RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Asif Zardari’

Mian Nawaz Sharif: Will You Care to Answer Sir?

27 Mar

 

It was the afternoon of March 25, 2010. We were waiting for the session convening notification from presidency since the summary requisitioning the Joint session of the parliament had gone to the President at around 11:30 am earlier in the day. Normally it takes only couple of hours that the summary is approved by the President, faxed to the Speaker's chamber / Secretary to the National Assembly who acts as the presiding officer for the Joint Parliamentary Session.

Why we were waiting for this important fascimile from president's office was, this joint session had to be a historical one. After more than three decades, the spirit of provincial autonomy and sovereignty of the Parliament had to come back through a parliamentary committee's recommended Constitutional Reforms Package. This package was to be passed by two third majority of the Houses separately. The reason everyone was so sure of this much awaited development, to happen on March 25 was that every political player openly expressed its satisfaction over the constitutional package, which so surely appeared as the first ever consensus constitutional amendment document after the 1973 constitution itself.

Continuously in touch with my source in the National Assembly, who appeared to be quite bored of my repeated phone calls, I stuck myself to TV Screen and laptop, when finally I contacted Speaker's chamber directly at around 4:45 pm, for my entrance pass for the historic joint session, I got a rather unexpected answer. The official at the other end of phone line informed me that there was no summary for "tomorrow's joint session" and asked me where did I get the news from, for any such session?

It dropped in my ears as nothing less than a bombshell. Now I was sure there was something going on in Islamabad, which was not going to be very pleasant for anyone of us – the people of Pakistan. The summary was moved this morning, and was not only confirmed by our source in PM secretariat, but also couple of senior journalists who cover Parliament for quite a long time. We were, unofficially though, confirmed by all these sources that the summary had been faxed to the Presidency at around 11 – 11:30 am. But now the Speaker's Chamber tells us there was no plan for holding the session! What it could be? Despite my repeated attempts to call PML-N mid-level leadership, I could not get them. Confused and disappointed I tried to focus on what I was writing. And heck. There was the ticker going on the TV screen telling that the Session was postponed!

Whatever had happened must be disastrous, I thought. Pakhtunkhwah? But no, only this late morning, an internal meeting of PML-N had unanimously decided to vote for Pakhtunkhwah, according to a private news channel. But the rumours of conflict over it had been making rounds all day. Then what? The riddle soon was solved by Mian Nawaz Sharif, the Quaid of Muslim League Nawaz who held a press conference at 6 pm only to tell people that his party did not agree with the constitutional amendments the Committee for Constitutional Reforms (CCR) had come up with.

Little did he care for the questions he was evading, that arose from this sudden U-turn. The bizarreness of his pretexts to go back on his own words was so obvious and ugly that one was left wondering about how opportunist Pakistan's politics had become! Thanks to the frequently coming boots, with the pet's food they bring for shortsighted politicians, who are now completely unable to think beyond their petty personal interest.

What I did not understand from Mian sahib's long face and sore argument, is not one point. Its a whole host of factors that come in.

ONE: He said he and his party did not agree with the constitutional reforms package in toto. The question arises, why couldn't he and his party members tell this simple fact to the media and the Committee itself? They had consented in letter and spirit less than twenty hours ago and even till 11 am on the day of the press conference. Its a matter of common sense that the Prime Minister had not moved the session requisition summary to the President for the joint session, without taking into confidence biggest opposition party!

TWO: Mian sahib totally evaded the question on the name of Pakhtunkhwah and tilted the controversy towards the mechanism of Judges' appointment issue. His own party members had on record told the media hours earlier, that the CCR had reached the consensus on Judges' appointment issue.

THREE: Throughout the day on March 25, prior to the press conference, Islamabad's offices were echoing with different kinds of news about the internal meeting of PML-N discussing the name of Pakhtunkhwah. There was absolutely no question about the judicial appointments that came to any discussion anywhere. Does that mean Mina Nawaz Sharif was lying with the people when he said in the Press Conference that the only major disagreement was on judicial appointments?

FOUR: In the Press Conference and after wards, Mian Nawaz Sharif kept saying that "the intent of making this committee was mala fide because we wanted to scrap the 17th amendment and the government linked it to other issues, only to delay". May I remind Mian sahib that the Terms of Reference for the Committee were finalized with mutual consent, which was sought by the Speaker through Leaders of Opposition in national Assembly and the Senate. Secondly, why Mian sahib always choose to be dishonest with people so blatantly? Total scrap of 17th amendment was never in discussion. In fact, it was quite clear what all the parties unanimously agree to keep / remove from the 17th amendment. This amendment has many usefull clauses on which no sane person can disagree. These include reserved seats for women and minorities and voting age of 18 years among many others.

Mian sahib's selective amnesia doesn't even allow him to recall that most of Pakistan's problems emanate from center's refusal to grant provinces their rights. When he says that scrap of 17th amendment was simple just because it affects him and only him personally, but the provincial autonomy is too complex to discuss because it has no bearing on his person but has far reaching effects on people? 

So, may we deduce that Mian sahib was lying to the people when he said that Committee's linking with overall constitutional amendment was mala fide?

FIVE: Mian sahib in his landmark press conference (for which historian is never going to be able to forgive him if he doesn't rectify it by immediate action), also said that he had major disagreement on judicial appointments. He was however, not able to tell, what those differences were, and why he did not voice those differences when he gave a go-ahead to the requisitioning of the Joint Session few hours ago? Was he lying to the nation?

SIX: Mian sahib told the media in the press conference that the government has taken out his party's recommendations from the final document. He could not specify those recommendations niether could his party members in March 26 meeting of the Committee. Was he again, lying to the nation?

SEVEN: In March 26 meeting of the Committee, the members from other parties took PML-N to task and demanded what their reservations were, and why those reservations were not presented to the COmmittee before making them public through the Press Conference. The PML-N members had no answer. A feeble voice from Ahsan Iqbal told that the reservation was about the name of Pakhtunkhwah. Oh well. But Mian sahib in his press conference said it was due to judges appointment!

Are the people gone nuts or the PML-N and its leadership is insulting people by telling as many lies as they can?

EIGHT: Why PML-N thinks that it can override the decision of people's representatives from the province under discussion? ANP being the overwhelmingly largest supported party in Pakhtunkhwah, had been able to complete the process of consultation at provincial level and brought the decision of the people of Pakhtunkhwah, to the CCR much earlier than March 25 press conference. What moral grounds Punjab's PML-N has to defy so shamelessly the wishes of the people of Pakhtunkhwah? Is it because Mian sahib's son in law comes from the non-Pakhtun area of Pakhtunkhwah? Or is it because Mian sahib's right hand and prominent member of CCR Sardar Mehtab Abbasi is also against the name Pakhtunkhwah? Is the Royal Son In Law more important than the majority of Pakhtunkwah Province?

Is Mian sahib that entangled in personal politics in addition to being a compulsive liar?

NINE: This biggest achievement of current parliament having come up with a consensus document for constitutional reforms, was to give a huge moral boost to the President who had to address the joint session right after the announcement of the package. Was that the reason of Mian sahib's sudden change of mind? This further is confirmed by March 26 statements of PML-N party leaders who have been asking for presidential address as soon as possible, in accordance with the constitution which asks for presidential address in the beginning of every parliamentary year. is it smart politics?

Is Mian Sahib still not able to learn from his frictional politics of 1990s?

TEN: Mian sahib had been extremely concerned about the Charter of Democracy and President Zardari's "going back on his words" and "not keeping promises" – whereas one is at loss on making out the details of what promises Mian sahib has been talking about? If it was Judges' issue, it was resolved as early as March 2009. What other promises he always rants about?

But keeping it aside for a moment, lets come to the charter of democracy. People would be interested to learn, which clauses of the Charter are not being observed by which party? PML-N has been insisting on the mechanism of judges' appointment in total departure from not only the charter but from all democratic norms of Parliament's sovereignty and the constitutional guarantee of the separation of powers. Whose agenda is he serving?

ELEVEN: And last but not the least. Mian Nawaz Sharif was much bothered about the constitutional amendment introduced by Pervez Musharraf, but is not moved an inch on the black laws introduced by General Zia ul Haq, the most ferocious of the dictators of Pakistan whose doings have assisted Musharraf in making of the Pakistan what it is today.

Mian sahib was quite passionate about the 17th amendment, and that too, its clause which deals with the presidential power of dissolving the assemblies and the clause that bars third time premiership. But the 8th amendment never occurred to him as the one introduced by a dictator. Why? Is it because that doesn't hit him personally but hammers the people at large?

Why Mian Nawaz Sharif is doing such a blatantly personal politics? Painting himself as a pious statesmen? Putting himself at highest moral pedestal to point finger on other leaders of this country?

Is Mian Sahib a statesman or a compulsive liar? Why he should not be altogether shunned by the people?

 
16 Comments

Posted in Writings

 

NRO Verdict: A Dangereous Path

23 Mar

ZardariNawazAPP-608

Finally the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave a much awaited judgment on National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007 after hearing the case for 7 days. The judgment has, at one hand, made urban citizens smile, it has greatly perturbed rural population – the bulk of PPP vote bank. The urban population has been the main recipient of propaganda campaign sponsored by the establishment in connivance with media, who has shown unprecedented support to the establishment in recent months. In the past, most of the media had to stand with army-dominated secret agencies sponsoring this propaganda, under duress and for fear. But this time around, the media dynamics have changed to a great extent. Corporate interest of the media owners and individual interests of major columnists / reporters and TV talk show anchors have taken a new turn. 

As soon as President Asif Ali Zardari took oath, some media sections also took oscillating positions on a rapidly moving political pendulum. Those who were eying on lucrative positions owing to their close relationship with the President, were greatly disappointed when they were not even contacted by the presidency. Others had a more "jihadi" stance against a slightly left to the center PPP. There were yet others who were very successfully lured by PML-N leadership, who is not only fond of doing it but is also very well trained in such measures since the days when they received huge amount of cash from secret agencies for establishing notorious IJI in opposition to PPP. All of them got together to defeat a president who was trying to play smart and outwit army by getting financial support for people, right in the hands of civilian government unlike past fundings by the donor countries (mainly USA) that used to go directly to the armed forces. The sin was unpardonable. So, Mr. Zardari had to face it!

Newly unleashed judiciary – the Azad Adliyah – got a nod from establishment to break the DEAL Mr. Chaudhry had entered in, brokered by army, for getting reinstated in March 2009. It is interesting to note here, that NRO came under attack in Nov – Dec 2009, despite the fact that it was in force since Oct 2007, precisely the point when PML-N stalwarts were too anxious to join hands with same Zardari lead PPP. He still was a "NRO laundered" president when Mr. Nawaz Sharif was trying to make up with him and meeting him under carefully created media hype. But it was not about time yet, I think. Mr. Sharif was still trying his luck with Zardari to get his share. All he was interested in was, laying off of 58-2(b) and 17th amendment (that would allow him to be a third time prime minister, without a president carrying a sword on his head). He did not intend to "derail the democratic system", since it involves money and resources to fight an unncessary mid-term election. The short cut seemed, getting it done through chopping off the third time PM bar and 58-2(b). So, if necessary, he could always make a move towards contesting an election and getting on the band wagon, with an unpredictably pro-establishment MQM and the comrades in waiting under the flag of PML-Q. 

But Zardari, it appears, proved to be a hard nut to crack. The man was able to foresee the plan. He did not loosen his grip on necessary constitutional clauses. In this case, it became necessary for Nawaz, to get rid of the president, and become one. In this way, there won't be any need to abolish 58-2(b), or 17th Amendment, because what fun would it be becoming a 58-2(b)-less president? The traditionally anti-PPP media sections, the sections of media that could not get benefits it had been eying on, MQM – the great political pendulum, PML-Q comrades and a greatly misguided urban citizenry all flocked together to buck up an activist and obliged judiciary to "correct" the "corrupt politicians". The Corrupt politicians in this case obviously meant PPP leadership, especially Zardari. And to "correct" meant, it was obvious too, deposing Zardari from presidency. The easiest way was to use a highly manipulatable media and civil society and gather them under the morally high grounded flag of "Anti-Corruption". 

Everything is, so far going according to the plan. But our worthy intellectuals (mainly coming from urbanized upper middle class / elite of Punjab) probably forgot that creating a public euphoria about such a verdict and thus influencing the court, would result in many controversies and power imbalance that would not only derail democratic system, but would also affect a concerted action against terrorism dangerously prevalent in the country. Surprising, also, was the fact that the worthy court did not take any notice of every B'Grade reporter turned TV anchor talk endlessly about the NRO, which had to be treated as sub judice. 

Supreme Court gave the judgment despite the fact that it had given an opportunity to the Parliament few weeks ago, to get the Ordinance validated by it. Giving the judgment against the validity of NRO, it seems that the worthy court has said loud and clear that the Ordinance had been acceptable, had it been validated by the Parliament. But since it has come to the court, it is not going to allow a "notorious" ordinance in the statutory book. Strange it may sound, but still our media pundits are happy about a "historic" judgment. 

It may also be noted that the judgment recognizes the highly controversial clauses of the constitution 62(f) whereby the prerequisite for acquiring public office has been attached to being undefined "sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and Ameen". The said clause was added to the constitution by the then dictator Zia ul Haq through a Provisional Order (14) in 1985. Those who are rejoicing must also remember that they are not only validating but legitimizing Zia ul Haq's notorious tailoring of the constitution in favour of marrying religion with the business of state. 

Whereas Nawaz Sharif, powered by media jihadis and civil society muftis, remains worried about 17th amendment, he surely is not concerned about the unjust and unfair amendments made by Zia ul Haq through P.Os and notorious 8th Amendment. It may be reminded here, that Nawaz Sharif during his HEAVY MANDATE days did not repeal 8th amendment, he only trimmed it by giving off 58-2(b) that suited him. He was, also, not worried about NRO till he had hopes from Zardari. 

The present judgment, among many other things, builds upon Mr. Salman Akram Raja's contention that the "Legislative judgment cannot be enacted by the Parliament. [ Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)]" and states in section 14 of the judgment that ". . . no change in the basic features of the Constitution, is possible through amendment as it would be against the national reconciliation . . ". This would be against the spirit of section 239 (6) of the constitution whereby legislature (Majlis-e-Shoora) is fully empowered to amend any part of the constitution. 

Strangely enough, the worthy court, whereas, speaks about those who benefited from the Ordinance, it is absolutely silent about the author of the Ordinance, General (R) Pervez Musharraf. The court also, did not consider that if it has started opening cases  in retrospect, probably no one including superior judiciary itself, is going to be above it. In some cases, the honourable judges have to open cases against their own children, and some of very important cases pending before the court since very long. few among them are, notorious Sabza Zar case, Mehran Bank case and IJI formation and doling out money case filed by Asghar Khan.

Media is watching its own corporate interest. Civil Society is confused. Citizens' minds are manipulated. Political parties are trying to build on the opportunity provided by you, you have treaded on a dangerous path my lord!


 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted in Writings

 

2nd Instalment of Truth – NRO Actually!

21 Mar

nro3This is in continuation of my earlier post on NRO, posted on November 7, 2009. We were trying to learn about this Ordinance clause by clause. So far we have examined Section II and saw that a major amendment in Criminal Procedures Code could well be used to control the damage (if any), if the federal and provincial governments want. We’ll now move on to next sections.

Section III of the Ordinance adds up a new subsection to section 39 of the Representation of People Act (RPA) of 1976. The RPA has been amended many times after its promulgation in 1976. The latest amendment came in 2008. The said Section 39 of the RPA deals with the consolidation of election results. It previously had six subsections. The seventh subsection thus added involved immediate providence of the election results by the returning officer, to the contesting candidates and their election agents who are present during the consolidation process. It is provided that the returning officer will provide them the copy of the result of the count sent to the Election Commission. It must be noted here that all political parties agree that this amendment to the RPA 1976 is beneficial for the electoral process and its free, fair and transparent holding.

Sections IV and V of NRO can be read clubbed together for better comprehension. Both of these sections provide that no member of the Parliament or of Provincial Assemblies could be arrested in a NAB related case unless recommended by Special Parliamentary Committee on Ethics. These sections also provide that such Committees on Ethics will be constituted in Senate and in National / Provincial Assemblies, having equal representation of opposition and ruling party members. The members of these Ethic Committees will be appointed by the Speaker(s) National / Provincial Assemblies / Chairman Senate as recommended by the Leader(s) of House(s) and Leader(s) of the Opposition. There will be 8 members in each of these committees and a chairperson.

Moreover, both of these sections actually make amendment to already existing National Accountability Ordinance of 1999. Under Section 31-C of the NAO, the officers of banks and financial institutions who might be charged for appropriation and right off/ waiver of loans etc, under NAB, were given protection. These two sections of NRO (Section 4 and 5) actually extend this protection to the elected representatives of people.

The protection given to the bank officers under NAO 1999 provides for the NAB to not arrest any such accused unless a formal approval is given by the Governor State Bank of Pakistan. Similarly, if some officers / other persons associated with NAB investigations are accused of hampering such proceedings, s/he will not be charged with out the sanction of a Committee headed by NAB Chairperson.

In the presence of such a protection for the bank / government officers that already existed in the form of NAO 1999, the temporary protection given to the elected representatives of people doesn’t seem a big deal. Further, this protection seems to be given to curtail political victimization of the opposition members by any sitting government. This provision, negotiated by PPP with the then military ruler, seems to be in accordance with Charter of Democracy agreed between PPP and PML-N according to which, no political victimization will be done against each other. It seems that CoD was being formally institutionalized when this very clause was being negotiated.

It must be mentioned here, that a special meeting of Parliamentary Committee on law and Justice was convened on October 31, 2009 under the Chairpersonship of Begum Nasim Akhtar Chaudhry who is member of National Assembly from ruling PPP. The said Committee comprises 16 members including the Chairperson, 4 members from PML-N, one from MQM, 3 from PML-Q. That makes one chairperson, 7 members from PPP while total 8 members from other parties. This Committee discussed the Ordinance clause be clause and approved with simple majority.

Strangely enough, all major parties i.e., PPP, PML-N and PML-Q unanimously agreed to scrap these two sections of NRO. Should we think that all the parties agree to carry on with political victimization of each other?

Section VI of NRO provides for a new sub-section in Section 31 (A) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999. This new section says that any judgement of the court passed in the absence of the accused, would be void and should not be complied with. This Section was specifically added for the benefit of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto – two main leaders of major political parties who were thrown out of the political arena in Pakistan. This clause also seems to be an outcome of Charter of Democracy. In the absence of PML-N from the entire discussions of NRO with the General, PPP and MQM negotiated this clause, to the clear benefit of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mohtarma. This is the section which made it possible for Mian Nawaz Sharif to stage a comeback.

Section VII , the last of NRO, provides for the withdrawal of all the cases against the holders of public offices, which were initiated by the Federal Government prior to October 12, 1999. These cases will only include the pending cases, and not the cases in which decisions have been finalized, or plea bargain has been settled by NAB. This also does not include cases related to cooperative societies and financial & investment companies, no matter if they are initiated prior to October 12, 1999.

Under this Section, protection is also provided to the NAB members & functionaries, federal, provincial and local governments and their functionaries against persecutions, on account of withdrawal of such cases.

It is very clear that all parties including PML-Q (including its Patriot members e.g., its Parliamentary Leader Faisal Saleh Hayat among many others), MQM, some members of PML-N and PPP are the beneficiaries of this section. It is also ironic that PML-N who is the biggest critic of this Ordinance, took active part in the Law & Justice Committee deliberations on NRO until Section 6. As soon as discussion started on Section 7, they staged a walk out. It may probably be due to the reason that the said section benefits only the mid level leaders of PML-N, and not the main leadership.

We’ll continue our discussion on NRO in the next instalment of truth, let’s assimilate this much first!


 

Bookmark and Share

 

 

 
3 Comments

Posted in Writings

 

Supreme Court of Pakistan Judgment on NRO (Dec 16, 2009)

05 Mar

 

supremecourt_building

 

Thursday, December 17, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Original Jurisdiction)

Present

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. 
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk
Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali
Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali
Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain 
Mr. Justice Rahmat Hussain Jafferi
Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani

Constitution petition Nos 76 TO 80 OF 2007 & 59/2009, and Civil Appeal No 1094 of 2009 (On appeal from the order dated 15.1.2009 passed by High Court of Sindh in Karachi in Const.P.No.355 of 2008) and HRC NOS.14328-P TO 14331-P & 15082-P OF 2009

Dr. Mobashir Hassan (Const.P.76/07)
Roedad Khan (Const. P.77/07)
Qazi Hussain Ahmad (Const.P.78/07)
Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (Const.P.79/07)
Muhammad Tariq Asad (Const.P.80/07)
Syed Feroz Shah Gillani (Const.P.59/09)
Fazal Ahmad Jat (C.A.1094/09)
Shaukat Ali (H.R.C.14328-P/09)
Doraiz (H.R.C.14329-P/09)
Zulqarnain Shahzad (H.R.C.14330-P/09)
Abid Hussain (H.R.C.14331-P/09)
Manzoor Ahmad (H.R.C.15082-P/09)

Petitioners Versus Federation of Pakistan, etc. 

Respondents.

For the petitioners: Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC. 
Mr. Suleman Akram Raja, ASC. 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR. 

Assisted by:

Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Sr.ASC
Mr. M.Afzal Siddiqui, ASC
Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC
Mr. Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, ASC
Barrister Feroze Jamal Shah, Adv.
Mr. Hameed Ahmeed, Adv.
Mr. Mustafa Aftab Sherpao, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Khosa, Adv.
Mr. Umar Akram Chaudhry, Adv.
Malik Ghulam Sabir, Adv.

(in Const. P. 76/2007)

Mr. Muhammad Ikram Ch. ASC.

Mr. G. N. Gohar, AOR. 

(in Const. P. 77/2007)

Dr. Farooq Hassan, Sr.ASC
Mr. Hashmat Ali Habib, ASC

Ch. Muhammad Akram, AOR

(in Const.P.78/07)

Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, ASC

(in Const.P.79/07)

Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC (in person)

(in Const.P.80/07)

Mr. A.K. Dogar, Sr. ASC

(in Const.P.59/09)

Mr. Shahid Orakzai (in person)

(in CMA 4842/09)

Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC

(in CA.1094/2009) NEMO (in HR.Cases)

For the Respondents:

For M/o Law: Mr. Kamal Azfar, Sr. ASC. Assisted by 
Mr. K.K. Agha, ASC. 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.

(in Const.P.76-77/07)

Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.

(in Const.P.78-80/07 & 59/09)

For the NAB: Dr. Danishwar Malik, PG.
Mr. Abdul Baseer Qureshi, Addl: PG 
Dr. Asghar Rana, ADPG, 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR.
Mr. Naveed Ahsan, Chairman NAB

On Court Notice: Mr. Shah Khawar, Acting Attorney General for Pakistan. 

Assisted by:

Agha Tariq Mehmood Khan, DAG. 
Mr. Dil Muhammad Alizai, DAG.
Raja Aleem Abbassi, DAG. 

For Govt of Balochistan: Dr. Salahuddin Mengal, AG. 

For Govt of NWFP: Mr. Zia-ur-Rehman, A.G.
Mr Zahid Yousaf, Addl. A.G. 
Mr Naveed Akhtar, A.A.G.

For Govt of the Punjab: Mr M. Hanif Khattana, Addl: AG. 
Ch. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Addl: AG.

For Govt of Sindh: Mr Yousaf Leghari, AG.

On Court’s Call: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC
Former Attorney General for Pakistan

Mr. Justice (retd) M. Riaz Kiani
Secretary Law & Justice. 

Dr. Riaz Mehmood, Sr. Joint Secretary. 
Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Solicitor General. 
Mr. M. Salman Faruqui, Principle Secretary to the President. 

Amicus Curiae: Mian Allah Nawaz, Sr. ASC. 
Mr. Shaiq Usmani Sr. ASC.
Mr. M. Sardar Khan, Sr. ASC. 

Assisted By Mr. Idrees Ashraf, Adv.

Dates of hearing: 07th -10th & 14th – 16th December, 2009.

O R D E R

Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ – The above titled Constitution Petitions have been filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’] challenging the constitutionality of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (No.LX) 2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the NRO’], while HR cases and Civil Appeal, by leave of the Court, have been filed by the applicants/appellant for extension of benefit of the NRO to them.

2. Succinctly stating the facts, giving rise to instant proceedings, are that on 5th October, 2007, the President of Pakistan, in purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 89 of the Constitution, issued the NRO, whereby, certain amendments have been made in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as “the NAB Ordinance”]. By means of Section 2 of the NRO, Section 494 of Cr.P.C. has been amended. Likewise, vide Section 3 of the NRO, Section 39 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 has been amended. Similarly, Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the NRO amended Sections 18, 24 and 31A of the NAB Ordinance, respectively, whereas by means of Section 7 of the NRO, Section 33F has been inserted in the NAB Ordinance. 

3. The NRO came under challenge, as stated above, before this Court, through listed petitions. These petitions came up for hearing before the Court on 12th October, 2007 when after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court proceeded to issue notices to the respondents as well as to Attorney General for Pakistan, for a date in office after three weeks, while making the following observation:-

“However, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms that any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed petitions and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any protection of the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the impugned Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court conclude that the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these provisions are ultra vires the Constitution”. 

4. Pending decision of these petitions, on 3rd November, 2007, emergency was proclaimed in the country by the then President of Pakistan and also the Chief of Army Staff and under the garb of Provisional Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 was issued, whereby, Article 270AAA was inserted in the Constitution, which provided protection to all the laws including the Ordinances in force on the day on which the Proclamation of Emergency of 3rd November 2007 was revoked. As a result of above constitutional amendment, the apparent interest was that the NRO should attain permanence. The Proclamation of Emergency as well as other extra-constitutional instruments were challenged before this Court in the case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan v. General Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2008 SC 178), when the Court declared the Proclamation of Emergency of 3rd November, 2007, the Provisional Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007 and the President’s Order No.5 of 2007, to be validly enacted. However, this Court, vide its judgment dated 31st July 2009, in the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 879) declared all the above five instruments to be unconstitutional, illegal and void ab initio, as a result whereof Article 270AAA stood deleted from the Constitution. Consequently, the NRO, as well as 37 other Ordinances, which were meant to be protected, were shorn of the permanency purportedly provided under Article 270AAA of the Constitution and sanctified by the judgment passed in Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan’s case (ibid). However, through the same judgment, this Court, while supporting the doctrine of trichotomy of powers, as envisaged in the scheme of the Constitution and to prevent any disruption, enabled the Parliament to reconsider and, if thought fit, to enact, all the 37 Ordinances including the NRO, as Acts of Parliament. For this purpose the life of the Ordinances stood extended for another 120 days (in case of Federal Legislation) and 90 days (in case of Provincial Legislation). This constituted an opportunity to the democratic Government at the Centre and in the Provinces to legitimize the acts, actions, proceedings and orders, initiated, taken or done, under those Ordinances, by placing them before the Parliament, to make them enactments of Parliament, with retrospective effect.

5. In pursuance of above judgment of 31st July, 2009, the NRO was placed before the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on Law & Justice, in its meeting held on 29th & 30th October, 2009. During the discussions and deliberations, some of the members did not agree with the decision of the Committee and left the proceedings in protest. However, ultimately, on 2nd November, 2009 the Committee recommended that, after the proposed amendments in the Bill for enacting the NRO, the same may be passed by the Assembly. It is pertinent to mention here that despite finalisation of the report of the Standing Committee on NRO and before its approval by the Chairperson of the Committee, the Minister concerned withdrew the Bill under Rule 139 of Procedure & Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007. As a result, the NRO could not be passed by the Parliament, within its extended life, therefore, it lapsed.

6. The petitioners in these Constitution Petitions have challenged the vires of the NRO with the prayer that the same may be declared ultra vires the Constitution, viod ab initio and of no legal effect. For convenience, the prayer made in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007, filed by Dr. Mubashir Hassan, is reproduced herein below:- 

“1) Section 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the NRO may kindly be declared to be void ab initio, of no legal effect and ultra vires the Constitution, in particular Articles 25, 62, 63 and 175 thereof.

2) During the pendency of the instant petition, the respondents may kindly be restraint from taking any action under or in terms of the impugned Ordinance. The respondents may in particular, be restrained from withdrawing any request for mutual assistance and civil party, letters rogatory and like issued to any Foreign Government, Court or other Authority or Multilateral Organization.

3) Any other order deemed beneficial to the interest of Justice and equity, may also kindly be made. 

7. The instant petitions came up for hearing before this Bench on 

7th December 2009, when Mr. Shah Khawar, Acting Attorney General for Pakistan, placed on record a written statement on behalf of Federation of Pakistan. Relevant paras therefrom are reproduced herein below:-

“2. That the Federation believes in supremacy of the Constitution of 1973 and the Parliament. 

3. That the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 was promulgated by the previous regime and I am under instruction not to defend it.”

8. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan, through Ministry of Law & Justice, filed Civil Misc. Applications No. 4875 & 4898 of 2009 in Constitution Petitions No. 76 & 77 of 2007. Contents of paras at page 11 & 12 of the said applications are reproduced herein below:-

“If however, this Hon’ble Court wishes to rule upon wider issues other than those raised in the petition and prayer the Federation requests that fresh petitions be filed precisely stipulating these issues whereupon the Federation will seek instructions on such new petition. 

Pak Today is poised at the cross roads. One road leads to truly federal democratic welfare sate with the balance of power between an Independent judiciary, a duly elected Govt. representing the will of the people a determined executive, which is fighting the war against terrorism and poverty. The second road leads to destabilisation of the rule of law. The people of Pakistan await your verdict.”

When we confronted the learned counsel with above contents of his applications, he requested that the same may be treated as deleted. In this behalf, he, however, filed a written statement, contents whereof are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

“STATEMENT

In Compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to appraise the Hon’ble Court as to how the Federation would interpret the wording “the second road leads to the destabilization of the rule of law”, it is submitted as follows:-

(1) There is no mention of the wording ‘threat to democracy’ in the Statement.

(2) The Federation supports the Prosecution, in accordance with law, of persons alleged to have done wrongdoing. The Federation does not oppose the Petitions seeking a declaration that the National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007 (NRO) is illegal and unconstitutional.

(3) With regard to the “wider issues” mentioned in paragraph No.9 these refer to those matters which were raised by the Petitioner’s counsel during oral arguments and which find no mention whatsoever in the Petitions. For example, submissions made in respect of Articles 89 (in particular the alleged concept of “implied Resolution”) and A.264 on the effect of Repeal.

(4) The Federation’s view is that those who have benefited under the NRO should be proceeded against under the appropriate laws before the courts having the competent jurisdiction. As factual matters need to be determined by the trial courts.

(5) So far as my comments made yesterday before this Hon’ble Court concerning the threat from GHQ, the CIA and the contents of paragraph 9 of the CMA are concerned these were my personal views and were not made on the instructions of the Federation of Pakistan. As such I withdraw the same, which should not be considered by this Hon’ble Court in any manner whatsoever and the same should be deleted and expunged from the record.

(6) It is emphasized that the Federation of Pakistan holds this Hon’ble Court in the highest esteem and has the greatest respect for the same.”

9. Learned Advocates General of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan appeared and supported the stance taken by the Attorney General for Pakistan. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the material placed on record in support of their submissions. 

11. As it has been noted above that challenge to NRO was thrown by the petitioners, no sooner same was promulgated by the President and admission order dated 12th October, 2007, was passed, to examine following questions:-

“2. Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007 argued that:

a) Section 7 of the impugned Ordinance being self-executory in nature amounts to legislative judgment, which is impermissible intrusion into the exercise of judicial powers of the State and thus falls foul of Article 175 of the Constitution which envisages separation and independence of the judiciary from other organs of the State. 

b) Legislative judgment cannot be enacted by the Parliament. [ Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)].

c) By promulgating Section 7 of the impugned Ordinance, Article 63(1)(h) and 63(1)(l) of the Constitution have been made ineffective, as regards chosen category of people, therefore, it is ultra vires the Constitution as it amounts to defeat the constitutional mandates.

d) Impugned Ordinance exhorts about or indemnifies a particular class of people i.e. public office holders from proceedings, actions and orders passed by the competent authorities, whereas no such powers are available to the Parliament or, for that matter, to the President of Pakistan under Federal or Concurrent Legislative List. Further; the President is empowered only to pardon an accused person, under Article 45 of the Constitution, after passing of sentence by a Court of law, whereas by means of impugned Ordinance, the President has been empowered to indemnify or pardon an accused, against whom proceedings are pending before Investigating Agency or a Court of law or in appeal by giving a blanket cover. 

e) The impugned Ordinance violates the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution because it is not based on intelligible differentia, relatable to lawful objects, therefore, deserves to be struck down. 

f) The impugned Ordinance is against the public policy because it also provides protection against future action in terms of its Section 7 and it had also rendered Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution ineffective. 

g) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 494 of Cr.P.C. added by means of impugned Ordinance are contrary to provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 494 of Cr.P.C. where it has been provided that cases can only be withdrawn with the consent of the Court, whereas, in newly added Sub-Sections, powers of the “Court” have been conferred upon the Review Boards of the Executive Bodies, therefore, these Sub-sections are also contrary to Article 175 of the Constitution. 

and

No criteria has been laid down as to why the cases falling between the 1st day of January 1986 to 12th day of October 1999 have been covered under these provisions, inasmuch as definition of political victimization has not been provided in these Sub-sections, as a result whereof it has been left at the subjective consideration of Review Board/ Executive Bodies to determine the same. Thus such provisions cannot exist in any manner.

h) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated in colorable exercise of Legislative powers and its various provisions have created discrimination among ordinary and classified accused, therefore, all these provisions tantamount to malice in law.

i) The provisions of impugned Ordinance are so overbroad that these have provided blanket cover to all the holders of public offices, including chosen representatives and ordinary employees, therefore, the object of national reconciliation cannot be achieved by allowing it to exist. 

j) The provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the impugned Ordinance are highly discriminatory in nature, therefore, are liable to be struck down. 

k) Section 6 of the impugned Ordinance is contrary to the basic principles relating to annulment of judgments, even if passed in absentia, in accordance with existing law, according to which unless the basis for the judgment, in favour of a party, is not removed, it could not affect the rights of the parties, in whose favour the same was passed but when the Legislature promulgated the impugned Ordinance, in order to remove the basis on which the judgment was founded, such judgment shall have no bearing on the cases. [Facto Belarus Tractor Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 605)]. Hence, provisions of the impugned Ordinance as a whole are against the concept of equality of Islamic Injunction, provided under Article 2A of the Constitution, therefore, on this score as well, deserves to be struck down being ultra vires the Constitution. 

3. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, learned Sr. ASC for petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 77 of 2007, while adopting the above arguments, added 

that:-

i) The impugned Ordinance is purpose specific and period specific, therefore, violates Article 25 of the Constitution. 

4. Dr. Farooq Hassan, Sr. ASC appearing in Constitution Petition No. 78 of 2007 on behalf of petitioner, while adopted the arguments raised by Mr. Suleman Ahmed Raja, ASC contended that:-

i) The impugned Ordinance is contradictory to and violative of the United Nation’s Convention Against Corruption, enacted in 2005 and ratified by Pakistan on 31st of August 2007.

ii) Under the Constitution, no indemnity or amnesty can at all be given to any one, except granting pardon in terms of Article 45 of the Constitution. 

iii) Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the impugned Ordinance are violative of the doctrine of trichotomy of powers. 

iv) The impugned Ordinance has in fact changed the basic structure of the Constitution.

v) The impugned Ordinance has also violated the principles of political justice and fundamental rights because it allows plundering of national wealth and to get away with it. More so, it tried to condone dishonesty of magnitude, which is unconscientious and shocking to the conscience of mankind.

5. Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR appeared on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC in Constitution Petition No.79 of 2007 and adopted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 

6. Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC appearing in Constitution Petition No. 80 of 2007 also adopted the above arguments, while adding that:-

a) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated on the basis of personal satisfaction of the President of Pakistan but for extraneous reasons and to provide indemnity/immunity to the public office holders, therefore, is liable to be struck down. 

12. Subsequent thereto cases remained pending except when their hearing was fixed on 27th February, 2008 and order dated 12th October, 2007, was vacated in following terms : -

3. These Constitution Petitions are adjourned to a date in office due to indisposition of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Meanwhile, in view of the rule laid down in the case of Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 SC 61), the observations made by this Court in Para 8 of the order dated 12.10.2007 in Constitution Petitions No.76-80 of 2007 to the effect that “however, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms that any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed petitions and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any protection of the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the impugned Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court conclude that the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these provisions are ultra vires the Constitution” are deleted. Resultantly, the Ordinance shall hold the field and shall have its normal operation. The Courts and authorities concerned shall proceed further expeditiously in the light of the provisions of the Ordinance without being influenced by the pendency of these petitions.”

13. As it has been noted above that while deciding the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association (ibid), all the Ordinances which were not laid before the Parliament, on account of insertion of Article 270AAA in the Constitution, were shorn of permanency, therefore, the Parliament was asked to examine all such Ordinances within a period of 120 and 90 days, as the case may be, commencing from 31st July, 2009, when a 14 Member Bench announced judgment. The period so assigned by the Court expired on 28th November, 2009 but the NRO was taken back from the Parliament, leaving for this Court to examine its constitutionality in the cases listed above. It is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that courts are not required to give decisions of cases in vacuum rather it has to consider facts as well, giving a cause to a person to approach Courts. The NRO gave benefits to a class of people, whose identification is not difficult to ascertain, namely accused persons, involved in criminal and corruption cases, during the period commencing from 1st January, 1986 to 12th October, 1999 and this classification has created a divide amongst ordinary citizens of Pakistan and a class of alleged criminals who statedly have committed crimes of murder, dacoity, rape, looting/plundering of money/resources of this nation. Therefore, prima facie, to understand the nature of such beneficiaries, Federal Government, Provincial Governments and the NAB were asked to provide details in this behalf. In response to such query the Government of Sindh through its Advocate General filed a large list of such like accused, who being charged for the cases of criminal nature, benefited from the NRO, which included heinous and minor crimes, as well. As far as the remaining Governments and the Federating Units are concerned, they categorically denied extension of benefits of the NRO to even a single accused in their respective jurisdictions. However, NAB has submitted a list containing names of 248 persons, who benefited from the NRO within and outside the country. A cursory perusal of this list suggests that barring the cases inside the country, huge benefit has been availed by some of the persons in the cases pending against them outside the country. At this stage it is to be noted that application of the NRO, beyond the territories of the country, is a question which requires consideration on jurisdictional plane of this Court as well. NAB has also provided a list of the persons, who were convicted in absentia under Section 31A of the NAB Ordinance. 

14. In depth examination of the NRO suggests that it has not been promulgated to provide reconciliation on national basis as this nation has seen reconciliation in 1973, when a Constituent Assembly gave the Constitution of 1973 to the nation, guaranteeing their fundamental rights, on the basis of equality and brotherhood, as a result whereof, the nation had proved its unity, whenever it faced a challenge to its sovereignty and existence. The representation of the people, in subsequent Legislative Assemblies, has upheld the provisions of 1973 Constitution, except for few occasions when they have made amendments under peculiar circumstances. However, salient features of the Constitution i.e. Independence of Judiciary, Federalism, Parliamentary form of Government blended with Islamic provisions, now have become integral part of the Constitution and no change in the basic features of the Constitution, is possible through amendment as it would be against the national reconciliation, evident in the promulgation of the Constitution of 1973, by a Legislative Assembly. Therefore, promulgation of the NRO seems to be against the national interest and its preamble is contrary to the substance embodied therein. Thus, it violates various provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, by means of instant short order, reasons of which shall be recorded later, we hold as follows:-

(i) that the NRO is declared to be an instrument void ab initio being ultra vires and violative of various constitutional provisions including Article Nos. 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227 of the Constitution;

(ii) that as a consequence of the said declaration, all steps taken, actions suffered, and all orders passed by whatever authority, any orders passed by the courts of law including the orders of discharge and acquittals recorded in favour of the accused persons, are also declared never to have existed in the eyes of law and resultantly of no legal effect;

(iii) that all cases in which the accused persons were either discharged or acquitted under Section 2 of the NRO or where proceedings pending against the holders of public office had got terminated in view of Section 7 thereof, a list of which cases has been furnished to this Court and any other such cases/proceedings which may not have been brought to the notice of this Court, shall stand revived and relegated to the status of pre-5th of October, 2007 position;

(iv) that all the concerned courts including the trial, the appellate and the revisional courts are ordered to summon the persons accused in such cases and then to proceed in the respective matters in accordance with law from the stage from where such proceedings had been brought to an end in pursuance of the above provisions of the NRO;

(v) that the Federal Government, all the Provincial Governments and all relevant and competent authorities including the Prosecutor General of NAB, the Special Prosecutors in various Accountability Courts, the Prosecutors General in the four Provinces and other officers or officials involved in the prosecution of criminal offenders are directed to offer every possible assistance required by the competent courts in the said connection; 

(vi) that similarly all cases which were under investigation or pending enquiries and which had either been withdrawn or where the investigations or enquiries had been terminated on account of the NRO shall also stand revived and the relevant and competent authorities shall proceed in the said matters in accordance with law;

(vii) that it may be clarified that any judgment, conviction or sentence recorded under section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance shall hold the field subject to law and since the NRO stands declared as void ab initio, therefore, any benefit derived by any person in pursuance of Section 6 thereof is also declared never to have legally accrued to any such person and consequently of no legal effect;

(viii) that since in view of the provisions of Article 100(3) of the Constitution, the Attorney General for Pakistan could not have suffered any act not assigned to him by the Federal Government or not authorized by the said Government and since no order or authority had been shown to us under which the then learned Attorney General namely Malik Muhammad Qayyum had been authorized to address communications to various authorities/courts in foreign countries including Switzerland, therefore, such communications addressed by him withdrawing the requests for Mutual Legal Assistance or abandoning the status of a Civil Party in such proceedings abroad or which had culminated in the termination of proceedings before the competent fora in Switzerland or other countries or in abandonment of the claim of the Government of Pakistan to huge amounts of allegedly laundered moneys, are declared to be unauthorized, unconstitutional and illegal acts of the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum;

(ix) that since the NRO stands declared void ab initio, therefore, any actions taken or suffered under the said law are also non est in law and since the communications addressed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum to various foreign fora/authorities/courts withdrawing the requests earlier made by the Government of Pakistan for Mutual Legal Assistance; surrendering the status of Civil Party; abandoning the claims to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, have also been declared by us to be unauthorized and illegal communications and consequently of no legal effect, therefore, it is declared that the initial requests for Mutual Legal Assistance; securing the status of Civil Party and the claims lodged to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland are declared never to have been withdrawn. Therefore the Federal Government and other concerned authorities are ordered to take immediate steps to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status;

(x) that in view of the above noticed conduct of Malik Muhammad Qayyum, the then learned Attorney General for Pakistan in addressing unauthorized communications which had resulted in unlawful abandonment of claims of the Government of Pakistan, inter alia, to huge amounts of the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, the Federal Government and all other competent authorities are directed to proceed against the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum in accordance with law in the said connection;

(xi) that we place on record our displeasure about the conduct and lack of proper and honest assistance and cooperation on the part of the Chairman of the NAB, the Prosecutor General of the NAB and of the Additional Prosecutor General of the NAB, namely, Mr. Abdul Baseer Qureshi in this case. Consequently, it is not possible for us to trust them with proper and diligent pursuit of the cases falling within their respective spheres of operation. It is therefore, suggested that the Federal Government may make fresh appointments against the said posts of persons possessing high degree of competence and impeccable integrity in terms of Section 6 of the NAB Ordinance as also in terms of the observations of this Court made in the case of Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607). However, till such fresh appointments are so made, the present incumbents may continue to discharge their obligations strictly in accordance with law. They shall, however, transmit periodical reports of the actions taken by them to the Monitoring Cell of this Court which is being established through the succeeding parts of this judgment;

(xii) that a Monitoring Cell shall be established in the Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising of the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by him to monitor the progress and the proceedings in the above noticed and other cases under the NAB Ordinance. Likewise similar Monitoring Cells shall be set up in the High Courts of all the Provinces comprising of the Chief Justice of the respective Province or Judges of the concerned High Courts to be nominated by them to monitor the progress and the proceedings in cases in which the accused persons had been acquitted or discharged under Section 2 of the NRO;

(xiii) that the Secretary of the Law Division, Government of Pakistan, is directed to take immediate steps to increase the number of Accountability Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases;

15. We place on record our deep sense of appreciation for the learned counsel for the parties as also for the learned amicii curiae who have rendered invaluable assistance to us in these matters.

The petitions stand allowed and disposed of by this short order in terms noted above.

Chief Justice. 

Judge (1) Judge (2) Judge (3) 
Judge (4) Judge (5) Judge (6)
Judge (7) Judge (8) 
Judge (10) Judge (11) Judge (12) Judge (13)
Judge (14) 
Judge (15) 
Judge (16) 
Judge (17)

Islamabad
16.12.2009

Concluded

 

 
No Comments

Posted in Research n Record

 

It’s Not 4 Fs: A Rebuttal to Ms. Anjum Niaz

05 Mar

March 19, 2009
“Welcome Back, My Lord!” was Ms. Anjum Niaz’s piece that made way to the opinion page of The News (Page 6) on March 17, 2009. An otherwise fair columnist, Ms. Anjum  got probably carried away in siding with her old time friend Sherry Rehman. While Sherry’s action in standing up for the freedom of media is duly respected by all and sundry, it should not be forgotten that in our emotional streak we may not be unfair with others.
Ms. Anjum Niaz’s emotional piece accuses, absolutely incorrectly, four women members of Pakistan Peoples Party for the decline of Shery Rehman from two coveted positions of Minister Information & Broadcasting and Secretary Information of PPP. She calss the group of four ladies as 4 Fs i.e., Farzana Raja, Fauzia Wahab, Farahnaz Isfahani and none other than honourable Speaker, Dr. Fehmeeda Mirza.
In her sentimental dash demonstrating support for her friend, Anjum Niaz goes so off the deep end, that she forgets the fact that Dr. Fehmida Mirza is holding a position which is much above the Minister of Information status. And that she has nothing to envy of Sherry Rehman. And infact, Sherry and Dr. Mirza have never known to be at odd ends of relationship.
Here I would like to emphcize couple of important points. First is the respect that is privelege of the chair Dr. Mirza holds. Gone are the days when parliamentary ethics would not onnly prevail among the honourable members of the Houses, but would also overflow into all quarters of society including media. It pains a student of political science to see this deterioration across the range of important actors in a state. The Chair has to be outside these petty political meanderings. And a veteran journalist should be extremely cognizant of this other wise this ethical slip down would see no fathomable depths.
Another important fact that is missed in this piece is that Dr. Fehmida Mirza remains one of thosse very rare Seakers of the Houe our legislatures has ever seen, who could not compromise on their impartiality and nonpartisanship. If Ms. Anjum Niaz had any time to read through the pages of spreadsheet media reporting on National Assembly procedings, she would know that present Speaker has very successfully isolated herself from partisanship not only in the House but also in party circles.
Most importantly, I would like to draw readers’ attention towards a very important fact, and that is, Dr. Fehmida Mirza is silently playing a very strong role in empowerment of women by being torch bearer  in organized campaigning towards this end. She has, on her personal initiative, established a Women’s Parliamentary Caucus, that involves all women members of both Houses. It is to be noted that one such initiative was taken by PPP women members in 2003 as well, but it was thwarted by entirely different ideologies of women representing political parties polls apart. It happened, basically, due to the abssence of a figure who could moderate points of difference among ideologically opposite party representatives within the Caucus at that point in time. Now, fortunately, we had this fggure in the person of Fr. Mirza, who not only carried the role of Chair entrusted upon her, with utter grace, but also gathered all women inthe House around one table. Seeing women from allparliamentary parties working together on women’s issues, across the party lines, was a sight one would never like to miss!
Her nonpartisanship became evident on March 12, 2009 when she hosted a Milaad in Parliament House. Despite a very tense day between government and opposition that day, owing to the commencement of Long March, one could not stop one’s heart pounce with extreme joy on seeing all women sitting together – whether it was PPP, PML-N, ANP or MQM . . . all were there.
Now my question from Ms. Niaz is, what makes her drag this impartial figure into this political tug of war? If it is just her friend Sherry, then she should pay some heed to what Sherry thinks of Dr. Mirza. Dr. Mirza has no threats from anybody in or outside the House owing to her august position.
I would request Ms. Niaz to kindly correct this folly and take her words back.

 
No Comments

Posted in Writings

 

Our Beloved Economic-Growth-Guy Moves on!

05 Mar

shortcutAnd the life moves on! But for some it moves on and on upwards no matter whatever happens to those they had ruled. When our self righteous media and civil society shrieks against the corruption committed over a decade ago followed by a decade of imprisonment by the accused, our eyes are closely shut for people who have recently looted us of our money and future, usurped power from the people with gun power and stuffed their personal kitty to bursting level.

Yes this is about the secular (still Taliban-grower) former president who came to power as a result of his bloodless coup in 1999, and who is enjoying his life in the expanse of his posh bungalow in London and touring glamorous capitals of the world for lecturing youth on democracy and war against terrorism.No one in our media, civil society and opposition parties is too sure about what to do with him and his glaring corruption. Our media jehadis do not have enough resources to dig out evidences of corruption against him. But yes, their “reliable sources” are always there to grant them (with out expecting anything in lieu) all documentary evidences on the corruption cases which have been confessed to be fraudulent even by those who registered them.

But here comes the scoop. Our master mind of Steel Mill case that won our chief adjudicator the inconvenience of March 9 in 2007, none other than our beloved economic-growth superman, Mr. Shaukat Aziz, has been recently hired by the Nigerian government. He, along with Malaysian economic giant, Mahatir Mohammad, have been engaged by the Nigerians to advice them economic boost strategies. Both of them have been, obviously, hired on very “reasonably cheap” price tags.

These days, if you ask our economic-growth-man, how’s Nigerian economy doing? You would hear an excited, “Its doing much better now”!

Maxim of one of our childhood bedtime stories used to be something, which can now be conveniently changed to, Price never hath a fall! Let’s carry on with our NRO bashing. After all, its very important to save our country from corruption, which will come to an end if NRO is bashed up and present government resigns. Yes sure!

 
2 Comments

Posted in Readings

 

It’s all about Constitution Marvi, Keep Bias aside! (An analysis of Marvi’s Article)

18 Feb

This Note was posted on my Facebook page by Mr. Noman Shabbir. I'm posting it here as received, with no amendments, respecting his right to express opinion. I would be, however, happy to respond to the important points raised by him, for it is important to generate an environment of healthy dialogue in our society. I thank Mr. Shabeer for writing this.

 

Note: that I Wrote this Note yesterday but could not post due to some net issues! But as the matter is of serious nature and Marvi Sarmad Tried to Mislead People of less interest in governmental or Judicial Matter thats why I thought it to be necessary to post it today when Prime Minister has acted according to the points Presented in this note and Expressed by all Experts of Constitution!

 

lines in inverted commas are of Marvi.

 

 

“There is a judicial crisis, the media says. This claim seems to be correct if one realizes the level of urgency the Supreme Court showed in responding to a presidential notification.”

 

Showing urgency is not, by any means, against the law of land of Pakistan! Neither it makes any action of Supreme Court Suspicious. The objection that the Supreme Court had acted in an unjust and objectionable haste and manner, to say the least, is capricious and without any substance. Like the top executives of the government such as the president house, the Prime Minister house, the Supreme Court also does not have fixed working hours. It is at the discretion of the chief justice to resume working and start hearing of cases and pass orders at any time as may be considered by the court as just and appropriate, in the circumstances of each case. The honorable Supreme Court has held hearing of cases many times, even in late hours of the evening and announced their orders late at night. Just to remind you that the same supreme court, Headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Denounced/Invoked the proclamation of Emergency of November 3. Soon after the imposition of Emergency.

 


“Those having objections to the President’s notification say it violated Article 177 of the Constitution. The Said Article provides for a consultation with the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court prior to making such appointments, but it does not give a Definition of the “consultation”.”

 

Sorry, President (Especially this president) knows the meaning of Consultation because he has already appointed twelve judges in lahor high court in 2009, The judges are Namely Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Najam ul Hassan, Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Asad Munir, Ijaz ul Ahsan, Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, Tariq Javaid, all Advocates Lahore and Sardar Tariq Masood and Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Advocates Rawalpindi, and District & Sessions Judges Mansoor Akbar Kokab, Imtiaz Ahmad and Sagheer Ahmad Qadri. So stop borrowing bogus reasoning from presidential camp and start to run your own Brain!
 

 


“It is also true that the CJ Supreme Court sent a summary to the president who subsequently rejected it and sent it back. The allegation of “not consulting the CJ” thus becomes irrelevant”

 

First you yourself accepted that it is not clear from the article 177 that what Consultation is and here you have decided that “rejection” of CJ’s recommendation is “Consultation” what a dubious Example of Reasoning!

 


“Article 177 does not make the CJ’s recommendation binding on the president.”

 

Once again this shows your sheer ignorance towards constitution, Judiciary and Its rulings. Let me explain you the article and related ruling of Supreme Court in this regard!

First of all you or I are not an authority to tell what article 177 is. It’s the right of Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the famous cases decided by the honorable Supreme Court, confirm beyond any doubt that consent of chief justices concerned for appointment of new judges or elevation from high court to the Supreme Court is mandatory under Article 260 of the Constitution in its present shape, and also on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the famous Judges’ Case (PLD 1996 SC 324). It may also be noted if the president disagrees with the recommendations of the chief justices concerned, then he is obliged to give very sound reasons having substance for reconsideration of the recommendations by the chief justices.



“Interestingly, elevating a judge of a lower court to the apex court and Appointing the next senior judge as acting chief justice of the lower court does not seem to either derail democracy or attack on the independence of the judiciary. It rather seems to be quite in accordance with the principle of Seniority set by the Supreme Court in 1996 (Al-Jihad Trust Case).”

 

If president doesn’t consult with Chief Justice of Supreme court of Pakistan then by doing this he is committing an act of High treason by violating the article 177 of Constitution of Pakistan. It is also abundantly clear the requirement of the senior most judge fit is only mandatory for appointment as the chief justice and not for elevation of any judge of a high court to the Supreme Court as was repeatedly confirmed, inter alia, in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. the Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2002 SC 939), where it is held “principles of seniority and legitimate expectancy neither apply nor can be expected to judges of the Supreme Court, and that no constitutional convention or past practice exists to appoint more senior judge of a high court as a judge of the Supreme Court…” Hence the plea in support of the notification that Mr. Justice Khwaja Muhammad Sharif, being the senior most judge of the Lahore High Court, could only be elevated to the Supreme Court is without any substance, and untenable in the light of the provisions of the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court.

 

“Justice Khwaja Sharif, whose elevation is in question, is a former member of a city council from Muslim League (now PML — N) and a family friend of the Sharifs, which makes it easier for the Sharif brothers to rule Punjab comfortably compared to a situation where a non-partisan judge becomes the Chief Justice of LHC.”

 

These lines completely exposes your mentality, Bias towards free and fair judiciary and Alignment towards PPP. I will raise a lot of Questions here,

 

Once again it’s not against the law of land of Pakistan that a counselor can’t become a judge! Verdicts are on Merit, if they are against merit then go supreme judicial counsel and get him removed! The same Judge Namely “Justice Khawaja Sharif took suo moto on lala zar case against Shahbaz Sharif” so you once again this shows your ignorance!


“What irks an objective mind is why the Supreme Court is making the Presidential decision a point of friction?”

And why the president is hell bent on Going against the Constitution? Last but not least, the people of Pakistan, who have been the ultimate casualty in every crisis induced by the interests of a few, have to think “objectively. For once, we all need to refuse to play in the hands of those who are pursuing nothing but their own vested interests. Many of us might have an opinion against the policies or persons of either Mr. Zardari or Mr. Sharif, but we have to keep our sanity intact and let reason prevail”

Agreed!

“Justice Khwaja or no Justice Khwaja, the Constitution and the spirit of democracy should be considered supreme.”

 

In democracy where constitution is written Sprit of Democracy means nothing. For example it will also become a matter of Frictions that what the Sprit of democracy is! Whatever is in constitution has to be obeyed by all President or judiciary or Parliament. Don’t forget that Constitution is supreme!

P.S.
 

Here are some of the Reasons why the president was hell bent to elevate the above said judges to supreme court (clippings from Iqbal Haiders article, A Supreme court lawyer and former Minister of Law and Attorney General in The government of PPP).

 

In view of such a categorical constitutional position as explained above, the question arises then why did the president choose to issue the two notifications. I discard the possibility of incompetence of the legal advisers. I cannot accept the assumption that all of the bigwigs of the president were not well-versed with the Constitution or the decisions by the Supreme Court. The real reason and answer lies in Article 206(2) of the Constitution, which clearly provides “A judge of a high court who does not accept appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court shall be deemed to retire from his office…” In the not so distant past, we find a precedent on this issue. Mr. Justice Amirul Mulk Mengal, who was the chief justice of Balochistan High Court in 1998, had refused to accept his elevation to the Supreme Court. Hence, he retired prematurely.

 

This eventuality was very much expected by the coterie of advisers of the president who had drawn a “win-win strategy”. The condemnation and opposition to their notifications was very much expected by them. They had also envisaged the likelihood of the two judges concerned not accepting appointments conferred by the notifications. Hence, for the president there could not have been a better situation as the two judges upon not accepting their appointments would have retired prematurely. As a result of which, the president would have availed the opportunity of appointing judges of his choice, in their place. It was for this reason alone that the oath-taking ceremony of Justice Mian Saqib Nisar as acting chief justice of the Lahore High Court was simultaneously announced on Sunday morning and reportedly the governor had also returned the earlier summary sent by Chief Justice Khwaja Muhammad Sharif for appointment of the judges. This was done to confirm without any delay if the two judges are accepting their appointment or not.

 

On the other hand, had the two judges accepted the appointment the president would still be very happy, as it would have amounted to acceptance by the superior judiciary that the president has the power to reject recommendations of the chief justice of Pakistan. Such acceptance of appointments by the two judges would have established at least a precedent, howsoever it maybe in clear violation of the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court in famous cases, on this issue.

 

As expected, the two honorable judges in question rightly did not accept the appointments mentioned in the two notifications. They would have been treated as retired prematurely had the honorable chief justice and his peers available in Islamabad not rightly suspended operations of the notifications. Perhaps this prompt intervention by the honorable chief justice and the forthwith suspension of the notifications by a bench of the Supreme Court was not envisaged in the strategy framed by the legal wizards in the president house.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Readings

 

Let reason Prevail

16 Feb



Marvi SirmedThis column was published in Daily Times on Feb 16, 2010


A section of the media is putting the credibility of the entire media at risk by siding blindly with the political interests of one political party. Chasing small-term superficial benefits and satisfying the fragile egos of a few anchorpersons is going to curtail the freedom of the media at the hands of the media itself

There is a judicial crisis, the media says. This claim seems to be correct if one realises the level of urgency the Supreme Court showed in responding to a presidential notification. This notification was nothing bigger than the elevation of the senior-most judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC) to the Supreme Court and the subsequent appointment of the second senior judge as the Acting Chief Justice of the LHC. Those having objections to the president’s notification say it violated Article 177 of the Constitution. The said Article provides for a consultation with the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court prior to making such appointments, but it does not give a definition of the “consultation”. It is also true that the CJ Supreme Court sent a summary to the president who subsequently rejected it and sent it back. The allegation of “not consulting the CJ” thus becomes irrelevant. Article 177 does not make the CJ’s recommendation binding on the president.


Interestingly, elevating a judge of a lower court to the apex court and appointing the next senior judge as acting chief justice of the lower court does not seem to either derail democracy or attack on the independence of the judiciary. It rather seems to be quite in accordance with the principle of seniority set by the Supreme Court in 1996 (Al-Jihad Trust Case). However, it is noteworthy that a five-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by the then Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad and including the controversial Justice Hameed Dogar, set aside the seniority principle in the Appointment of Judges Case in 2002. Insisting on following this judgement made under the dictatorial regime is going to raise questions on the independent judiciary.


The technical side of the whole issue aside, there is an ugly political side to it as well, which amply puts everything in perspective. Justice Khwaja Sharif, whose elevation is in question, is a former member of a city council from Muslim League (now PML — N) and a family friend of the Sharifs, which makes it easier for the Sharif brothers to rule Punjab comfortably compared to a situation where a non-partisan judge becomes the Chief Justice of LHC. In order to secure their undisturbed political future, the Sharif brothers are understandably leaving no stone unturned to keep Justice Khwaja Sharif in as the CJ of the LHC.


What irks an objective mind is why the Supreme Court is making the presidential decision a point of friction? Sections of the media, in connivance with the PML-N, are doing no good to democracy by insisting on something as visibly partisan as his demand to keep Justice Khwaja Sharif in the LHC. In a well-attended press conference in Islamabad, Mian Nawaz Sharif termed the presidential notification an attack on the judiciary, and the president himself as the biggest threat to democracy. Both these statements make him appear a political pygmy, as he could not answer one simple question: how will keeping Justice Khwaja Sharif in the LHC ensure democracy and the independence of the judiciary? Not that this question was put to him in the press conference, which appeared like an internal meeting of the PML-N.


In all this tumult, we are forgetting what is at stake. A section of the media is putting the credibility of the entire media at risk by siding blindly with the political interests of one political party. Chasing small-term superficial benefits and satisfying the fragile egos of a few anchorpersons is going to curtail the freedom of the media at the hands of the media itself. Freedom is not necessarily attacked only through curbs by the government. Rather, the media itself has to ensure that one actor of the political arena does not exploit the media for its own selfish political interests. Freedom of the media does not rest in freedom to use strong abusive words against someone. It rather rests in the freedom to report the facts. If the media restrains itself from reporting the facts and continues with an opinionated and partisan media trial of anybody who fails to offer a competitive benefits package, it surely is going to erode not only the media’s credibility in the eyes of the people, but will rob it of its own freedom.


The second casualty of this unrealistic and false hype about a concocted ‘judicial crisis’ would be the judiciary. It is quite sad to see the judiciary endangering its own independence by insisting on something that could best be described as its tilt towards those who marched for Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration. Also, putting aside the principle of seniority following the judgement under a dictator’s regime would set a tradition not very different from the infamous doctrine of necessity, which everyone thought has been buried forever. Lamentable, also, is the fact that the judiciary has already invoked the controversial clauses of the Constitution introduced by another dictator in a recent case against the NRO. It is sheer disappointment for the progressive sections of society who sided with the CJ for his restoration all through the months of struggle.


This is the point to ponder for Mian Nawaz Sharif too, who has announced in his press conference on Sunday that his party will take to the streets if Justice Khwaja is elevated to the Supreme Court. Despite frequently violating the Charter of Democracy (CoD) on many counts, he keeps trumpeting about the continuation of democracy and upholding the independence of the judiciary. Advocating the appointment of a Supreme Court judge on one person’s choice rather than following the constitutional procedure of appointment by the president, Mian Nawaz Sharif is once again making himself hostage to the 1990s’ frictional politics.


Last but not least, the people of Pakistan, who have been the ultimate casualty in every crisis induced by the interests of a few, have to think objectively. For once, we all need to refuse to play in the hands of those who are pursuing nothing but their own vested interests. Many of us might have an opinion against the policies or persons of either Mr Zardari or Mr Sharif, but we have to keep our sanity intact and let reason prevail. Justice Khwaja or no Justice Khwaja, the Constitution and the spirit of democracy should be considered supreme.


 
1 Comment

Posted in Writings

 

That’s the Way!

20 Jan

[kaltura-widget wid="6qpbzbv1rc" width="400" height="365" addpermission="" editpermission="" /]This is Mustafa Kamal, Nazim Karachi, expressing his opinion on the tragedy of Bolton Market. While he humbly shares his profound thoughts, the news caster stays mum. I think here is something for President Zardari to learn from this young and promising politician of our country, how to handle media! And I don't think the media disliked the way Mustafa Kamal dealt with it because we saw no no videos of this conversation doing day-long rounds on TV screen with superimposed Indian songs our electronic media is so obsessed to use in current affairs programs. Naturally what Firdaus Ashiq Awan did with Abid Sher Ali or Kashmala Tariq on screen, was something to lament about and our free media was quite justified to humiliate her on that. But this one is something, I think all the media equivocally supports.

If it is so, why don't the politicians from other parties learn to behave? Why don't they express themselves the way this video shows? I think its high time to learn from youngsters and change the old ways.

watch?v=0pwnaQHujBI

 
No Comments

Posted in Writings

 

Top Secret – From the Archives of Intelligence Bureau

18 Dec

free-judiciary

 

This is the original document from the archives of Intelligence Bureau, marked Top Secret. A mole from The Sunday Times was able to gather it and publish. The document is still available at: 

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/02/04/intelligence.pdf 

The contents are verifiable from the court record, as are the documents submitted by Asghar Khan, when he filed a petition against doling out public money by a secret agency, to the right wing politicians for the establishment of IJI to counter PPP, more than a decade ago. 

The document underneath will be an interesting read for those rejuvenating on the "Victory of Truth" in the wake of "historical judgment" by the "free and impartial" Supreme Court of Pakistan.


TOP SECRET

INTELLIGENCE BUREAU
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 
94-UPPER MALL, LAHORE 

No. ARV/2001/01                                                                   Dated 29-1-2001

The President, 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
ISLAMABAD 

THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL 

SUBJECT: SHEER ABUSE OF POWER/ABUSE OF JUDICIARY.

Respected Sir,

I would like to bring it to your kind notice that I am an officer of Intelligence Bureau cadre and have been raised to the rank of Deputy Director out of my sheer hard work. I have always worked honestly, professionally and with full devotions. All my seniors will endorse the high level of my efficiency, professionalism and integrity. I have always pointed out any wrong doings irrespective of any pressure of my seniors. I have no political affiliations, whatsoever.

I, being a conscientious officer, would like to state that an extra-ordinary situation has compelled me to address you directly as I feel that this very sensitive and important matter, which may have very deep impact on the future and present functioning of the judiciary and politics of Pakistan, needs to be dealt at your level. I am constrained to inform you that during my long service career in a very sensitive organisation I have never come across of any such occasion where I was a witness to sheer abuse of state institutions including judiciary of Pakistan by any Chief Executive of the country for the mere satisfaction of his/her personal ego and vendetta. In the instant case, some important dignitaries of the past and the present are involved who have not only violated the Constitution of Pakistan but also crossed other human and legal limits. They have also violated the provisions of their oath, which they took while taking-over their high offices. They have committed such a crime, which no nation on the earth would ever tolerate.

The highly undesirable incident, which I am going to narrate below, in fact, relates to the trial of the Opposition Leader and former Prime Minister of Pakistan Ms. Benazir Bhutto and her spouse conducted by the Accountability Court headed by Mr. Justice Malik Abdul Qayyum of the Lahore High Court. The events which have really shook my conscious and will also shake you and the whole nation are being summarised below.

With the start of the trial of Ms. Benazir Bhutto and her spouse in SGS Reference in the Accountability Court headed by Mr. Justice Malik Abdul Qayyum, the then Government ordered the Intelligence Sub-Bureau, Lahore for the monitoring of all the office, home and mobile telephones of Mr. Justice Malik Abdul Qayyum in order to keep him under constant observation. Accordingly, I, being the head of the section responsible for the observation/bugging of the telephones, started tapping the telephones of Mr. Justice Malik Abdul Qayyum.

 

 

 

First of all Mr. Khalid Anwar called Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum and told that "Somebody is unhappy over the delay of hearing of this case. He has complained about the case to Saif that nothing has been done so far and why has it not been concluded." He informed the judge that "the gentleman [Mian Nawas Sharif] was very unhappy" and asked the judge that "Now I am thinking if you could reach the final result within the outside limit of two weeks" and "So get it done on Monday". In response, Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum informed the Minister that "It is being done on Monday. After this we have to give them some time for defence evidence and then the matter will be closed."

During his first conversation with Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum, Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman directed him that "Kindly don't do one thing. Please don't give any further date." to which the judge promised that "Now we are not going to give dates. We are going to finish it by the Grace of God. You don't worry.". In a conversation with his wife, Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum told her that "They have said, remove him" and on a further explanation by her wife, the judge stated that Nawaz Sharif has ordered for his removal because "They [Mian Nawaz Sharif] say that he has changed his loyalty." When on his advice the wife of Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum informed Malik Pervez (brother of Justice Malik Qayyum) of this development, he remarked that "But this is Blackmailing" and while agreeing with him, the wife of Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum concluded that "Yes you are right; this is the limit that justice should not be done and only what they want should be done".

In a subsequent conversation with Malik Pervez, Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum informed him that "Regarding the matter of judgement which you know, your friend the biggest boss (Nawaz Sharif) is specially sending two men, one Mehdi and other Pappu (Saif)" to the Chief Justice to ensure "that it should be done with in two days".

In a separate conversation with Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman asked Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum "… we need a place when our man can sit. Kindly permit our man to sit in the room next to your room" to which the judge told him that he "would tell Khawar Sahib". Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman then told the judge that "Then I am going to depute the man Feroz shah who will contact Khawar". When the Judge discuss this development/requirement with the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice remarked that "If we avoid it, it is better for us otherwise the noose will be around our neck if this thing is exposed". Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum in reply told him that "Khawar says that we can place the machine in the Registrar's room" like "when you did it, it was also like this".

Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman, in a separate conversation conveyed the directions of the Prime Minister to Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum and told him that "He [Mian Nawaz Sharif] has asked me to tell you for Monday" and asked him "Whatever you told me before, do exactly like that". Mr. Justice replied that "I am trying my best. You don't worry. You know how sincerely we are trying".

Besides external/political pressure, Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz, the then chief Justice of Lahore High Court was also used to pressurize Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum. In a telephonic conversation, Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz informed Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum that "Yesterday when I went there, Mr. Yasir Arafat had come. He was busy with him in a meeting. He [Mian Nawaz Sharif] said just wait for ten minutes, twenty minutes, and half an hour. We will talk after lunch" and told Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum that "He [Nawaz Sharif] is a bastard". When Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum enquired about the conversation, Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz told him that "he [Nawaz Sharif] says it has to be tomorrow" and enquired from Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum "Is everything ready?". When Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum asked the Chief Justice that "You should have told him that it would finish only after they finish (defence evidence)" the Chief Justice told him that "He was saying that just do it".

When Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum could not announce the judgement on the pre-determined day Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman called him and asked that "You were supposed to do it today". Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum replied to him that "For your sake I had to beg her lawyer. I told him that I have to go abroad, I am not feeling well but I have to finish it first". When Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman expressed displeasure over delay Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum asked him to "handle him [Mian Nawaz Sharif] and stated that "By the grace of God, this will be done and then both of us will go to him [Mian Nawaz Sharif] and seek forgiveness". Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman asked the same judge to "Give me 100% confirmation that it will be done tomorrow". In the same conversation Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum asked him about the punishment required to be awarded to which Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman told him that "whatever you have been told by him [Mian Nawaz Sharif]" i.e. "Not less than 7 years". Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum suggested to him that the maximum punishment is not appropriate as "Seven is the maximum punishment and no body awards maximum" and requested Mr. Saif to ask him [Mian Nawaz Sharif] to which he promised to le him (Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum) know. In the same conversation Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum informed Mr. Saif that "I have already done about the fine and confiscation of the properties" and "their disqualification also". Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman informed him that "Now more important is the state of madness in which he [Mian Nawaz Sharif] is" to which Justice Malik Qayyum requested him to "Beg forgiveness on my behalf". Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum assured him that "Under all circumstances it will be done tomorrow. We are going to announce the judgement".

In a separate conversation, Mr. Rashid Aziz described the madness of the Prime Minister to Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum and told him that "You can't understand. Do you know what he [Mian Nawaz Sharif] is going to say? He is going to issue warrants for both of us. He has specially called me and told to advice you that what are you doing?" In reply Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum informed the Chief Justice that "90% I will try my best to finish it tomorrow". Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum went on assuring the Chief Justice in the words "OK. Tomorrow I will, even if have to push it". The Chief Justice told the judge that he has told him [Nawaz Sharif] that"It is already written and lying with us. He can sign it for you on it and you can keep it with you".

In another conversation with Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum, Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman told the judge that he had asked him [Mian Nawaz Sharif] about the punishment to which he had directed to tell you that "Give them full dose". Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman also informed the judge that "When I inquired about five or seven, he said I should ask you whey you would not like to give them full dose". Explaining the strategy for the next day (the day of the announcement of the judgement) Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum informed Mr. Saif that "Whole day will be given. After eleven (11:00 AM) we would tell him to finish. After the interval at 11:00 AM, even if they disagree, we will not care" and "We will tell them, say whatever they want to say in their defence. It (order) is already prepared in written". The judge went on explaining and stated that "So after half an hour, we will come back and announce it". Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman then suggested to him that "Give the brief tomorrow but try to cover the maximum the brief the judgement".

When the trial of Ms. Benazir Bhutto was over, Mr. Shahbaz Sharif, the then Chief Minister of Punjab rang up the judge and told that "I made a request to you" to which the judge replied that "Sir, I did finish that". Mr. Shahbaz Sharif then informed him that "thank you very much. The matter regarding Ch. Sarwar [MNA], my elder brother has asked me to tell you that Sarwar should be favoured [in his disqualification case]" to which Mr. Justice Malik Qayyum promised that "It's done, as desired by Mian sahib. As per his desire the matter is finished".

During this process of close day to day observation of his phones, I was astonished to note that the judge was being dictated to obtain a judgement of their choice against Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Asif Ali Zardari by the then Federal Law Minister Mr. Khalid Anwar, Chairman Accountability Bureau, Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman and the then Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz, under the orders of from then Prime Minister of Pakistan Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, to hastily conclude the trial, announce conviction of Ms. Benazir Bhutto and her spouse with maximum punishment or seven years and forfeiture of her entire property. The Honourable Judge was pressurized to the extent that once he was called by the then Chief Justice of Lahore High Court at his residence to convey that Mr. Nawaz Sharif has asked to remove him (Mr. Justice. Malik Abdul Qayyum) as he (Mian Nawaz Sharif) has become doubtful of his loyalties. The Honourable Judge ultimately succumbed to the pressure and announced pre-written judgement against Ms. Benazir Bhutto and her husband by violating all norms of Justice, provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and fair-play.

The whole conversation of these important Cabinet Ministers and the judges was part of the official record of the Intelligence Sub-Bureau, Lahore. I am also enclosing my affidavit along with 60-minutes recorded tape and its transcription with the view to assist your kind honour to proceed against two sitting judges, one of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the other of Lahore High Court, respectively, former Prime Minister of Pakistan Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Chairman Accountability Bureau Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman and the then Federal Law Minister Mr. Khalid Anwar.

I would also like to state that I have taken on against the most powerful group of politicians, two corrupt and immoral judges and hence I apprehend that I along with my family members are going to be harassed and victimized besides a serious danger to my life too. I also fear that the authorities in the Intelligence Bureau may try to terminate my services on false grounds but fact remains that I am just doing my duty by exposing to you bad elements in our judiciary. I, therefore, appeal to your honour to provide me protection and security against all such dangers. The aforementioned corrupt characters have not only brought bad name to the judiciary itself but also the image of our great nation. I would also like to make it clear that I have no motives whatsoever but I just want you to know as to what kind of havoc is being played by such people who had made mockery of justice without fear of the Almighty Allah.

In the light of the above facts, I would request: to your honour to kindly take necessary and appropriate action into the matter.

In the end I would once again like to reiterate the fact that I have no motives whatsoever in exposing these bad elements as I, being a civil servant, was duty bound to bring the wrong-doings of such like undesirable characters to the notice of such authorities which I am confident would take necessary action. I would also request you to kindly keep this summary confidential till you have taken a final action against them.

Thanking you In anticipation and I am confident that your kind honour, being the custodian of the Constitution of Pakistan and a former judge of the apex court of the country, would definitely proceed in the matter in accordance with the law.

Yours obediently,

[Signature]

(A. RAHIM)

Deputy Director/IB

Encl:

1. Copy of the transcript. 
2. 65 Minutes recorded tape. 
3. Affidavit.

 

 

 

cc:

1. Gen. Pervez Musharraf, The Chief Executive of Pakistan, Islamabad.
2. Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan, Islamabad.
3. Maj. Gen. Rafi-ullah Khan Niiazi, Director General, Intelligence Bureau, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad.
4. Mr. Jehangir Mirza, Joint Director General, PPHQ-IB Lahore.

 

 

 

Sd/-
(A. RAHIM)
Deputy Director/IB

 

Source: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/02/04/Affaiavit.pdf (1.0MB)

[1 page. Misspellings in original.]


[100 Rupee Certificate]

AFFIDAVIT

 

[Stamped by Advocate Notary Public.]


I, A. RAHIM S/o Mr. NAZIR AHMED, do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as under.

1. That I was working in the Intelligence Bureau directorate, Lahore since 1997. Further, I worked in other positions in I.B.

2. That according to the instructions of the Government, the residentiel, office and mobile numbers of Justice Malik Adbul Qayyum were placed under observation during the trial of former Prime Minister and Opposition Leader Ms. Benazir Bhutto.

3. The Mr. Nawaz Sharif and his associate wanted to know Justice Malik Qayyum's day to day engagements, and contacts. In fact, they wanted to ensure that Justice Malik Qayyum was following the advice of Accountability Bureau and teh Federal Law Minister to impliment the pre-determined conviction of Ms. Benazir Bhutto.

4. that the Prime Minister wanted the proof that instructions given by him to Justice Malik Qayyum through Chief Justice Rashid Aziz of Lahore High Court, Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman, Chairman Accountability Bureau and the Federal Law Minister Khalid Anwar were being followed.

5. That accordingly all incoming and outgoing calls in his office, home and mobile were monitored and regular record of day to day conversation started building. I was shocked to find that the concerned judge is being ordered to convict Mr. Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari by Saif-ur-Rehman, Chief Justice and Law Minister by hastily concluding the trial at the earliest and announcing the conviction of Ms. Benazir Bhutto with "full dose" at every cost. I found the Judge to be working as junior to the Accountability Bureau and the Federal Law Minister.

6. My conscience felt bad learning about the gross injustice being done to the defendants through the judge trampling the provisions of the constitution of Pakistan. I, being a civil servant felt duty bound to protect the Constitution and not become party to any such violations. I, therefore, decided to make a duplicate copy of the conversation and a 65-minutes long audio recorded conversation to this effect is enclosed with this affidavit. The entire record of conversation between Premier Sharif's cabinet Ministers, namely Saif-ur-Rehman (who had also investigated the case against Ms. Benazir Bhutto), personal friend of Nawaz Sharif, the then Federal Law Minister Khalid Anwar, and Justice Rashid Aziz, the then Chief Justice of Lahore High Court confirms that a conspiracy was hatched against Ms. Benazir Bhutto for getting her convicted through Justice Malik Qayyum.

7. That the above facts are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and nothing has been concealed or withheld.

DECLARANT

[Signature]

A. RAHIM

6-12-2000

ATTESTED
[Signature]
Name obscured


 
No Comments

Posted in Research n Record

 
« Older Entries
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes