommendations for the appointment of judges, its members shall be Provincial High Court Chief Justices who have never taken oath under PCO. In case the criteria are not met then it will be senior most judges who will be members of the commission and those who have never taken oath under PCO. If in January 2000 there had been no PCO by General Musharraf and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his brother justices not taken oath under the PCO and provided constitutional protection to General Musharraf’s dictatorship, then it is our firm belief that in COD the mention of judges who took oath under PCO and their appointment would not have been mentioned as an Article in order to disqualify them. But on the contrary this would not have been an issue at all.

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 7 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/cQuoPA5jcac

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 8 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://youtu.be/55DO37260XM

Mian Nawaz Shareef, Qazi Husaain Ahmed, Imran Khan and their like minded political leaders, lawyers, Ansar Abbasi and others of same thought look down on the current Supreme Court Chief Justice Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar and judges appointed under the PCO after the emergency of November 3, 2007 and don’t spare a moment in maligning them and consider them unconstitutional. Mian Nawaz Sharif has taken the extreme position of not recognizing them and has not hesitated in using derogatory and uncouth language such as “anti-state elements”, “traitors” and ”anti-Pakistan” and keeps using it in public. We have one question to all the above mentioned personalities and with all due respect we ask if Mr. Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and other judges taking oath under PCO on November 3, 2007 in their eyes was a serious and punishable crime then Mr. Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s oath on January 4, 2000 under General Musharraf’s first PCO too falls in the category of a serious and punishable crime. Then why do they present this one judge who committed the same unconstitutional act as a hero and the other as a traitor? Was General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 was correct and in accordance with the constitution of Pakistan? If this is true then the Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman would not have said no to taking oath under PCO and would not have said that we have already taken oath under the constitution of Pakistan and therefore we will not take a second oath under the PCO. These were the true heroes of judiciary those who demonstrated strength of character and were brave enough to not to take oath under PCO and instead submitted their resignations. This most important chapter in Pakistan’s legal history went unnoticed by Mian Nawaz Shareef and by the leadership of PML (N) who are always at the forefront of all kinds of foul and malicious attacks on Supreme Court. Rather they never came out on streets at that time, nor protested or bothered to become champions of judiciary. Nor did the lawyers who are ardently campaigning for restoration of deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and equate it with freedom of judiciary ever bothered to come out at that time and launch protests. Neither did Mr. Ansar Abbasi custodian of the pen and freedom of expression bothered to come out and lodge angry protests and columns. The sad irony is that lawyers and those political leaders who are at the forefront of long marches, waving angry fists and raging in fury never bothered to come out for Chief Justice of that time Mr. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed, Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam, Justice Mamoon Kazi, and Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman. Not even a mild protest or statement from these lawyers was registered or launched in favor of these true heroes of judiciary. Why this dual approach and where was the civil society then? And what were the prominent members of ex-servicemen’s society doing at that time or were they hiding in some hole? Where was their sense of democracy at that time? Had Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry taken the honorable and brave step of siding with the judges who refused to take oath under General Musharraf’s PCO in 2000 then MQM too would have been at his side, as MQM’s demand and stand is principled, MQM questions as to why is only the restoration of the Nov 2 2007 judges being demanded & why not the judges who refused to take oath under PCO in 2000 and are true heroes who stood up like true men and should all be restored.

Judges & 12 May 2007 "Karachi Killings" - Part 9 (NEWS ONE/TV ONE 2008)

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYE0HPsrgXw

MQM strictly adheres to the principled stand that if Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s taking oath in 2000 under General Musharraf’s PCO is acceptable and correct according to Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like-minded then how is that judges who took oath on November 3, 2007 under General Musharraf’s second PCO could be illegal ? If one judge who took oath under one PCO is judiciary’s hero, protector and flag bearer of the constitution and considered champion of law then how is it so that another judge who took oath under second PCO can be declared as the villain of judiciary ? and one who abrogated constitution ? If the oath taken on November 3, 2007 by judges was wrong then how is that oath taken earlier in 2000 under the first PCO by General Musharraf by justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was legit and right in the eyes of law ? Asking to restore judges appointed under the first PCO and taking out long marches in their support and when it comes to judges who took oath under second PCO showing utter and abject disregard , calling them as unconstitutional and demanding for them to be removed is nothing short of blatant dichotomy in the character and logic of those who are espousing Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration. If the PCO of January 2000 was right and legit then how that is the PCO of November 3 2007 was wrong and illegal? If the second PCO was wrong and illegal then how can the first PCO be declared as right and legit?

Ansar Abbasi and his like minded political and religious leadership, members of legal community curse and accuse General Musharraf for breaking the constitution, twice introducing PCO, keeping both President & Army Chief offices, fighting elections in uniform and distorting the constitution of the country. Alongside they also demand the restoration of the judiciary of November 2, 2007. Basically they want the restoration of the judiciary whose Chief Justice was Iftikhar Chaudhry. For those with short memories let me remind them with great respect that General Musharraf’s takeover on October 12 1999 and his non-democratic step and his chief executive’s position was validated under doctrine of necessity by whom? In 2000 General Musharraf was allowed to postpone elections for two years by whom? Again in 2002 and in 2005 General Musharraf had both the offices of Chief of Army Staff as well as President and a constitutional writ that was filed against it in Supreme Court was rejected by whom?

Yet again on September 28th 2007 who gave permission to General Musharraf to fight elections in uniform? Was it the Dogar Judiciary as cynically put by Nawaz Shareef or was it the judiciary of November 2, 2007 that rejected the constitutional writs against General Musharraf regarding his Chief of Army Staff uniform, these writs according to Article 184(3) were declared as non maintainable and rejected by whom?

If Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his like minded friends and cronies call General Musharraf a dictator and usurper then who gave sanctuary and constitutional protection to this dictator’s extra-constitutional steps?

In due consideration and full acknowledgement of these facts and in light of this evidence Mr. Ansar Abbasi should sincerely ponder and seriously reflect as to whom is the true violator of the Charter of Democracy? Whether it is MQM or was it Nawaz Shareef and his political allies and confidantes who in demanding the restoration of PCO judges are standing accused of violating their own charter of democracy? If Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded political friends think and view the COD as that sacrosanct document that if its is not practiced then the entire judiciary, parliamentary system and democracy can be declared as non constitutional and can lead to the turning of tables on democracy and its lynching then principled approach and scruples tell us that if one has faith in COD then one should not talk of restoration of an individual who took oath under a dictator’s PCO, someone who provided full protection to the dictators extra constitutional transgressions. And if one only wants to talk out loud on the COD and not to practice it in spirit , then those who talk out the loudest on the COD should instead of long march go to the Constitution Avenue in Islamabad and burn this COD in the presence of public and in their court and to stop fooling people and pray for their forgiveness.

Would Mr. Ansar Abbasi exhibit moral courage to seek nation’s forgiveness for supporting Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry a person who took oath under General Musharraf’s PCO, a person who provided constitutional protection on many occasions to General Musharraf’s extra-constitutional steps? MQM’s leader Mr. Altaf Hussain sacrificed his party’s interest in lieu of the sensitive national security situation, the perils that democracy is facing today and for its survival in Pakistan. But is that what Mr. Ansar Abbasi would like to see that we put the entire country at stake for one person’s ego arrogance and his employment? Would MR Ansar Abbasi like to sacrifice the entire country, throw democracy in tailspin and put it to the torment of long marches, shutter-down strikes, chaos and lawlessness in these perilous times? Is MR Ansar Abbasi ready to back a long march and sit-downs that aims to destabilize the elected parliaments and to rock democracy’s boat and only to lead to have it trampled under some new dictator’s boots? Mr. Ansar Abbasi and his confidantes and like minded friends will for the sake of democracy have to select between an individual and our country’s democratic system. Is Mr. Abbasi he ready to do it? REFERENCE: A Riposte to Ansar Abbasi By Mustafa Azizabadi Member – Central Rabita Committee & In charge Central Media cell. MQM http://www.mqm.org/English-News/feb-2009/azizabadi-article07-02-09.htm 

"UNQUOTE"

"QUOTE"

Kamran Khan (Jang Group) Exploits Wiki Leaks "Again" - 4 (Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Sath - 07-07-2011)

URL: http://youtu.be/Dihm_9_7RS4

ID: 110728

6/4/2007 12:42

Embassy Islamabad

CONFIDENTIAL

ISLAMABAD 002467

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/06/2017

TAGS: PK, PREL, PGOV

SUBJECT: MQM FEELING WOUNDED

REF: A. KARACHI 0401

B. ISLAMABAD 02193 AND PREVIOUS

Classified By: Charge d`Affaires Peter Bodde, Reasons 1.4 (b), (d)

1. (C) On June 1, Charge met with Minister of Ports and Shipping (and MQM member) Babar Khan Ghauri to discuss the May 11-13 violence in Karachi. Ghauri said the Karachi violence had “killed” the MQM`s chances of gaining voters in Punjab province. The party was focusing on repairing its reputation in Karachi and Sindh.

2. (C) According to Ghauri, police and Sindh Rangers were stationed at key “buffer” points in Karachi on May 12, anticipating clashes between opposition and MQM activists. At around 2:00 a.m., the officers abandoned their positions. (Note: The Rangers, like the Karachi police, might have been under local orders not to intervene (ref A). End Note.) Ghauri reported that on May 13, after a phone call with Governor of Sindh Ishrat-ul-Ebad, President Musharraf ordered police and rangers onto the streets in Karachi. Ghauri also said Musharraf asked PML-Q coalition partners to maintain a public posture that would not cause undue political damage to the MQM. Regarding whether MQM head Altaf Hussain played any part in planning the violence, Ghauri said “No, absolutely not. We were trying to expand into Punjab; how would we have benefited from this?” (Note: Reliable Embassy and Consulate Karachi contacts believe that at the very least Hussain suspected there would be violence on May 12 and supported the MQM counter-rally in any case. End Note.)

3. (C) Comment: Ghauri confirmed what in-country MQM leader Farooq Sattar told us in a May 17 phone call (ref C): the events of May 11-13 in Karachi deeply wounded the MQM. Ghauri noted several times during the meeting that his party`s leadership felt “alone” and that they were worried the PML-Q would abandon them. Indeed, a number of PML-Q contacts privately tell us they believe MQM was culpable for the events, and the PML-Q should distance itself from the MQM to prevent damage to its own reputation. Nevertheless, President Musharraf and some other government officials continue to blame the opposition and Chief Justice for the May 12 violence. Given that much of the public and media believe the MQM principally responsible for the violence, Musharraf`s position could exacerbate his political problems. End Comment. BODDE REFERENCE: 2007: Babar Ghauri said May 12 violence killed MQM`s chances in Punjab http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/31/2007-babar-ghauri-said-may-12-violence-killed-mqm-s-chances-in-punjab-2.html 

"UNQUOTE"