Showing posts with label The Law of Necessity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Law of Necessity. Show all posts

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Two Offices: Judiciary, General Pervez Musharraf & Asif Ali Zardari.

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Wednesday ordered President Asif Ali Zardari to relinquish his post as co-chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) before September 5, DawnNews reported. The court has completed the proceedings on petitions of contempt of court, filed against the president for holding dual posts. A three-member larger bench headed by, Chief Justice of Lahore High court, Justice Umar Atta Bandial, was hearing the case. Various lawyers presented their arguments and said that the president should follow the court’s orders. The chief justice responded to the arguments and said that the issue under consideration has constitutional importance and the verdict will also be in accordance with the constitution of Pakistan. He further added that court has provided the president with ample time to resign from his post as the co-chairperson of the PPP and suspend all political activities in the Presidency before September 5. REFERENCE: LHC orders Zardari to relinquish PPP office before Sept 5 http://dawn.com/2012/06/27/presidents-contempt-of-court-hearing-adjourned/


2012: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms Gabriela Knaul: I am worried by the number and nature of reported cases of serious threats and attacks of judges. Physical security is an essential condition for judges to be able to carry out their duties without hindrance or interferences. I encourage the Government to consider setting up a special system of protection for judges in consultation with professional bodies and other associations of judges. I would like to commend the use of inherent powers of the Supreme Court in recent cases related to gross human rights violations, for instance in the case of enforced disappearance referred to as “missing persons” in Balochistan. I believe that by using this procedure in some cases, the Supreme Court is upholding human rights law and contributing to combating impunity. However, I am concerned by the lack of clear criteria guiding the use of suo moto, which can undermine its own nature and may jeopardize other pending cases from being timely considered by the Supreme Court. REFERENCE: United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Ms Gabriela KNAUL, Preliminary observations on the official visit to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Islamabad, 29 May 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12194&LangID=E
2011: LHC tells President Zardari to curtail political activities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWwPhn9B2Yc


The News International 2007: Musharraf gets new lease of life, thanks to MMA Rauf Klasra Saturday, September 29, 2007 ISLAMABAD: The three-year-old political sins of top MMA leaders have once again given a second lease of political life to General Pervez Musharraf at a very crucial phase, as the infamous 17th Amendment becomes the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a uniformed president to get himself re-elected for the next five years from the present assemblies. For many, the most-important thing is that the verdict of the Supreme Court has justified the recent claim of Musharraf that he had made with a lot of pride and arrogance in his choking voice that “let the agitators do their job, he would have the last laugh”. Likewise, the government’s prediction that it would win the case with a majority also turned out to be right. Meanwhile, the critical role of the MMA in facilitating the rule of Musharraf in uniform is so definite and irritating that during the two-week-long proceedings on the case, some judges did not forget to remind the religious parties about their ‘deeds’. It is now widely believed in the political circles that the MMA would go down in the history as a force which used political Islam not only to validate the rule of General Musharraf since October 12, 1999, but also helped him to become president in uniform first after the general election in 2002 and now in 2007 by providing legal and constitutional excuses to the Supreme Court to extend a favourable decision to a military general.

One political observer said that if Musharraf gets himself re-elected as the president on October 6, it would be only because of the MMA leaders who had decided to vote in favour of 17th Amendment after striking a deal with a uniformed general and distorted the Constitution of 1973. Likewise, General Musharraf once again would be feeling grateful to the MMA leaders, particularly Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, whose single act not only gave him the crucial support when he needed it most, but it continued to yield results when he once again needed it. At the time of passage of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) in 2004 after the MMA leaders decided to betray the political forces engaged in desperate struggle against the rule of Musharraf, it was widely assumed that it might be only one-time “political sin” of the MMA leaders. But, now the SC verdict on Friday confirms the wild doubts of critics of the MMA that the country would continue to suffer from the havoc created by the decision of Qazi and Fazl.

The MMA, nicked named as a “B team” of General Musharraf, had given a false impression after the 2002 elections that it would fight for the supremacy of the Parliament when President Musharraf would push his LFO for approval from the Legislature. In the absence of two former prime ministers – Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto – Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Fazlur Rehman simply hijacked the agitation movement of the opposition parties to oppose Musharraf and his LFO in the Parliament. The movement became so aggressive and popular in nature that at one stage, it emerged that Musharraf might yield to the rising political power of these forces. The international media and community were also giving serious attention to the political turmoil in Pakistan amid the rising pressure from the Commonwealth and the European Union on Musharraf to get legitimacy from the Parliament or he might lose their vital support.

The agitation movement within and outside the Parliament against the LFO was so effective that it crippled the Jamali government. At that time, Musharraf appointed two of his top and trusted generals, Maj Gen Zaki and Maj Gen Ehtasham Zamir, assisted by S M Zafar, to negotiate a secret deal with the MMA. Qazi, Fazl and Liaquat Baloch started meeting these generals late nights. Finally, a deal was brokered between the generals and the MMA, which exclusively benefited both the parties. The first reward was the continuation of the MMA-led NWFP government, share in the Balochistan cabinet and slot of the Opposition Leader in the National Assembly. Likewise, the MMA also got the references against its MPs blocked after certain forces tried to get them disqualified on account of educational qualification. After initial dents in its lost credibility, the MMA leaders once again revived their political credentials when they used Nawaz Sharif who, too easily, accepted their role as a major opposition when he started giving them more importance despite being partners of Musharraf in the government.

The MMA got the real boost as a major opposition alliance, despite being part of Musharraf regime, when Nawaz Sharif gave them importance at London during the All Parties Conference and later formed an alliance with them. But, soon Nawaz realised that he was only being used by smart and shrewd politicians of the MMA to defuse his rising popularity as none of them turned up at the Islamabad airport on September 10 to receive him. It is interesting to note that the MMA leaders are so smart that they have not only been facilitating Musharraf in power but they have also been successfully acting as the real opposition to the regime. When contacted by The News, MNA Liaquat Baloch did not agree with the conclusion that the religio-political alliance was actually responsible for the continuation of Musharraf rule. He said the 17th Amendment had given benefits to all the parties, including all the women parliamentarians, minorities and other segments. He said that under the agreement with Musharraf, he was to take off his uniform by December 31, 2004, but he backed out. Likewise, the MMA leader said Musharraf was given concession only for one term and now he was allowed to contest the election in uniform without any valid justification. He said the doctrine of necessity was once again revived and the MMA should not be blamed at all. “What is our fault,” Baloch put a counter question. REFERENCE: Musharraf gets new lease of life, thanks to MMA Rauf Klasra Saturday, September 29, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10367&Cat=13&dt=9/29/2007

2007: Ahmed Quraishi in Worldview from Islamabad Judiciary and Musharraf's Election




Daily Dawn 2007: The day of the General: •Musharraf to run for president in uniform •Petitioners, lawyers’ leaders livid By Nasir Iqbal September 29, 2007 ISLAMABAD, Sept 28: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed on technical grounds petitions against Gen Pervez Musharraf holding two offices, giving a legal boost to the president to contest the election for the second term in uniform. It was a majority (six-three) verdict by a nine-member bench headed by Justice Rana Bhagwandas. The bench threw out the petitions challenging the dual offices of the army chief and the president held by Gen Musharraf, declaring that these were not maintainable. In other words, the merit of the cases which had been debated for two weeks along with the issue of maintainability, became irrelevant as the majority of judges dismissed the challenge by declaring that the petitions could not be entertained at this forum. After suffering a series of setbacks from the superior judiciary over the past few months, such as the restoration of the chief justice, acceptance of Nawaz Sharif’s right to return from exile and bail to Javed Hashmi, President Musharraf received the first good news from the Supreme Court. Government supporters termed the verdict a ‘great victory’ and said the day clearly belonged to Gen Musharraf. The verdict received an immediate adverse reaction inside the packed courtroom the moment the bench rose for the day. Though the short order was heard in pin drop silence by scores of lawyers and some political leaders, the courtroom echoed with slogans of ‘shame, shame’ and ‘go Musharraf go’ which later turned into real protest as lawyers and supporters of the petitioners walked out to join a much bigger crowd. Some of the lawyers described the judgment as revival of the doctrine of necessity in the country’s chequered judicial history. Former vice-chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council Ali Ahmed Kurd asked lawyers to lay siege to the Election Commission on Saturday -- the day of scrutiny of nomination papers of the presidential candidates. “For reasons to be recorded later, as per majority view of 6 to 3, the petitions are held to be not maintainable within the contemplation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution (court’s original jurisdiction under the fundamental rights),” the judgment announced by Justice Rana Bhagwandas said. “As per minority view of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, all these petitions are held to be maintainable under Article 184(3) and hereby accepted. As per majority view these petitions are hereby dismissed as not maintainable,” he said. Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum appreciated the judgment and said it was a correct decision and the dissent in the bench reflected that judges had applied their independent mind. Soon after the verdict, police escorted president’s counsel Sharifuddin Pirzada and the AG out of the courtroom to ensure their security from the wrath of a furious crowd outside. Reacting to the judgment, PML (N) acting president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi said the infamous doctrine of necessity, under which all military rules had been validated by the apex court, was still continuing. “We thought the judiciary has become totally independent, but this impression proved to be wrong,” he deplored. He announced that a campaign would be launched against the regime and for complete independence of the judiciary. MMA parliamentarian Farid Paracha said the judgment did not reflect the aspiration of the people, rather it strengthened the rule of a military dictator. He said the people of Pakistan had rejected it, adding that the MMA would file a review petition. He said that the struggle for restoration of genuine democracy in the country would be intensified. Supreme Court Bar Association president Munir A. Malik said it was not a verdict which had been unexpected. “Though the July 20 judgment of restoring Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was a step ahead, we still have a long way to go for complete independence of the judiciary. Although the judgment is disappointing, our battle is not over,” he added. He said the three dissenting judges would always be remembered as Justice A.R. Cornelius and added that history would record its own conclusion regarding the other six judges. Senior Advocate Hamid Khan said judges had abdicated their jurisdiction in deciding the matter, adding that the order was a continuation of the Tameezuddin and Dosso cases (in which the concept of the doctrine of necessity was introduced). However, he said, the judgment would not dampen lawyers’ struggle which would continue till the end of dictatorship. Advocate Akram Sheikh said that by dismissing the petitions under the cover of technicality, the Supreme Court had resurrected the infamous decision in the Maulvi Tameezuddin case dismissing the petition on technical grounds. He said he had been asked by his client (Jamaat-i-Islami) to move a review petition against the decision which he would file on Monday. Earlier, Advocate Akram in his arguments before the court emphasised that it was the duty of the court to scrap the uniform of President Musharraf because it had allowed him to keep the uniform. Any validation by the court, he said, would not be accepted. Advocate Hamid Khan said President Musharraf’s holding of two offices derogated the constitutional provision of equality before the law because he was holding the gun. A.K. Dogar said that Article 63(1-d) allowed President Musharraf to hold one office, but the President to Hold Another Office dealt with the dual-office law which was against constitutional provisions. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, appearing as amicus curiae, said: “We as a nation have reached the final stage of transition where there is an opportunity to all candidates for the presidential election that they would enter upon the office of the president as civilians.” REFERENCE: The day of the General: •Musharraf to run for president in uniform •Petitioners, lawyers’ leaders livid By Nasir Iqbal September 29, 2007 Saturday Ramazan 16, 1428 http://archives.dawn.com/2007/09/29/top1.htm





2011: LHC asks Zardari to stop political activities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZtaobA6tGI


The News International 2007: SC saves the day for Musharraf Sohail Ahmed Saturday, September 29, 2007 ISLAMABAD: A larger bench of the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed as not maintainable six identical petitions challenging the dual office held by President General Pervez Musharraf. The verdict, according to observers, gave a new lease of life to the president. “For reasons to be recorded later, as per majority view of six to three, these petitions are held to be not maintainable with the contemplation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution,” said Justice Rana Bhagwandas, heading the nine-member SC bench, while announcing the verdict in a short order in a jam-packed courtroom here. The court also disallowed the petition filed by Professor Dr Anwarul Haq seeking permission to contest the presidential election despite being in service of Pakistan. Six judges on the bench – Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice Falak Sher and Justice Javed M Buttar – declared that the petitions are non-maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. However, the three other judges on the bench – Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan – favoured the petitions as maintainable. The short order reads that as per the minority view of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, all the petitions are held to be maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and are hereby accepted.

The constitutional petition No 63 of 2007 of Dr Anwarul Haq versus the Federation of Pakistan and another are disallowed to the extent of seeking permission to contest the election to the office of president, says the order, adding that as per the majority view, these petitions are hereby dismissed as non-maintainable. The Jamaat-e-Islami, through its Ameer, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, had filed two petitions in the apex court while Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan and Pakistan Communist Party chief Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik had filed identical petitions challenging the dual office of the president and his candidature for the presidential election. The Pakistan Lawyers Forum had also filed a review petition challenging the 17th Amendment while Dr Anwarul Haq had filed a petition seeking permission to contest the presidential election being in service.

Soon after the announcement of the judgment, a large number of lawyers present in the courtroom expressed their resentment at the verdict and chanted “Shame”, “Shame” and raised slogans against the government lawyers as well as Attorney-General Malik Qayyum and Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who was appointed by the court as amicus curiae. “The decision is the continuation of the past judgments given by the apex court in cases of Maulvi Tameezuddin, Begum Nusrat Bhutto and Syed Zafar Ali Shah,” Hamid Khan, counsel for the petitioners, Imran Khan and Qazi Hussain Ahmed, told reporters after the verdict.

“The verdict has no doubt revised the decisions made by the apex court during the past 50 years which were made on technicalities instead of merit,” Hamid Khan added. However, he expressed his determination that they would continue their struggle for the independence of the judiciary. “We were of the view that the judiciary got independence after the historic verdict on July 20 this year; however, today we came to know that we were at fault,” Khan said. Ali Ahmed Kurd, former vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, “rejected” the verdict and said that the judges could not digest the honour and pride given to this prestigious building on July 20 this year.

“This is not a verdict but a dictation, taken by the six judges and we don’t accept it,” Kurd said. He said today’s verdict refreshed the doctrine of necessity. Kurd, however, appealed to the people belonging to all walks of life to reach the Election Commission today (Saturday) and strengthen the hands of the legal fraternity.“I appeal to all the people, even (those) who cannot walk or see should come to the EC with black flags and extend their support to the lawyers,” he said. Earlier, after hearing the concluding arguments of Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, an amicus curiae, as well as of counsel for the petitioners, Hamid Khan, A K Dogar and Muhammad Akram Sheikh, the court had announced that the verdict of the identical petitions would be announced at 2.15 pm. However, it gave the verdict at 3.30 pm. Amicus curiae Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, continuing his arguments, submitted that under the Constitution qualification and disqualification for the election of the president have been defined in a separate Article; therefore, disqualification under Article 63 could not be applied to the president.

He further contended that once he is elected as president, his election cannot be challenged and he can be removed only through the process of impeachment. Giving their replies, Akram Sheikh, Hamid Khan and AK Dogar submitted that fundamental rights have been violated; therefore, the court is competent to hear and decide the petitions under Article 184-3. They said all citizens are equal before the law and equality of right does not belong to individual, but it is a collective in nature. They said all of them have been reduced to inferiority with the participation in the presidential election by the chief of Army staff. Akram Sheikh submitted that this case is not less (important) than the case of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, but the difference is that the holder of the office of the president is also holding a gun in his hand and he is holding this office in violation of the Constitution. “This court has given uniform to President Musharraf and now it is the responsibility of the court to make him doff the uniform,” he concluded. In his reply, AK Dogar submitted that the common citizen, other than a candidate, cannot raise objections before the chief election commissioner; therefore, he is raising these objections before the court to decide the issue. “The core issue before the court is how to separate the Army from the politics of the country,” Dogar concluded. REFERENCE: SC saves the day for Musharraf Sohail Ahmed Saturday, September 29, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10357&Cat=13&dt=9/29/2007



The News International 2007: Musharraf terms SC judgment positive Saturday, October 06, 2007  ISLAMABAD: President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Friday, terming the National Reconciliation Ordinance a milestone, said it will lay the foundation for political future of the country. “It is a conviction-based document and not need-based...it is general and applies to all politicians to ensure a free and transparent election,” the president said in a live PTV programme on the eve of the presidential election about the ordinance that gives amnesty to politicians and bureaucrats. The president responded to direct telephone calls and e-mails from the public, parliamentarians and professionals during the hour-long Presidential Election Special Transmission that covered the political situation, the high prices of everyday commodities and development projects. The president termed the Supreme Court decision earlier in the day as “positive” that gave a go ahead to the presidential election, but barred issuance of the official results till the announcement of final judgment. He said the judgment has also recognised that the current parliament will choose the next president. “I hope the Supreme Court will give a balanced judgment, after hearing both sides,” the president said. To a question about the need for the NRO ordinance, the president said the country faced several challenges and it was time to move ahead from the days of politics of victimisation and politics of vendetta. President Musharraf recalled the time when there was stiff confrontation between the president, the prime minister and the Chief of Army Staff and said with the threats of extremism and terrorism looming, there was a need for political consensus and reconciliation. When asked whether former prime minister Nawaz Sharif will be part of the NRO, he said: “It is a transition phase...there should be reconciliation with everyone.” He said the run-up to the presidential election and the general elections should be smooth and harmonious. “After the election, we will see about (Nawaz’s) return and reconciliation,” the president said. The president said his entire focus was on national and political reconciliation and good governance. “I will take two steps forward, if someone wants reconciliation,” the president said. To a question as to who will run the government, the president said it will be the new prime minister. “If needed I will advise, if the prime minister so desires,” he added. President Musharraf said the government was being run by the prime minister, his cabinet and the secretaries. “I have already given up my authority as the chief executive... I do not want any ‘thanedari’, I want decentralisation and give the people the authority to run their affairs.” He said as an Army Chief he had also to look after other affairs like the situation in Waziristan, etc. He said economic progress and socioeconomic development were the key elements and said he will ensure their continuation in future and would not like to see them collapse. Our priority is to sustain the economic progress, otherwise we might fail as a nation,” the president said. President Musharraf to a question said it was not only Punjab that was witnessing progress, but similar development was going on in all the provinces. “We have set up a direction...Pakistan was otherwise a rudderless ship and now we are taking it towards a direction.” REFERENCE: Musharraf terms SC judgment positive Saturday, October 06, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10494&Cat=13&dt=10/6/2007
2011: LHC orders President to stop political activities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS8-GkYh_Ug


The News International 2007:  EC gives Musharraf go-ahead Mumtaz Alvi Sunday, September 30, 2007 ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission on Saturday rejected objections to the candidature of General Pervez Musharraf for re-election as president and accepted his nomination papers along with five other persons. The opposition and lawyers staged a walkout on this occasion and boycotted the proceedings of the Election Commission. One out of 18 nomination papers filed on behalf of President Musharraf were accepted by the Commission. The one submitted on his behalf by a stranger in Lahore was rejected. The chief election commissioner made a verbal judgment on this occasion. Besides, General Musharraf, the nomination papers of Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Justice (Retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed, Mohammadmian Soomro, Chaudhry Amir Hussain and Faryal Talpur were declared valid by the CEC, who is also the returning officer for presidential election. Hence, barring these six candidates, the papers of all other candidates were rejected.

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the lawyer fraternity, after storming out of the Commission hall following the eruption of violence on the Constitution Avenue, told journalists that they would be going to the Supreme Court against the validation of General Musharraf’s papers.

The returning officer conducted the scrutiny of nomination papers and proposers and seconders of President Musharraf raised no objection to the candidature of Amin Fahim, Wajihuddin Ahmed and Faryal Talpur.

“Why they are being treated as VIPs. They are proposers and seconders like us,” Babar Awan pointed out, while referring to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and PML President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.

Three brief interruptions hit the activity. First, when Senators Babar Awan, Farooq Naik and Abdul Latif Khosa objected to the arrival of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and PML President Shujaat Hussain from a separate entrance and giving them separate seats. Twice the journalists and lawyers tried to draw the CEC’s attention towards clashes and shelling outside, yards away from the Commission office.

Without wasting time, Premier Aziz and Shujaat joined the rest of the audience comprising chief ministers of Punjab Pervaiz Elahi, Sindh Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim and Balochistan Jam Muhammad Yousaf, and scores of ministers who were also President Musharraf, Soomro and Amir Hussain’s proposers and seconders. Leaders of the ruling coalition including Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, Rao Sikandar Iqbal, Dr Farooq Sattar and Babar Ghauri were also present on the occasion.

Talking to The News after the proceedings, PPPP Senator Babar Awan rejected the CEC’s acceptance of General Musharraf’s nomination papers and said they would seek the apex court’s intervention in the matter.

Justice Tariq Mehmood, who is a supporter of Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed, also announced that they would go to the Supreme Court as General Musharraf did not qualify to contest the election for the presidential slot.

Senator Khosa, who spoke on the president’s candidature for over an hour, strongly objected to the army chief vying for a slot that was purely political and said if allowed to do so, this would undermine the constitutional status of state institutions.

The CEC gave half-an-hour to a presidential candidate Zahid Anwar Wahla to produce copies of attested identity card of his proposer, PML (Nawaz)’s Tehmina Daultana. But he never returned to comply with this order.

Responding to one of the objections over the educational degrees of General Musharraf, Senator Wasim Sajjad said that his presidential candidate had got bachelor’s degree in 1980 and then MSc degree in War Studies from the Quaid-e-Azam University in 1982, as at that time, the National Defence College was associated with it.

About the declaration of Musharraf and his spouse’s declaration of assets, the senator conceded that these documents were yet to be submitted to the Election Commission. Some parts of the proceedings were inaudible due to heavy presence of parliamentarians and aspirants of presidential election.

Khosa, Hamid Khan and Naik based their arguments against President Musharraf’s candidature and called it sheer violation of his oath according to which Musharraf was not supposed to take part in any kind of political activity whatsoever, whereas the office of president was a political one.

They asked the CEC to reject his papers, as he was not acting with neutrality and had been promoting the ruling PML. The jurists also tried to prove that already Musharraf had served two terms as president and, hence, could not qualify for another term.

They contended that his taking part in election in uniform was a total negation of the Constitution and the parliamentary form of the government and above all the political ethos and norms.

Musharraf should wait for two years as per the Constitution after quitting as the army chief, they said. The jurists also noted that how Musharraf self-appointed him first as the chief executive and then president to go to India to hold talks with then Indian Prime Minister AB Vajpayee by dismissing an elected president Rafiq Tarar. Then he held a referendum to justify his own appointment. “He himself had to admit in his book that there was overdoing as for as the number of votes polled in his favour were concerned,” Khosa noted.

Hamid said that under the 17th Amendment, Musharraf was given immunity for a limited period and, therefore, he could no more retain two offices simultaneously. He questioned how come an assembly mandated for five years could elect someone for ten years.

All the jurists who spoke against General Musharraf’s candidature, had thrust of their arguments on the breach of commitment General Musharraf had made to the nation and an alliance of political parties, adding he was not “Amin” and a righteous man under Article 62 of the Constitution.

Rejecting their objections, Senator Wasim Sajjad made it clear that the present was a transitional period and from November 15, democracy would be completely restored. He also justified the 17th Amendment, which he maintained, was made to take the system forward and then restore a complete democratic order. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment vis-ˆ-vis Article 63, he said that the said article could not be applied to the president.

APP/NNI add: The Election Commission on Saturday evening issued a notification for validly-nominated candidates to contest the Presidential Election 2007.Issued with the orders of the Chief Election Commissioner Justice (Retd) Qazi Muhammad Farooq, the notification declared the six candidates validly nominated.

The notification said, “In pursuance of paragraph 5 of the second schedule to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan hereby announces the names of the following persons, who have been validly nominated for election to the office of the president of Pakistan: (1) General Pervez Musharraf (2) Mohammadmian Soomro (3) Ch Amir Hussain (4) Wajihuddin Ahmed (5) Makhdoom Mohammad Amin Fahim (6) Faryal Talpur.”

Those whose nomination papers were rejected for having not been supported by proposers and seconders included Syed Iqtidar Haider, Rao Javed Khan, Khurshid Anwar Qureshi, Shaukat Hussein, Maulana Mohammad Ayaz, Major (Retd) Ramzan, Dr Fazlur Rehman, M B Khan, Nawab Amber Shahzada, Dr Zahoor Mehdi, Ashfaq Chaudhry, Shahbaz Khan, Shahzada Sardar Mohammad Rafique, Aitbar Khan, Riaz Chandio, Khalid Iqbal, Muneza Asif, Nawab Ali, Syed Sakhawat Hussein, Engineer Abdullah, Amir Ali, Shakeel Hussein, Noushad Hussein, Azam Kamal, Nafees Ahmad, Syed Habibullah, Iqbal Tiger and Haider Ali. REFERENCE: EC gives Musharraf go-ahead Mumtaz Alvi Sunday, September 30, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=10384&Cat=13&dt=9/30/2007

Musharraf defends emergency rule - 03 Nov 2007


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya86zLFxHrs

Who "Really" Pressurized the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to Resign in March 2007


2007: Affidavit filed in SC on events of March 9-13 Muhammad Qasim Wednesday, May 30, 2007 ISLAMABAD: Lead counsel for Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Ch Aitzaz Ahsan, on Tuesday filed an affidavit of his client in the Supreme Court covering four days of events that he faced from March 9 to 13, when he was rendered non-functional. The affidavit, filed in support of the constitutional petition filed by the CJ under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, reads that on March 09, 2007, he headed bench No 1 of the apex Court as chief justice and heard several cases till about 10.30 a.m. “The bench rose briefly and had to reassemble for the day except the CJ who left for the Army House, Rawalpindi, to meet the president.” The CJ arrived at the Army House at about 11:30 a.m. along with his staff/protocol staff and was shown to a waiting room/visitors room. After five minutes of his arrival, President General Pervez Musharraf, wearing his military uniform, came into the room along with his military secretary and ADC. As soon as the president took his seat, a number of TV cameramen and photographers were also ushered to the room. They took several pictures and made movie footage, reads the affidavit.

The affidavit states that while discussing the Saarc Law Conference, Saarc Chief Justices Conference and the concluding session of the golden jubilee ceremony of the Supreme Court, the president said a compliant against him had been received by him from a judge of the Peshawar High Court. The CJ replied that it was not based on facts as his case had been decided by a two-member bench and that attempts were being made to maliciously involve other members of the bench as well. On this, the president said there are a few more complaints against the CJ as well and after saying so, he directed his staff to call the other persons. The other persons, who entered the room on the president’s direction, included the prime minister, DG MI, DG ISI, DG IB, COS and another official. All officials (except DG IB and COS) were in uniform, reads the affidavit.


At this moment, the president started reading from small pieces of paper. However, he had no single consolidated document. The allegations, which were being put to the CJ had been taken from the contents of a notorious letter written by Naeem Bukhari with absolutely no substance in them, the affidavit said. The CJ strongly refuted these allegations as being baseless and engineered to defame him personally and the judiciary as a whole. On this, the president said that the CJ had obtained cars from the Supreme Court for his family. However, the CJ vehemently denied the allegation. The affidavit further reads that the president went on to say that the CJ was being driven in a Mercedes, to which the CJ promptly replied; “here is the prime minister. Ask him, he has sent me the car himself”. The CJ states that the PM did not reply even by a gesture. Surprisingly, the president went on to say that the CJ had interfered in the affairs of Lahore High Court and had not accepted and taken heed of most of the recommendations of the chief justice of the LHC.


The president insisted that the CJ should resign and in case of his resignation, the former would accommodate the latter. The president also said in case of refusal to resign, the CJ will have to face a reference, which could be a bigger embarrassment for him. The CJ states that he said resolutely that he wouldn’t resign and would face any reference since he is innocent and has not violated any code of conduct or any law, rule or regulation. “I believe that I am myself the guardian of law. I strongly believe in God who will help me”. This ignited the fury of the president who stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS and the PM, saying that others would show evidence to him (the CJ). The meeting continued for not more than 30 minutes, reads the CJ’s statement. The DG MI, DG ISI and DG IB remained behind and continued to sit with the CJ but did not show him a single piece of evidence. They (except DG IB) insisted that the CJ should resign while the CJ continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and for a collateral purpose.



The CJ said he was forced to stay in the same room during the subsequent hours till 5 p.m. and despite requests, he was not allowed to see his staff/protocol officer. Sometimes, all the persons would leave the CJ alone in that room but would not allow him to leave. Despite several attempts to leave the room and the Army House, the CJ was made to stay there on one pretext or the other and was kept there ‘absolutely against his will’ till past 5 p.m., says the affidavit. “After 5 p.m., DG MI came in again and told the CJ that his car was outside to drive him ‘home’. DG MI came out of the room and once outside, told the CJ, ‘this is a bad day, now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained to work as a judge of the Supreme Court or chief justice of Pakistan’,” reads the affidavit. The CJ’s car was stripped of both the flags of Pakistan and the emblem and his staff officer informed him that Justice Javed Iqbal had taken oath as the acting chief justice and it had been shown on TV. “The driver also informed the deponent that he had been instructed not to take the deponent to the Supreme Court while on way to the residence of the deponent.” On the way, the CJ directed the driver to go to the Supreme Court but an Army official prevented his car from proceeding further near the Sports Complex. Meanwhile, Tariq Masood Yasin, SP, appeared and ordered the driver to come out of the car so that he could drive the deponent and also asked the deponent’s gunman to come out of the car.



The CJ states that he said, “Okay, I will not go to the Supreme Court but my driver will drive my car and my gunman will escort me home’. Only then, did Tariq Masood Yasin agreed to let the car be driven by the CJ’s driver”. The CJ states that he reached home at 5:45 p.m. and was shocked to see police officials and agencies personnel without uniform all around his residence. Landline phones had already been disconnected; cell phones, TV, cables and DSL had been jammed or disconnected. The CJ and his family were completely cut off for several days from the outside world. On March 10, 2007, the CJ received a ‘Notice’ from the Supreme Judicial Council whereby he came to know that a reference had been filed by the president before the Council. There was also a copy of the order passed by the Council whereby the CJ had been restrained to function as a judge of the Supreme Court and or as the chief justice of Pakistan. The affidavit said that the meeting of the SJC was called on March 9, 2007 after 6 p.m. in an indecent haste and he was restrained to perform his functions as a judge or chief justice of the Supreme Court. “In fact, no meeting had been called by the secretary of the Council namely Faqir Hussain. No one had issued either agenda for the meeting or notice thereof.”



The CJ further states that he had been detained along with his family members including his young child of seven years from the evening of March 9, 2007 till March 13, 2007. He could not use any vehicle since there was none and he had to walk till the other end of the road when the police officer confronted him and manhandled him as has now been established by a judicial enquiry, the CJ stated. An attempt was being made to fabricate evidence against the CJ through the SC staff attached to him by coercive means and even employees working at his residence were taken and made to appear before some agency officials. The CJ’s chamber was sealed and certain files lying therein were removed and some of them handed over to the ISI under the supervision of the newly-appointed registrar. No one was allowed to meet the CJ freely, in as much as his colleagues were not allowed access to him, says the affidavit.



The CJ further states that his children were not allowed to go to school, college and university. He and his family members were deprived of basic amenities of life, i.e. medicines and doctors, etc. They were made to go through a lot of mental, physical and emotional agony, torture and embarrassment and words could never be enough to properly and adequately express that. The affidavit says all these tactics were used to put pressure on him to tender his resignation ‘but after March 13, 2007, when the CJ succeeded in establishing at least some contact with his lawyers’ team during a brief appearance before the Council, and after March 16, 2007, the ongoing pressure to resign the office was released to some extent.’ The CJ states that his children were so scared that they could not go to school or university and one of his daughters failed to appear in her 1st year exams while the other is not being allowed to take her examination (1st semester) at Bahria University due to lack of attendance. “My younger son is also not in a position to attend his school because of circumstances through which I am passing,” the CJ concluded. Meanwhile, Ch Aitzaz Ahsan on Tuesday concluded his arguments before the full court regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by the CJ. He submitted that the CJ’s petition is maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution because the matter is of the highest public importance (interest) and the issues concern the fundamental rights. The full court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday). Later, while talking to mediamen, Aitzaz Ahsan said, “Some of the details that are necessary and relevant to the petition have been spelt out in the affidavit by the chief justice.” REFERENCE: Affidavit filed in SC on events of March 9-13 Muhammad Qasim Wednesday, May 30, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=8181&Cat=13&dt=5/30/2007

Monday, January 2, 2012

Judiciary Attacks Fundamental Rights in Pakistan.

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

MNA Farahnaz Ispahani appeal for justice (CNN 2011)


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

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


Selected Justice In Pakistan - Eye Opener 2011

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

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry ILLEGALLY Favours Nawaz Sharif

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

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

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

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

Asma Jahangir discusses memogate investigation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNfFFn9_Kc


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

Memo Gate [Asma Jahangir Exclusive Interview] 1st Jan 2012 Part - 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVcm74Hw75o



The memo case is a classic example of not only how basic principles of the independence of the judiciary have been violated, but also, how the international guarantees of human rights have been torn apart - The apex court’s short judgement in the memo case last Friday left many stunned and shocked. The petitioners could neither prove any violation of fundamental rights under Article 184(3), as their petition claimed, nor could they prove former ambassador Husain Haqqani’s alleged role in the memo. Nonetheless, they were given what they wanted: an inquiry commission without due process of law, and putting Mr Haqqani on notice not to leave the country without the court’s permission. Judicial independence remains one of the most misused and mythical terms in Pakistan. Civil society’s saving the employment of a few judges taken away by a dictator could hardly translate into a much-fantasised ‘judicial independence’. When a lower middle class woman from a minority community is left to languish in jail just because a fair decision would mean a popular uproar or maybe life threats to judges, when a judge has to flee the country after sentencing the murderer of former Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer because the fanatic religious elements thought he was a blasphemer, when hundreds of Ahmedis are killed with impunity, and the judiciary along with the state’s law-enforcing mechanism miserably fails to provide them justice or even access to justice, the independence of the judiciary seems to be a cruel joke. The ‘freedom of judiciary’ frenzy that engulfed us in 2007 totally blinded us to the real elements of judicial independence. We started the movement and took the first milestone as a destination. The symbolism of not accepting dictation and still surviving in the office was taken as the freedom of judiciary, while it was just the first step. Little did we realise that the basic ingredients of a free judiciary, institutional independence, individual independence, separation of powers and impartiality of judges have to be watched and ensured as part of a continuous process. While we see how touchy the lordships have been on institutional and their individual independence, little attention has been paid to the most important aspects of impartiality and separation of powers. Before the kicking in date of the freedom of the judiciary (in 2009), judicial bias was imminent when it came to the political leadership versus the security establishment. Post-2009, we thought we got a free judiciary. Unfortunately, the judiciary after this kicking in date still seems to be under the establishment’s influence. If it is the NRO or NICL case, judicial activity is exemplary. When it is the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, Mehran Bank case or missing persons’ cases, the freedom of judiciary puts on a burqa and goes into hiding. When Asghar Khan’s petition comes up, judicial independence takes its own ‘independent’ decision to remain quiet. One laments over this judicial ‘freedom’ when one is refused even the copy of public petition no HRC 19/96 — the petition by Asghar Khan that incriminates the security establishment. In pre-2009 days, the judiciary used to be biased against civilian governments and under the strong influence (in some cases, under control) of the security establishment. Looking at the short order on the memo case, one wonders, what exactly has changed? The judiciary still fears standing up to the imperiousness of the military establishment against the civilian dispensation. Judgements are still given looking at the names of the petitioners. How could a bench even attempt to be impartial under moral obligation of obliging the petitioners who had won the lordships their jobs just a couple of years ago? How could the bench claim individual liberty when the all powerful spy agencies who possess dark secrets of the bench and bar are a party to the case? As an observer of most of the proceedings on the memo case, one cannot help but see the visible partiality against the defence lawyer who was grilled by relevant and irrelevant questions while leaving aside the petitioners who chose to beat about the bush most of the time, as if knowing quite well that they cannot lose the case anyway! When media noise and populist sloganeering of political parties sway the courts, how could they be free or independent? Most amusing was the frequent pronouncements by the bench of ‘sipah salaar’ instead of a constitutional term ‘Chief of Army Staff’ (COAS), as if it will change the reality of their surrender of independence to the old traditional power centre. Among the 20 basic principles of the independence of the judiciary adopted by the Seventh UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and endorsed by the General Assembly resolutions 40/32 and 40/146 of 1985, principle number 6 reads: “The principle of the independence of the judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected.” Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the principles of equality before law as well as the presumption of innocence before proven otherwise. The memo case is a classic example of not only how basic principles of the independence of the judiciary have been violated, but also, how the international guarantees of human rights have been torn apart. The petitioners in this case were not insisting and in fact pronounced during the proceedings time and again that they are not implicating anyone, including Mr Haqqani. But the apex court went on curbing Mr Haqqani’s fundamental right of mobility by restricting his freedom of movement just because the affidavits of their ‘sipah salaar’ and spy chief included Mr Haqqani’s name. Ironically, even the spy chief does not seem to have any evidence against Mr Haqqani, as even he ‘requested’ the court to order a probe and get forensic evidence necessary to incriminate Haqqani. Some glaring blunders in how the bench approached this case and anomalies that would come out resultantly after the short (sighted) judgement, however, cannot be ignored. The only link between the memo and Mr Haqqani is an alleged phone conversation wherein Ijaz (who boasts of his links with two dozen intelligence agencies) claims the contents of the memo were dictated to him. One wonders, how will the forensics help decide whose account of the conversation is right? It also seems deliberate by a section of the media that Asma Jahangir argued for no inquiry, implying that Mr Haqqani might be fearing an investigation. It was clearly said time and again that the government and Mr Haqqani both demand an impartial inquiry, but under the due process of law. Should we laugh or cry when even the apex court decides to make a mockery of the due process of law? Why an inquiry commission by parliament or by the government could not be made under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1956? With three high court chief justices on the inquiry, what happens if the inquiry leads to a criminal case? Will three high courts be disqualified from hearing appeals in that criminal case? If General Pasha’s demand is a forensic inquiry, why did his and General Kayani’s statement incriminate Husain Haqqani creating a pre-disposition against him without an inquiry? And why the apex court upheld these anomalies? Where is judicial freedom, my lords? Postscript: Human Rights Watch, an international rights organisation that pointed towards the violation of basic rights through this judgement, is being attacked by sections of the media. Hail judicial independence! REFERENCE: BAAGHI: Where is judicial independence, my lords? —Marvi Sirmed Monday, January 02, 2012 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C01%5C02%5Cstory_2-1-2012_pg3_4

Memo Gate [Asma Jahangir Exclusive Interview] 1st Jan 2012 Part - 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omW9Lu3-3e4



“Historic”, we are being told — and told without end — is what the judgment of their Supreme Court lordships is. General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s Nov 3, 2007, action has been declared “unconstitutional” and “civil society” is ecstatic, some of our wilder drumbeaters assuring us that the doors on military interventionism have been closed forever. Ah, if wishes were horses. The Supreme Court judgment not so much revises history as cuts it up, wrapping it in neat packages. For it declares only one action of Musharraf’s unconstitutional — his Nov 3 Emergency, which came at the fag end of his rule. The inescapable conclusion we are left with is that everything else the man did fell within the ambit of the Constitution. Now what was Musharraf’s original sin from which flowed everything else? Why, his coup d’état of Oct 12, 1999, when his generals overthrew an elected government, disbanded the National Assembly, put the Constitution into cold storage and imprisoned not only the then prime minister but his closest colleagues and even members of his family. Just as Adam ate the apple he wasn’t supposed to touch and as a consequences was expelled from Paradise, the apple which Musharraf plucked and put into his mouth was on the fateful evening of Oct 12, all those years ago, when he was in the air on a flight from Sri Lanka, while his generals — chief among them Usmani, Aziz and Mahmood — went about the removal of the elected government. That was the mother of all sins. So how strange and dripping with irony this omission: about that seminal event, which set in train all the sorrows the nation was to reap thereafter, their lordships in their “historic” judgment have nothing to say. For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections. So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures. Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water. Before that baptismal ceremony, Musharraf, following the example of military saviours before him, had issued another Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) requiring judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court to take a fresh oath pledging obedience to the new order. A few difficult judges — among them Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Justices Wajeehuddin, Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mamoon Qazi, Khalilur Rehman, Kamal Mansoor Alam — spurned Musharraf’s PCO and promptly found themselves out in the cold. But a majority, preferring discretion over valour, thought it wiser to go along with the new order of things. Among this lot — the original lot, that is — was Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. And it was from this PCO crowd, which saw no evil in wearing the robes of the judiciary under a usurping general, that the Supreme Court bench was composed which in double-quick time conferred absolution on Musharraf and his triumphant generals. Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan wrote the judgment and the other judges on the bench, including Justice Chaudhry, without adding a word of their own (which was slightly unusual) concurred with his sweeping validation. As PCO judges they were expected to toe the line dictated by the country’s martial law masters and, to no one’s surprise, they went along faithfully, Chief Justice Irshad in front and they in his train. In the museum dedicated to the doctrine of necessity this was another trophy. So it is not a little surprising to see the present Supreme Court coming down so hard on the Nov 3, 2007, PCO judges when they themselves (most of them, if memory serves) felt few qualms in being PCO judges in January 2000. Let him cast the first stone who hath not sinned, said Christ. Their lordships of the “historic” judgment are no doubt made of sterner stuff, preferring to interpret the past as a closed and shut transaction while bringing down the executioner’s axe on those who could well plead in their defence that they were doing no more than following the example, set in times past, by their betters. What about the nation which faces a serious test? For it is being asked to believe, if we go along with all the implications of the “historic” verdict, that Musharraf’s rule was legitimate until Nov 3, 2007, and it was only his proclamation of emergency that evening which put him outside the pale of the Constitution. This is a very selective rendering with which most Pakistanis are not likely to agree. . According to this interpretation Musharraf did nothing unconstitutional from Oct 12, 1999, to Nov 3, 2007, and it was only the period of emergency — from Nov 3 to Dec 15 — which is worthy of judicial censure. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, he was a usurper not for eight and a half years — which most people in Pakistan believe — but for a mere 40-45 days. As sins of this sort go in Pakistan, this doesn’t amount to much of a transgression. But even if it is considered serious (and there are people who will), its severity is mitigated by the fact that the malefactor (Musharraf) first took off his uniform on Nov 28, 2007 (thus doing the nation a favour it had long demanded) and lifted emergency on Dec 15, 2007, thus returning the country to constitutional rule (as per the implication of the Supreme Court verdict). Not only that but he went on to hold elections. This makes him look not a demonic but rather quite a benign figure. His original sin, it can be argued, was no longer a sin in the eyes of the law because the PCO of 2000 and the oaths of the judges were validated later by parliament. Very true, but this is hair-splitting. Musharraf was a usurper as were Zia and Yahya and Ayub before him. The others too were validated by various judicial and constitutional instruments. But all these actions remain blots on our history and in the eyes of the people, and in the eyes of history, they are all usurpers who — although this is quite another story — brought great harm to the nation. Musharraf deserves punishment, as did all military saviours before him. But if Article Six is to be invoked it should be for Oct 12, ‘99, rather than the secondary and much smaller sin of Nov 3, 2007. In that case it is not he alone who should be brought into the dock but all his collaborators — the generals who ordered troop movements on Oct 12, the judges who were effectively his collaborators later and all those who chose to serve under him in various capacities. Flogging Musharraf is easy because he is a dead horse. But if we are serious about retribution our canvas has to be broader. But since it is not going to be broad, and bringing Musharraf to justice is likely to remain no more than a talking point — because who wants to stir this hornet’s nest? — the more seemly thing is to move on and confront the future and inculcate some humility in ourselves by remembering that in the sins of the Musharraf many now counted among the good and the great, and even the historic, were also complicit. From such humility — or what the Chinese call self-criticism — will come the strength to face the future, and even fix it in our favour. REFERENCE: Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Ayaz Amir Friday, August 07, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=191800&Cat=9&dt=8/6/2009
Memo Gate [Asma Jahangir Exclusive Interview] 1st Jan 2012 Part - 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkgr3Icj3IY



We have a developed talent, honed over the years, for counting the trees and missing the larger picture. We see things in one dimension and forget that there may be other sides to reality. This leads to false conclusions and the begetting of great tragedies. Let us for argument's sake accept that Asif Ali Zardari, the luckless president of a luckless country, is the author of a thousand villainies, the darkest thing to have happened to the Islamic Republic. But let us at least weigh his real or presumed infamy in the scales of history before coming to a judgment about what he deserves. Has Zardari done anything which comes close to the unbeatable folly of the 1965 war? If anything undid us it was that foolish call to arms. We had set out to conquer Kashmir. At Tashkent we ended up lowering the casket of the Kashmir cause into the ground. Do Zardari's alleged crimes measure up to the folly of General Yahya Khan who presided over the break-up of Pakistan? If ever the larger picture escaped anyone it was that latter-day Muhammad Shah Rangila, caught up in circumstances beyond his control or comprehension. We couldn't stand the notion of meeting East Pakistani aspirations half-way, just as we are having a hard time now understanding Baloch aspirations. The frenzied crowds which poured out in 1977 to protest the alleged rigging of the elections by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto called for the establishment of Nizam-e-Mustafa (the dispensation of the Holy Prophet). Like the supposed reformers of today who think they are battling corruption, the enthusiasts of 1977 were convinced the promised kingdom was just a step away if only that incarnation of evil, Bhutto, was taken care of. Bhutto was taken care of and eventually hanged but the frothing crowds were no nearer Nizam-e-Mustafa or anything like it. Instead, for their pains, they got General Ziaul Haq and the long night of his dark tyranny. Zia first proclaimed his aim as Islamization. Then it was accountability. These were pretexts for suppressing democracy and perpetuating his rule. Zia was perhaps the greatest disaster to befall Pakistan. We are still living with the consequences. Nothing in our history has been more dangerous than the simplicity and innocence of our good intentions. Riding on their back we have stood before not the pearly gates promising everlasting bliss but the gates of hell. It is scarcely an accident that many of the voices now earnestly urging the Supreme Court to embrace an ever-widening agenda of reform were early supporters of Musharraf's military rule. Such contradictions bestride our history. Khan Roedad Khan hailed Musharraf as a messiah come to rid the country of its woes. Khan Imran Khan, to his lasting chagrin, was also part of the Musharraf-welcome crowd. At least Imran has the decency to say he was wrong. Others are not so coy. There was indeed a time when prominent media pundits, now in ultra-reformist mode, conducted themselves virtually as Musharraf spokesmen. Humein yaad hai zara zara, tumhein yaad ho keh na yaad ho. Zardari may deserve all the pejorative adjectives in the dictionary but has he committed any crime which comes close to the enormity of the disaster that was Kargil? That adventure was meant to seize advantage in Kashmir once again. It ended up exposing Pakistan to fierce international criticism and giving birth to the term cross-border terrorism, the stick with which Pakistan has been regularly beaten ever since. Are we calling for a national commission to investigate Kargil, as we should? No, we are into other things. Talking of Musharraf's military rule, what was the role of our present lordships when Triple One Brigade, our highest constitutional authority, reinterpreted the Constitution once again on the long afternoon of Oct 12, 1999? A few judges -- Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui comes to mind -- did not take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued two months later. But if imperfect memory serves, all of their present lordships, at one time or the other, took oath under the PCO. Not only that, some of them were on the bench which validated Musharraf's takeover. A few, including My Lord the Chief Justice, were on the bench which validated Musharraf's takeover for the second time in the Zafar Ali Shah case (2005). Of course, we must let bygones be bygones and deal with the present. But then this principle should be for everyone. We should not be raising monuments to selective memory or selective condemnation. If the PCO of 2007 was such a bad idea, in what category should we place the PCO of 2000? And if in this Turkish bath all are like the emperor without his clothes, the least this should inculcate is a sense of humility. And if we accept the logic that there can be a transformation in the nature of things, that people who did questionable things once-upon-a-time can undergo a conversion on the road to Damascus (or anywhere else) and become knights in shining armour, dispensing light and so on, should not some of the same indulgence, the same benefit of doubt, be extended to others? Zardari cut deals and earned commissions and for his talent in this field earned the sobriquet Mr Ten Percent. You reap what you sow. So if Zardari is haunted by the ghosts of his past, and if his past keeps popping up in conversation and national discourse, he has only himself to blame. But now, whether we like it or not, he is something more than a mere replica of his past. He is the constitutionally elected President of the Republic. For his failings in government, for his mistakes as President, for incompetence or inadequacy -- if these are the charges brought against him -- he can be pilloried and even ridiculed. This is part of democracy, part of the political process. But when hidden forces with their hidden agendas go about manipulating things, pulling strings from behind, and if elements in the media or other distinguished places become witting or unwitting partners in this game, then it is not democracy being served or strengthened but intrigue and conspiracy. The Supreme Court judgment on the vires of the 2007 PCO came on the 31st of July, 2009. But the knives were out for Zardari much before that. Zardari of course heads a team with no shortage of incompetents on board. In a land even otherwise dedicated to mediocrity they seemingly outshine all competitors. (Keen for a doctorate myself, I am still trying to discover the location of that celebrated seat of learning, Montecello University.) President Zardari can also be his own worst enemy. Who told him to deliver the speech he did at Naudero on BB's second death anniversary? There were things in it which were best left unsaid. Those whom the gods would destroy they first push into such speech-making. But it is also true that Zardari has been driven into a corner. The mandate he got -- constitutionally it bears remembering -- is being nullified by other means. Their lordships are all men of honour and rectitude who stood up to Musharraf's dictatorship and gave hope to the country. But their lordships are just one part of the national spectrum. If they are men of honour it doesn't automatically follow that everyone else in the equation is also playing by the same rules. There is thus a need for caution, a need to draw a line between past and present. Let us study our past and draw the correct conclusions. But let us not, wittingly or unwittingly, destabilise democracy. Cleansing the national stables is a laudable aim and makes for a heady slogan. But as our history demonstrates, good intentions, unsupported by a sense of reality or a sense of proportion, lead to unforeseen consequences. The temple of democracy is a cohesive whole. There is no such thing as smashing one pillar and hoping the rest of the structure will survive. It won't. And when the slabs come crashing down, we will be the losers while those who have always operated in the shadows will have the last laugh. So Happy New Year. Our curse is to live forever in interesting times. May the new year be a bit less exciting than the one which has just gone by. REFERENCE: The road to hell -- and similar destinations Ayaz Amir Friday, January 01, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=216323&Cat=9&dt=1/1/2010

Memo Gate [Asma Jahangir Exclusive Interview] 1st Jan 2012 Part - 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS0zDD695WI



Like Zia’s Eighth Amendment, Musharraf’s Seventeenth Amendment, passed by a rubber-stamp parliament in December 2003, enshrined all executive orders and changes made under military rule.21 The Seventeenth Amendment gave the president, the titular head of state, the power to dismiss elected governments and parliament and also transferred from the prime minister, the head of government, key appointment powers to the president including appointments of governors, the three service chiefs and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Musharraf’s constitutional distortions weakened civilian institutions. By sidelining secular democratic forces, the military government also enabled right-wing religious parties to fill the vacuum. In dismissing legal challenges to Seventeenth Amendment, the Supreme Court shirked its responsibility to protect constitutional rule. Some courageous judges, such as Supreme Court Justices Dorab Patel and Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim,15 have refused to sanctify authoritarian interventions, and preferred to resign rather than undermine constitutionalism and the rule of law. By legitimising military rule and intervention, most have, however, abdicated their duty to uphold the law. Following Musharraf’s coup, the Supreme Court was purged of judges who might have opposed the military’s unconstitutional assumption of power. Judges were required to take an oath to Musharraf’s Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO), 1999, superseding the oath they had sworn at their induction to the 1973 constitution.16 On 26 January 2000, thirteen judges, including Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and four other Supreme Court justices, were removed for refusing to do so. The reconstituted Supreme Court was composed of judges who willingly accepted the military’s directions. They included Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who was elevated to the Court in January 2000 and appointed chief justice by Musharraf in 2005. The judges took their oath of office under the PCO 1999, which omits the reference to their duty to “protect, uphold and defend” the 1973 constitution. On 21 May 2000, this bench upheld the legality of Musharraf’s coup under the doctrine of state necessity. The Supreme Court also authorised the army chief to amend the constitution, albeit within the bounds of its federal, democratic and parliamentary character. The Court also concluded that those judges who had been sacked following the PCO oath had lost any right to challenge their removal due to the passage of time. By placing personal survival over the rule of law and constitutionalism, these judges allowed another dicta tor to implement sweeping changes that expanded the military’s political powers and hold over the state. Pakistan’s higher judiciary has repeatedly validated military interventions and sanctioned constitutional amendments that have fundamentally altered the legal and political system. Attempting to explain its failure to protect the constitution through the “doctrine of state necessity”, the judiciary has relied on the dubious argument that the army’s intervention could be justified because of the pressing need for political stability. This doctrine was first developed in three cases in 1955 in the Federal Court, as the Supreme Court was then known, to justify the extra-constitutional dismissal of the legislature by a titular head of state.11 Drawing on the precedent of those decisions, the Supreme Court validated General Mohammed Ayub Khan’s 1958 declaration of martial law, General Mohammad Ziaul Haq’s 1977 coup and General Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 coup. While these Supreme Court judgments gave military regimes the trappings of legality, repeated military interventions have hampered the growth of civilian institutions and moderate political parties and forces. The centralisation of power in a Punjabi-dominated army has also strained centre-province relations in a multi-ethnic, multi-regional state, even as the military’s use of religion to justify political control has undermined the security of Pakistani citizens, particularly women and religious and sectarian minorities. REFERENCE: Reforming the Judiciary in Pakistan Asia Report N°160 16 October 2008 http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/pakistan/160-reforming-the-judiciary-in-pakistan.aspx
Memo Gate [Asma Jahangir Exclusive Interview] 1st Jan 2012 Part - 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QJL2acNTYc

Lets go back to History and not a very Distant Past



[Musharraf-Iftikhar.jpg]
Chaudhry Iftikhar named new CJ [Daily Dawn 2005] By Our Staff Reporter ISLAMABAD, May 7: President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday appointed Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court, as the next chief justice. He will assume the office on June 30 after retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, on June 29. “The notification has ended speculations of appointment of a junior judge as chief justice in violation of the seniority principle settled under the 1996 Judges case,” commented a senior Supreme Court lawyer on condition of anonymity. Justice Chaudhry will reach the superannuation age of 65 years in 2012, which will make him one of the longest serving chief justices in the judicial history of Pakistan. He will serve as chief justice for over seven years. Earlier Justice A. R. Cornelius and Justice Mohammad Haleem served as chief justice for eight years from 1960 to 68 and 1981 to 89, respectively. Justice Chaudhry was elevated as a judge of the apex court on February 4, 2000. He has performed as acting chief justice from January 17 to 29, 2005. He holds the degree of LLB and started practice as an advocate in 1974. Later he was enrolled as an advocate of high court in 1976 and as an advocate of Supreme Court in 1985. In 1989, Justice Chaudhry was appointed as advocate-general of Balochistan and elevated to the post of additional judge in the Balochistan High Court in 1990. He also served as banking judge, judge of Special Court for Speedy Trials and Customs Appellate Courts as well as company judge. He served as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court from April 22, 1999 to February 4, 2000. He was elected the president of the High Court Bar Association, Quetta, and twice a member of the Bar Council. He was appointed as the chairman of the Balochistan Local Council Election Authority in 1992 and for a second term in 1998. Justice Chaudhry also worked as the chairman of the Provincial Review Board for Balochistan and was appointed twice as the chairman of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society, Balochistan. Presently he is functioning as the chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court Buildings Committee. Reference: Caudhry Iftikhar named new CJ By Our Staff Reporter May 8, 2005 Sunday Rabi-ul-Awwal 28, 1426 http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/08/top4.htm 


http://sheddy73.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pakistan-supreme-court.jpg

ISLAMABAD, Feb 2: The government elevated five judges to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. According to a notification, the president has appointed Justice Rashid Aziz, Chief Justice, Lahore High Court; Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Chief Justice Sindh High Court; Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice, Balochistan High Court; Qazi Farooq, former chief justice of Peshawar High Court; and Justice Rana Bhagwan Das, judge, Sindh High Court, judges of the Supreme Court. After the elevation of Justice Rashid Aziz Khan to the SC, Justice Mohammad Allah Nawaz has been appointed Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah has been appointed Chief Justice of Sindh High Court and Justice Javed Iqbal Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court. After these appointments, the number of SC judges has risen to 12, leaving five posts vacant. REFERENCE: Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 5 February 2000 Issue : 06/05 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/05feb00.html#five


http://sheddy73.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pakistan-supreme-court.jpg
ISLAMABAD, April 25: President Mohammad Rafiq Tarar on Tuesday appointed five judges to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. With the appointment of these judges, the strength of the Supreme Court judges, i.e. 17, stands completed. The newly-appointed judges include Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal, Chief Justice, Peshawar High Court; Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh; Justice Javed Iqbal, Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan; Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, judge, High Court of Sindh and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, judge, High Court of Sindh. These judges have been appointed to the SC from the date they respectively take upon themselves the execution of their offices as such judges. Following are the names of the judges of the Supreme Court according to their seniority:

1. Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, Chief Justice of Pakistan,
2. Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri,
3. Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar,
4. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed,
5. Justice Ch. Mohammad Arif,
6. Justice Munir A. Sheikh,
7. Justice Abdul Rehman Khan
8. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan,
9. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqi,
10. Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry,
11. Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq,
12. Justice Rana Bhagwan Das,
13. Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal,
14. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah,
15. Justice Javed Iqbal,
16. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza,
17. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.-APP
REFERENCE: Supreme Court judges' strength completed DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 29 April 2000 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/apr29.html#supre 



http://criticalppp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ramday.jpg
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


https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiky6bciA7bBTy8ei-0i-j8y8FCNwfQvddSF5cxLURsrfhL7eQSmxw02S8UiuXqR2YMtMhiJ1MvxW83HeMkMAGsqcDB_ihhsDViy7x6ET_PGuATIQnvFD3aFfutUsxNcmC3XPzi1XPc9x4/s400/musharraf+and+iftikhar.jpg
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.”


https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4xC4l6FMspkygmW3Sn_ospIYQzGt_i4ciftHSezYnz0hYq8ow_VmXeuYbcLgBH307_xe0FbIw3xdLVzmGI5SfUH5cwzl50Wq6BDP_e0JiF6xAt8WSHJMLD5BMhP7zWTDmzQJLv7PrCujN/s320/n20767_35588074_7732.jpg
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 http://66.219.30.210/2002/10/31/top9.htm


http://sheddy73.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pakistan-supreme-court.jpg
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


Memo Gate [Asma Jahangir Exclusive Interview] 1st Jan 2012 Part - 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtRhyJ94EwY



It is hardly a secret that the government and the military are engaged in both a legal and political confrontation over the so-called "Memogate" affair. HRW finds it reassuring that both the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Army chief General Kiyani have ruled out military intervention. Indeed all arms of the state must act within the constitutionally determined ambit and in aid of legitimate civilian rule. In this context, justice must both be done and be seen to be done. Pakistan desperately needs a full democratic cycle and a peaceful transfer of power from one civilian administration to another. Should this process be derailed, the constitutional safeguards and legal rights protections created since 2008 may suffer irreparable damage. No. We do not. This is a political matter over which some parties have seen fit to approach the Supreme Court. So long as the matter is resolved within the ambit of the law and without prejudice, there should be no problem. However, stakeholders need to consider whether courts are the most appropriate forum to settle political disputes or if that is counter-productive. Second, whatever mechanism for investigation is decided, it must proceed with strict neutrality and due process ensuring that no claim of bias can withstand scrutiny. Finally, all parties to the so-called 'Memogate' affair must understand that a legal dispute cannot be made the vehicle for truncating parliamentary or presidential terms through the backdoor or as a mechanism for subverting civilian rule. Human Rights Watch has long been a supporter of an independent judiciary in Pakistan and advocated for the restoration of the judiciary ousted by Musharraf in Pakistan and abroad. But we have also expressed our concern about the fear of judicial over-reach and unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the legislature and the executive. HRW has noticed a tendency for the courts to find themselves embroiled in matters that they would not otherwise be an appropriate forum for, and we hope the courts will reflect on this perception. In a sense "Memogate" is a litmus test for all actors - particularly the judiciary and the army. It remains to be seen whether the rule of law or the law of the jungle prevails in Pakistan. REFERENCE: Pakistan: "Greater rights' abuses will ensue unless Pakistan's elected institutions assert themselves" by Raza Rumi Published in: The Friday Times DECEMBER 30, 2011 http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/30/pakistan-greater-rights-abuses-will-ensue-unless-pakistans-elected-institutions-asse