RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Corruption’

From the Forgotten Archives: Question Mark for Judiciary, Army & Media

11 Apr


This article was posted on the website of The South Asia Tribune (Issue No 54, August 10-16, 2003). SAT was a web news portal run and edited by Mr Shaheen Sehbai, now Group Editor of the Jang Group, who was at daggers drawn with Musharraf led army at that point in time. So fierce were his writings that he had to flee the country and take refuge in USA. Many suspect, that he did it to get green card for him and family. Once he got the much wanted green cards, threat to his life suddenly ended and he came back during same Musharraf regime and joined ARY TV. 

This strange turn of events aside, Mr. Sehbai ran this web portal for quite some time and shut it down just before returning to Pakistan. South Asia Tribune gave space to many right wing journalists who have been traditionally pro-establishment, pro-army and anti India. The news character SAT displayed on web coincided with first and third variable, i.e., pro-establishment and anti-India, but strangely enough, like all other traditional proponents of army, (e.g., Shirin Mazari, Naseem Zehra, Roedad Khan, Hameed Gul, etc) Mr Sehbai also followed the same course. 

On SAT's masthead, it was claimed that its a web Newspaper for investigative reporting. Probably that was the reason why an extreme right wing reporter Ansar Abbasi was groomed by it and used to be given quite a handsome space. Many former army officers including Mr A. H. Amin, the author of the following post, were also among those who came up with many "investigative" reports in those days, religiously being posted on SAT. The interesting thing was, majority of these "investigative" reports did not mention verifiable source or authentic references / citations. 

Although following story does not tell us anything about basic information like who filed the petition, who're the judges, it carries host of un-verified information about strongest most institution of Pakistan – the Army. Please be reminded, this was 2003 and Musharraf was all there without any potential and overt challenge from civil society, establishment, political sphere, judiciary and army itself. 

My question from Mr Nawaz Sharif and an independence judiciary is, will they call for an inquiry into this? Will the petition (if there's any) be taken up afresh? And if the charges are false, will Mr Sehbai and / or the author be tried for spreading false propaganda against the armed forces? 

People want to know sires, will you please answer?

 

 

 

By A.H. Amin

ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court in Pakistan is facing a legal and a practical dilemma: What to do with the petition which charge sheets the Pakistan Armed forces and lists details of massive kickbacks and corruption done by Generals, Air Marshals and Admirals.

The petition has been filed by a lawyer in public interest but its contents are so explosive, the High Court Judges cannot touch it. The LHC, under tremendous pressure of the Army regime, is almost helpless in even admitting or hearing the petition, let alone give a verdict against the Army.

The main charges mentioned in the petition include:

- Air Chief Marshal Abbas Khattak (retired) had received Rs180 million as kickbacks in the purchase of 40 old Mirage fighters

- Air Chief Marshal, Farooq Feroz Khan was suspected of receiving a five per cent commission on the purchase of 40 F-7 planes worth $271 million

- In 1996, the Army bought 1,047 GS-90s jeeps, at a cost of $20,889 per unit. The market value of a jeep then was only $13,000. According to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Pakistan’s main accountability organization, some senior Army officers made Rs. 510 million in the deal.

- One hundred and eleven Army men got 400 plots in Bahawalpur and Rahimyar Khan districts at throwaway prices, paying Rs. 47.50 per kanal (1/8th of a acre) as against the actual price of Rs15,000 to Rs20,000 (1US$=Rs. 56). Another 35,000 kanals were distributed among them.

- Six respondents got 400 kanals in the Punjab while former NAB chairman Lt. Gen Mohammad Amjad was allotted a two-kanal plot on the Sarwar Road in Lahore for just Rs. 800,000 – payable in installments over 20 years. The market value of this plot was Rs. 20 million.

- General Pervez Musharraf acquired a commercial plot worth Rs 20 million at DHA in Lahore for just Rs. 100,000, payable in 20 years. "As mentioned in the report of defense services director-general, a loss of Rs 5 billion was incurred due to such allotments."

- The Army awarded a contract for the purchase of 1,000 Hino trucks at $40,000 per unit while the local Gandhara Industries had offered trucks of the same specification for $25,000 a piece. In the purchase of 3,000 Land Rover jeeps in 1995, Army officials allegedly received around Rs. 2 billion as kickbacks.

- The Army management at WAPDA raised the power tariff 13 times during the last three years besides purchasing electric meters at Rs. 1,050 a piece against the open market price of Rs. 456, causing a loss of Rs 1.65 billion to the national exchequer.

- A former military regime sold the Pak-Saudi Fertilizers for Rs. 7 billion and earned a Rs 2 billion commission on the deal.

- In 1996, the Pakistan Navy spent Rs. 13 million on installing air-conditioners at the Islamabad Golf Club without any justification.

Apart from this petition some other major scams involving serving or ex members of the military junta are as follows:

- Ex Army chief General Jahangir Karamat took kickbacks of more than US$ 20 Million from Ukrainian tank company for purchase of 300 Ukrainian tanks for Pakistan Army through a middleman named as Colonel Mahmood , a brother tank corps officer of Karamat . Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sent the present chief of the WAPDA Major General Zulfiqar, then serving in ISI, to Ukraine and Azerbaijan to investigate the scam.

- General Zulfiqar compiled a complete report of the transaction and the bribes given. But the Army tried to buy him out by rewarding him with the post of WAPDA Chairman and promoting him to the rank of a three star General. The then Army Chief, General Jahangir Karamat was forced to resign, based on the threat that if he did not, he would be charged for corruption.

- Many road contracts were given to a firm Hasnain Construction company without any public tenders by the recently removed Railways and Communication minister General Qazi. The company, owned by a relative of General Pervez Musharraf’s son, was also awarded the lease of a lucrative real estate in Lahore for construction of a Golf Course under frontmanship of Palm Country Golf Club, Singapore. The relative of General Musharraf admitted publicly that he was working for a commission to use his contacts and influence for the company.

- Prime commercial land developed in Defence Housing Authority Karachi was leased at dirt heap rates to McDonalds operated by Amin Lakhani by the then Corps Commander, Karachi Lt. General Afzal Janjua.

- The Army’s coercive organ NAB struck various under the table deals with various individuals accused of high profile economic crimes in addition to arm twisting NAB defaulters, into joining the present government. These include the present Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali and at least one fourth of all elected legislators.

Where does the military virtue of a defense outfit stand in these circumstances? Is 2003 not a year fit to publish its obituary? Our military virtue died, trampled below the treacherous wheels of overpriced military trucks and overpriced Chinese aircraft and defective Atlantique planes that crash in our waters because of dubious maintenance.

Yes all this has served one important development purpose. Sons of ex-subedars, ex-clerks and ex-assistant political agents have done well, climbing from relatively simple life styles to grand luxuries propelled by phenomenal assets. All came to clean the Augean stables and all departed richer. The only exception was General Yahya Khan who whatever his drawbacks at least did not have the mind of a petty shop keeper.

Clausewitz, the great philosopher of war described “Military Virtue” of an Army as the corporate spirit which forms the bond between bravery, enthusiasm and espirit de corps. Clausewitz further defined military virtue as a quality which drives an Army in a similar way as genius makes a military commander illustrious.

Military virtue in words of Clausewitz could be generated in two ways, i.e. by a succession of military campaigns and victories or by military training activity carried to the highest pitch. The more a general demanded of his troops in terms of dedicated military activity in peace, the surer he would be that his demands in war would be properly answered. In short military virtue is the fuel that is supposed to drive an Army in war.

With the above premise in mind and keeping in view our present history it can be safely concluded that military virtue of thePakistan Army as an institution witnessed erosion from 1958 once the party started that made sons of Risaldar majors and Assistant Political Agents progress into industrial tycoons. It was a joy ride. Men who had one green suit to wear, in the words of General Tajammul, became the tycoons of Pakistan. It was the beginning of prosperity for few and the beginning of the end of military virtue of a previously Spartan and clean military machine.

The second military junta of Pakistan was led by the only Army chief not from humble background and this ensured that the Pakistan Army was kept away from cheap consumerism and avaricious lust for real estate.

The second great dinner party started in 1979 when thanks to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a heaven-sent opportunity arrived in shape of US military aid for the third military junta of Pakistan. Stingers were flown in by the big daddy for the obedient son and these were sold in the open market by silent soldiers. Thus new business empires were created. The Zia junta as a whole did roaring business and the result is that at least four major tycoons of Pakistan today including present commerce minister have direct links with the Zia junta.

Where does building 90 acres of a welfare colony known as Creek City with the cheapest shack for Rs. 6 million fit in? Did the military junta begin the occupation for such sublime purposes in 1958 or 1999? Where does developing 62 acres of land in prime commercial real estate in Islamabad fit in? Is this the business of a Navy that was miserably shut up in a mouse hole in Karachi Port in 1971 War? True that kickback may have been taken, but at least Admiral Mansur bought a good submarine for the Navy. But for whose welfare is the Navy undertaking a project 1500 kilometers from the nearest sea?

What began as an idealistic journey ends with the shady deals around creeks in Karachi which the Navy failed to defend in 1971 and a military junta which wants to rule this country for eternity.

And in this messy situation, the subservient Lahore High Court has been asked to sit on judgment with the sprawling mountains of charges, some even admitted publicly by the Army. God help the poor Mr. Justices of the superior court.

The writer is a retired Pakistan Army Officer and a Defence Analyst who has written a number of books on defence and security matters.

 

 
No Comments

Posted in Looking Back

 

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

 

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

 

We Never Learn from History

16 Jan

 This article appeared three years ago in Dawn, as a 7th part of a long article. Three years down the road, it still reflects realities of most concerning nature that we need to revisit. As part of our Pakistan Diaries series, Baaghi is publishing it once again with thanks to Ardeshir Cowasjee for this brilliant and daring piece.

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

?IT is not for us to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence , as it works in ways which are often strange. As of now, the future of this country can only be left to divine Providence which has its methods of bringing to retribution those who seek to acquire power in order to amass pelf, and those who tread the wicked ways. And, strangest of all, its stick makes no sound. ??Let us think. Had the 'agencies' (we cannot dignify them by the appellation of 'intelligence') and their cohorts not masterminded the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the rendering of him as non-functional, or the sending of him on forced leave as they did to the irretrievable detriment of their master, would we today have a united bench of the Supreme Court judges exercising independent minds empowered by the people? ??To follow on from last week on the matter of the Inter Services Intelligence and its meddling in the political affairs of Pakistan , and in particular in the country's 'free and fair' elections, the indefatigable retired air force air marshal, Asghar Khan, has once again approached the Chief Justice of Pakistan. On August 8, he addressed him : ??"Human Rights Petition 19/1996. Sir, I seek your indulgence. My petition No.19 filed in 1996 is pending in the Supreme Court. I should be greatly obliged if you would kindly order that it be urgently heard and adjudged. I may mention that I am now 86 years of age. Thanking you in anticipation and with kind regards…"

??The court is now hearing a petition filed by Benazir Bhutto accusing the government of 'institutional fraud' by the deletion from the electoral rolls of over 22 million voters. This is an important matter, yes. But if we are on the subject of elections, then equally important is the matter of how the deleted 22 million and the other millions on the rolls are to cast their votes. Can they be allowed to do so fairly and freely without the ISI indulging in its 'fixing' tactics which will bring in once again the purchased, corrupt and discredited who have been thrown up in the sporadic elections of the past two decades as 'representatives' of the people?Asghar Khan's petition was filed over one decade ago, it has been partly heard and then shelved, overtaken by the events of October 1999 and the subsequent matter of the judges of our courts and the oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order. Rightly, it should have been taken up before the 2002 elections. It was not, though Asghar twice, in 2000 and again in 2002, approached the then chief justices requesting them to act. For whatever reasons, he was ignored.

Let us hope now that Chief Justice Chaudhry will heed his plea and before the elections are upon us decide this vital issue. ??How much of the people's money was been misappropriated to be used by the ISI and its sister agencies to buy candidates during the elections of 1993, 1997, and 2002? We haven't a clue. But we do know that in 1990 at least Rs.140 million was the sum. Taking into consideration the inflation and the value of the rupee, the total sum employed in the subsequent elections must run into billions.??Let us now look at some of the familiar players involved in the 1990 game. ??Firstly, filed in the court is a photocopy of a letter dated June 7 1994, addressed by Lt- General Asad Durrani, formerly head of the ISI, to the then Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, who during her second term in office, appointed him as an ambassador to Germany, which reads : ??"My dear Prime Minister, A few points I could not include in my 'confessional statement' handed over to the director FIA. These could be embarrassing or sensitive.

(a) The recipients included Khar two million, Hafeez Pirzada three million, Sarwar Cheema 0.5 million and Mairaj Khalid 0.2 million. The last . . . [illegible] someone's soft corner that benefited them.

??(b) The remaining 80 million [was] either deposited in the ISI's 'K' fund (60 m) or given to director external intelligence, for special operations (perhaps the saving grace of this disgraceful exercise – but it is delicate information.) [Noted in the margin of this paragraph, by the writer in his own hand: "This is false. The amount was pocketed by Beg (Friends)"] ??"The operation not only had the 'blessings' of the President [Ghulam Ishaq Khan] and the wholehearted participation of the caretaker PM [Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi], but was also in the knowledge of the Army High Command.

The last mentioned will be the defence of many of us including Gen Beg (who took his colleagues into 'confidence' but that is the name that we have to protect). . . . ??"I keep praying that all these natural and man-made calamities are only to strengthen us in our resolve and not in any way reflective of our collective sins. With best regards and respects, Asad."??Filed also in court is a note attached to Durrani's letter written in his hand, reading: "YH ??[Younus Habib ] TT Peshawar A/C Sherpao For Election 5,00,000 ; Anwar Saifullah for MBL deposit 15,00,000 ; Farooq Leghari PO Issued 1,50,00,000. Another 1,50,00,000 paid through bank. There are a host of other political figures who received funds like Liaquat Jatoi, Imtiaz Sheikh." ??Retired Lt General Naseerullah Babar also filed in court a copy of a bank account sheet headed "G/L Account. Activity Report. Account 12110101 G. Baig (sic.)" The column heads read "Transaction, Date, Particulars, Debit, Credit." The numbered transactions took place between October 23 1991 and December 12 1993.

The first transaction listed was "Cash- P.O. Karachi Bar Association A/C Gen. Baig (sic.), debit, 5,05,680" (advocate Mirza Adil Beg, Aslam Beg's nephew, the then president of the KBA, confirms that the KBA received the money). . .". This list is too long to be reproduced here. ??The "host of other political figures who received funds" from an ISI account were revealed in the Supreme Court when Air Marshal Asghar Khan's petition was heard. Among others, Nawaz Sharif received (in rupees) 3.5 million, Lt General Rafaqat [GIK's election cell] 5.6 million, Mir Afzal 10 million, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi five million, Jam Sadiq Ali five million, Mohammed Khan Junejo 2.5 million, Pir Pagaro two million, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada Rs.three million, Muzaffar Hussain Shah 0.3 million, Abida Hussain one million, Humayun Marri 5.4 million. During the hearing of the case, Aslam Beg, under oath, revealed the existence of a political cell within the ISI which had been formed in 1975 under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, while clarifying that though he was aware of the distribution of funds, he was never personally involved. ??Details of other payments : During the Mehrangate investigations of 1993 which led up to a Supreme Court case, Younas Habib of Habib and Mehran Banks, as per his statement filed in court, disclosed that the following political and other pay-offs were made between 1991 and 1994 : "General Mirza Aslam Beg Rs.140 million ; Jam Sadiq Ali (the then chief minister of Sindh), Rs.70 million ; Altaf Hussain (MQM) Rs.20 million, Advocate Yousaf Memon ( for disbursement to Javed Hashmi, MNA and others) Rs.50 million ; 1992 – Jam Sadiq Ali, Rs.150 million ; 1993 – Liaquat Jatoi Rs .01 million ; 1993 – chief minister of Sindh, through Imtiaz Sheikh Rs.12 million; Afaq of the MQM Rs.0.5 million ; 1993 chief minister of Sindh, through Imtiaz Sheikh, Rs. 01. million ; 1993 – Ajmal Khan, a former federal minister, Rs.1.4 million ; 1993 – Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister, Rs.3.5 million ; 27/9/93 Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister, Rs.2.5 million ; 26/9/93 Jam Mashooq Rs. five million ; 26/9/93 Dost Mohammad Faizi Rs. one million ; Jam Haider Rs. two million ; Jam Mashooq Rs. three million ; Adnan, son of Sartaz Aziz, Rs. one million ; Nawaz Sharif and Ittefaq Group of Companies Rs.200 million (photocopies of cheques and deposit slips etc already attached with affidavit at page nos. 42 to 73) ; Sardar Farooq Leghari 12/12/93 (payment set/off) Rs.30 million – 6/1/94 Rs.2.0856 million – 19/3/94 Rs.1.92 million."

??Do we wish such shenanigans to continue at our expense, and at the country's expense? Can we not learn at least one lesson from history – that if the ISI and the others are given a free hand there can be no such thing as an election that is vaguely free or fair? Is Chief Justice Chaudhry listening? Will he hear the petition and decide? ??The encouraging news is that Senior Advocate Iqbal Haider has volunteered to represent Asghar Khan. Barristers Hasan Aurangzeb of Islamabad and Rafay Alam of Lahore will assist him. Let justice prevail.


 
No Comments

Posted in Readings

 

Access to Information and Transparency

07 Jan

Ensuring Transparency through Access to Information

 
No Comments

Posted in Other Work

 

Agenda Item#2 for Supreme Court: Corrupt Generals!

20 Dec

men at best

 

The main charges mentioned against the high officials of the armed forces in the petition include amongst others: 

  1. Air Chief Marshal Abbas Khattak (retired) had received Rupees 180 million as kickbacks in the purchase of 40 old Mirage fighters. 
  2. Air Chief Marshal, Farooq Feroz Khan was suspected of receiving a five percent commission on the purchase of 40 F-7 planes worth $271 million. 
  3. In 1996, the army bought 1047 GS-90s jeeps, at a cost of $20,889 per unit. The market value of a jeep then was only $13,000. According to the then National Accountability Bureau (NAB) some senior army officers made Rs. 510 million on the deal. 
  4. One hundred and eleven army men received 400 plots in Bahawalpur and Rahim Yar Khan districts of Punjab province, at throwaway prices of Rs 47.50 per kanal (a kanal is about 600 Sq Yards), as against the actual price of Rs 15,000 to Rs 20,000 (1US $=Rs. 56). Another 35,000 kanals were distributed among them as gifts. 
  5. Six respondents got 400 kanals in Punjab while the former chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Lt. Gen Mohammad Amjad was allotted a two-kanal plot on the Sarwar Road in Lahore for just Rs. 800,000 – payable in installments over 20 years. The market value of this plot was then Rs. 20 million. General Pervez Musharraf acquired a commercial plot worth Rs. 20 million at DHA in Lahore for just Rs. 100,000 (then UK£ 960) payable over 20 years. As mentioned in the report of Director General Defence Services, a loss of Rs. 5 Billion was incurred due to such allotments. 
  6. The army awarded a contract for the purchase of 1000 Hino trucks at $ 40,000 per unit while the local Gandhara Industries (the Hino assembling company in Karachi Pakistan), had offered trucks of the same specification for US$ 25,000 a piece. In a purchase of 3000 Land Rover jeeps in 1995, Army officials allegedly received around Rs 2 Billion as kickbacks. 
  7. The Army management at the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) raised the power tariff 13 times during the last three years (from 1999 to 2002) besides purchasing electric meters at Rs 1,050 a piece against the open market price of Rupees 456, causing a loss of Rupees 1.65 Billion to the national exchequer. 
  8. In 1996, the Pakistan Navy spent Rupees 13 Million installing air-conditioners at the Islamabad Golf Club without any justification. verticle army

The same website reports some other major scams involving serving or ex members of the military junta which were as follows: 

  1. General Jahangir Karamat, former Chief of Army Staff, took kickbacks of more than US$ 20 Million from a Ukrainian tank company for purchase of 300 Ukrainian tanks through a middleman named Col Mahmood, a brother corps officer of Karamat. 
  2. According to Mr. Rauf Klasra, reporter of The News, many top military officers had their loans written off. This fortunate lot included five lieutenant generals, two major generals and a battalion of other senior uniformed beneficiaries, with some army managed institutions to boot. 
  3. The army controlled institutions also got their share from the national plunder when the Army Welfare Trust (AWT) got a massive loan of Rs 14.49 Million written off from a state-owned financial entity, which is now defunct (hardly a surprising fate). Some of the cases were, however, genuine, as their loans were written off in accordance with the rules. 
  4. According to the official list of loan write-off beneficiaries tabled in the National Assembly, Lt General (retired) Ali Kuli Khan and his father Lt General Habibullah Khan had their loans written off. The list shows that General Kuli Khan got two loans written off from the Allied Bank of Pakistan while he was still serving in the Army in the mid 90s. The first loan was of Rs 1.8 million and second was Rs. 1.6 million outstanding against Janana De Malucho Textile Mills Limited, Kohat owned by his father General (retired) Habibullah Khan. General Kuli was then one of the directors of the textile mills. After the death of General Habib, he became the chief executive of this textile unit. General Habib, too, was a beneficiary of this loan write off. 
  5. Lt General (retired) K M Azhar, who later became active in politics, of Rex Breen Batteries got Rs 16 million written off by the Agriculture Development Bank. 
  6. Lt General (retired) SA Burkey and Lt General (retired) Safdar Butt also figure amongst the happy generals benefiting from the state institutions generosity. Another prominent name on the list is that of Air Marshal (retired) A Rahim Khan. 
  7. Air Marshal (retired) Viqar Azeem also got Rs 15 million written off from Pakistani Kuwait Investment Co. Lt General (retired) SA Burkey, Major General Zahid Ali Akbar, Brig MM Mahmood, Begum Omar Mahmood, Saeed Ahmed also got loans written off. 
  8. Gohar Ayub Khan, Mr. Raza Kuli Khan brother of General Ali Kuli Khan also got a loan of Rs 7.2 million written off against Rehana Woolen Mills. The loan was written off by the financial institution SAPICO. 
  9. Major General (retired) M Mumtaz from Abbottabad, Lt Colonel (retired) Shaukat and Major (retd) Tajuddin Rs 1.2 million, Major General (retired) Ghaziuddn are also in the list. Major General (retired) G Umar also got Rs 8.5 million written off from the Agriculture Development Bank. 
  10. Lt General (retired) Safdar Butt, Major General (retired) Abdullah Malik, Brig (retired) M M Mahmood, Col (retired) M Zafar Khan, Mohammad Afzal Khan, Mrs Hamida Farhat also got benefits from the UBL. General (retired) Abdullah had resigned after the military coup of General Zia and had opposed the military take over of July 1977.

The list also names:

  1. Brigadier (retired) M A Baig and Qamar Ahmad, BA Siddiqi, Zubair Rashid, Mohammad Sadiq Baig, Riazur Rehman, Mrs Mamomnna Khatoon, Mrs Mehr Riaz, Mr Taufiq Ahmed Rs 1.09 million (UBL). 
  2. Lt-Colonel (retired) Ch M Anis Ahmed, Colonel Atta ullah, Shahid Atta, Mst Qamar un Nisa Rs 2.6 million
  3. Irfan Rice Mills of Colonel (retired) Nazar Hussain Rs 1.6 million
  4. Mehr Textile Mills, Chakwal, Colonel Mohammad Ayub Khan, Ch Nisar Ali Khan, Ch Asad Ali Khan, Mrs Sultana Zakia, Mohammad Nawaz, Ch Ghulam Ali Khan. Major General (retired) Khadim H. Raja, Air Marshal (retired) A Rahim Khan, Mrs Sattar Azim Khan also got loan written off.
  5. Mohammad Textile Mills Limited of Air Commodore (retired) Amanullah got a loan of Rs. 95 million  written off from the United Bank Limited (UBL). 
  6. Air Vice Marshal (retired) Ata Elahi Sheikh of the National Fructose Limited also got Rs 43 million written off. 
  7. Sairani Cotton Ginning Factory owners Capt (retired) Shahraz Latif and his business partners Shahnaz Latif, Ch Mohammad Ashraf also got loan written off.
  8. Air Marshal (retired) A Rashid Sheikh, Air vice Marshal (retired) S Moinur Rab, Group Captain (retired) Mohammad Ismal Khan, Salman Rashid of Sky Rooms Limited got Rs 8.4 million loan written off.
  9. Brigadier (retired) SM Bakar Naqvi, Mian Ahmed Rabbani, Pervez Iftikar Khan, Abdul Aziz, NM Khanzada and Major (retired) Afzalul Haq also among the beneficiaries. 
  10. Colonel (retired) M Yaqoob of Aswan Tentage and Canvas got a huge loan of Rs 276 million written off from Bankers Equity. His other business partners were Colonel (retired) M. Yaqoob, Mohamamd Afzal Chugtai, Mohammad Siddiqi, Haji Ghulam Sabir and Idris Ahmed Butt.
  11. Farook Pulp of Mjaor Nasim A Farooqi, Naeem A Farooqi, Pervez Farooqi, Munir Ahmed Khan and Saleem Farooqi got loan of Rs 2.1 million loan written off. 
  12. Captain (retired) Shaukat of Locus Enterprises got Rs 8.8 million written off. His business partners were Wiqar Abbas, Khalid Khan, Colonel (retired) M Sadiq Khan, Nabil Hasan, Masoud Abbasi and Abdul Razak.
  13. Raja Iftikar Kiani of Ms Alliance Textile Mills, Jhelum got a wavier of Rupees 16 million from the Muslim Commercial Bank (MCB).
  14. Lieutenant-Colonel, who owned the Meditex Intl got Rs 6.322 million written off from the HBL. His business partner was Col (retired) Bashir Ahmed.
  15. Commander Abdul Latif also got Rs 10 million written off. Shangrila Macropole Inn, Lahore got Rs 4.3 loan written off.
  16. Brigadier (retired) Mohammad Aslam Khan and Co got Rs 4.3 million written off.
  17. Feroz Sons Textile Mills Mirpur owners Colonel (retired) Munir Hussain, Nasim Farms’s and Major General (retired) Qazi Nasim Majeed are also among the beneficiaries. 
  18. Colonel (retired) Saleem of Special Iron and Steel Mills Limited, Lt General (retired) Habibullah Khan, Brigadier (retired) M Jan Hahang M Khandawala, Raza Kuli Khan, Colonel (retired) M Sharif Khan, Begum Tehmina Habibullah, M I Khurram, M Nazir Khan and IA Khurram are also among the beneficiaries. 
  19. Major (retired) Mohamamd Anwar, S Aijaz Ali Shah, S Amjad Ali Shah, S Ghulam Qadir, S Aftab Ali Shah, S Ali Gohar Shah, S. Amin Shah also on the list. Lt-Col (retired) M Jaffar, JH Dinshaw Rs 7.2 million, Chemphar Pakistan Limited of Brigadier (retired) Shareef Rahat, Captain (retired) AM Murad and Major (retired) Tariq Baig are also among the beneficiaries. 

Source: http://pkpolitics.com/ 

It is now a challenge for all the civil society and media proponents of a crusade against corruption to urge the judiciary to take notice of the corruption of the generals and take the cases of corruption for regular hearing which have been pending since 2003. 


 
5 Comments

Posted in Research n Record

 

You’re Being Watched Mushy Baby!

06 Dec



This article was published in The Post in October, 2007 after the NRO promulgation. I've posted it here just as a record of history.

BB 4

As Pakistan treads through most dangerous decade of its political history, people keep witnessing densely shaded political kaleidoscope. Things have been especially precarious during past one week. Amid an intense public desire for the judiciary to play its independent role in country’s political well being, the apex court passed a judgment not very popular. Nothing could have been a surer recipe for political chaos than an adamant soldier to get re-elected as president, somersaulting politicians, a rubber-stamp parliament, a puppet executive, a divided judiciary and confused public.

 

Life has never been bed of roses for Pakistan’s uniformed president, General Pervez Musharraf after March 9, 2007 when top judge refused to succumb to the pressure exerted by the government to leave office. Invigorated by people’s support, judiciary risked going against the will of the government and first time in Pakistan’s history, people got an inkling of judiciary’s independence. Under the hang-over of a successful campaign for the restoration of Chief Justice of Pakistan, lawyers’ community announced to launch a campaign for the restoration of “true democracy” and for a president without uniform. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the aged leader of extreme right winged orthodox religio-political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, joined hands with Imran Khan the only MP from Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf, for filing a petition against the election of president in uniform in the apex court. mush

 

Once again, people’s heightened expectations from recently got “independence” of judiciary bucked up the lawyers to make the petition a rallying point. On September 29, 2007 however, the Supreme Court saved the day for Musharraf by dismissing both the petitions on “technical grounds” for not being maintainable.  Lawyers and civil society, intrigued but not disappointed by this judicial drama stretched through the past two weeks, vowed to fight the battle through the Election Commission of Pakistan. “The decision of the apex court that the petitions challenging General Pervez Musharraf’s taking part in presidential election in uniform is not maintainable, might be on the grounds that it was premature as at the time of filing the petition General Musharraf had not filed his nomination papers as presidential candidate before the Election Commission,” Justice (Retd) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim said and added “In fact, nothing has been decided still and all issues raised in different petitions will be challenged again in a more effective manner now”.

 

The lawyers, now immersed in political game, announced their candidate for presidential race. Justice (Retd.) Wajihuddin Ahmad, a respected former judge who had to leave office when he refused to take oath under notorious Provisional Constitutional Order introduced by Musharraf immediately after his taking office of the Chief Executive of Pakistan. Proposed and seconded by religious parties’ alliance Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), Wajihuddin filed his nomination papers on September 27. Things went more baffling when Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) nominated Makhdoom Ameen Faheem as its Presidential candidate.

 

All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM), an alliance of opposition parties minus PPP, went on with their decision of resigning from the National Assembly and dissolution of NWFP Provincial Assembly, where MMA, a prominent member of APDM, was in power. The decision has not been an easier one for Jamiat-e-Ulamai Islam Fazlur Rehman group (JUI-F), a coalescing unit of MMA. Posed with potent threats of internal rifts that might amount to its ultimate breakage, MMA parleys took just too long to decide about the resignations issue. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the JUI Chief, popularly dubbed as ‘soft opposition’ and ‘the king of double talk’, went head over heals to convince party mates not to resign. Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the Jamat-e-Islami (JI) leader, however, took it as a threat to his party’s credibility and insisted on resignations as decided by the All Parties Conference convened in early July by Mian Nawaz Sharif.

 

The complex political horizon got thickened by PPP’s resolve to support democracy by negotiating with the General for a broader national reconciliation – a move completely un-understandable by Pakistan’s politicians whose politics revolve around trumpeting superficial political morality. Little can they sense that an all powerful military general cannot be pushed to give off power, unless is negotiated. While PML-N chief did not stop cooing the song of “threatened democracy” by Bhutto’s talking to the General, BB kept on playing table talk with the dictator’s front men for a national consensus formula that would include her three point agenda; ONE: repealing the constitutional amendment that includes bar on third term of the Prime Minister and 58-2(b); TWO: dismissal of all corruption cases on politicians, which were registered by successive political regimes against each other in their bid to eliminate opposing party from the political scene of the country, since 1985; and THREE: doffing off of the uniform by the president alongside bringing electoral reforms to ensure free and fair elections in transparent manner.

 

In an unexpected move from the presidency on October 2, withdrawal of all politically motivated cases against many politicians and thousands of non-political victims was announced. The announcement was also made nominating General Ishfaq Pervez Kiani, former spy chief, as Chief of Army Staff, which is being discussed in all drawing room discussions as being Bhutto’s recommendation, since Kiyani is said to have a “good working relationship” with Benzir Bhutto. The next day, Maulana Fazlur Rehman together with fellow clerics resigned from the National Assembly. His clever move of announcing dissolution of provincial Assembly on September 29, almost four days before the scheduled dissolution, gave government enough time to move a No-Confidence Motion against the MMA Chief Minister (According to the Constitution, a Chief Minister cannot dissolve the Assembly if a No-Confidence Motion comes against him). Exactly according to the expectations, the Provincial Assembly opposition members (the ruling party at federal level) filed a No-Confidence motion. To counter which, smart strategy should have been to take a vote of confidence next day and go for dissolution. On the contrary, the Chief Minister adjourned the session till Oct 8 – two days after the presidential polls.

 

Benazir Bhutto, meanwhile, successfully crossed all milestones of negotiations with the General and agreed on a “National Reconciliation” Formula in lieu of which, PPP would not resign from the parliament thus ensuring a legitimacy of presidential polls and giving the General a space to give off something as a gesture of reciprocating. A politically sagacious Bhutto has shown a farsightedness par excellence in that only this kind of give and take could make a long serving dictator give off maximum of his power to political actors.

 

A National Assembly Session was heard to be summoned on Oct 3, but was delayed due to ongoing parleys with Bhutto. As a successful breakthrough on these parleys could lead to hurried issuance of an Ordinance, which can only be done when Parliament is not in session, the National Assembly session was delayed for two more days. 

 

As a confident president calmly announces his resolve to contest presidential elections while in uniform, and working on post election business details with Bhutto, Justice ®Wajihuddin Ahmad, another presidential hopeful, moves a petition to the Supreme Court for a stay on presidential elections. After three days of rigorous debate, the court adjourned on Oct 5, a day prior to the elections, to Oct 17 refusing a stay on elections and barring any announcement of results till Oct 17. The decision makes both sides happy and hopeful. It seems that the newly freed judiciary is not yet ready to do away with doctrine of necessity. It has generated an unbearable disappointment among those sections of civil society, who were hoping the judiciary will now be able to play its long awaited role for strengthening democracy.

 

Maulana Fazlur Rehman is left alone by JI, its coalescing partner after a rift over resigning from the provincial Assembly of NWFP. While Maulana was facing sheer opposition from his own party members against resigning from NWFP Assembly,  he was consoled by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the top leader of the ruling Muslim League who issued orders to his party men in the Provincial Assembly of NWFP to withdraw the No-Confidence motion. It has taken all the air from the Opposition balloon, leaving JI and Nawaz League as a shaky opponent.

 

As these lines are written and presidency has announced a National Reconciliation Ordinance, right wing politicians powered by a short sighted civil society and media are raising hue and cry on the Ordinance. People are being dragged to believe that the Ordinance is something which is going to give way to corruption in country. Little can we realize, had this move not been there, Musharraf would be keeping on with his unbridled power despite newly found alliance of media and civil society.

 

The life seems bed of roses for powers that be, which have traditionally been against the idea of a pro-people polity in the country. Bhutto being the only hope for people right now, is giving unflinching signs of returning back home. It is hoped that people of Pakistan would see the events with greater maturity, rather than being manipulated by the media hostage to the designs of establishment.

 
2 Comments

Posted in Writings

 

The Octagon of Governance

10 Sep

Published on March 4, 2007


Amid various international country ranking reports where Pakistan is fast approaching the victory stand of corruption, terrorism, lack of accountability, transparency and rule of law despite being a front line state in war against terror, one is inclined to see the larger canvas of overall governance in the country.
The term governance is being increasingly used in the latest development literature, among development professionals and political analysts all over the world. The gospel of governance, in simple terms, is the way where certain decisions are taken (or not taken) and implemented (or not implemented) to manage a society’s political, economic and social affairs. The onus of all the evils of a society is conveniently put on bad governance. Major donors and international financial institutions are basing their loaning and aid strategies in developing countries on the demand from the respective governments for a broader reform agenda ensuring good governance. In the presence of these “chaperons” for good governance, one can still see all the elements that contribute to the worst form of governance in the entire developing generally and in Pakistan particularly.
It becomes imperative to have a closer look at the term and its components in order to discern Pakistan’s performance on this pitch. Good governance, as the Governance Matters Report 2005 of our financial Vatican – the World Bank – warns us, has eight important elements: accountability, transparency, participation, responsiveness, effectiveness & efficiency, inclusiveness, stability and last but not least, rule of law. A steady performance and progress on these eight indicators would make the octagon of governance look balanced and poised.
Accountability – a self explanatory but largely misunderstood and abused term in Pakistan’s context – is a measure of the degree to which people are able to participate in selecting their government, have freedoms of expression and association alongside a free media. The need of making public officials and people’s representatives answerable for government behavior to the entity from which they derive authority can not be overemphasized. In countries with established democratic ethos and strong egalitarian roots, the accountability is ensured by audit covenants at one level and broadly elected legislatures and narrowly conceived committees etc at another. In Pakistan a simulation of democracy is doing the trick. Pakistan’s percentile rank (0 to 100) for accountability in governance among world’s largest populated twenty countries was 12.6 in 2005. Pakistan was fourth country from bottom, while China and Vietnam stood at the base of accountability pyramid. In South Asia, Pakistan was ranked second last among eight countries in 2005. The least accountable governance was carried by Afghanistan.
Transparency, correlated to accountability explains the accessibility of general public to information and government rules, regulations, procedures and decisions. The difficulty with ensuring transparency is that public access to information might very easily be restricted by the same authority that is responsible for providing that information. So, it is crucial to give the freedom of information a legal and legislative cover. Pakistan, having a scarcely envisioned Freedom of Information Act (which never saw itself explored by the parliamentarians on the floor of the House), is not displaying a pleasing picture on this front. With a country average of 16.1, Pakistan stands at the third least transparent country in its governance practices, rules, regulations etc. among South Asian countries closely beating Bangladesh and Afghanistan with country averages of 15.2 and 10.3 respectively. Maldives secures its place as the most transparent country with very tight regulatory framework among eight South Asian countries having a country average for transparency at 66.2 in 2005.
As far as government effectiveness is concerned, it’s a bit tricky to comprehend the concept and its relevance to good governance. As per definition accepted by most international governance assessment institutions, it measures the quality of civil and public service and degree to which both these services are independent from political pressures. It also gauges the quality of policy formulation and process of its implementation along with credibility of government’s commitment to such policies. Pakistan stands at fifth position among eight South Asian countries having a country average for effectiveness of 34 as opposed to Bhutan at number one with 64.6, India at number three with country average of 51.7, Nepal at number seven with 14.3 and Afghanistan at number eight with country average of 9.1. It demonstrates a devious kaleidoscope of political activity related to government effectiveness. Countries like Bhutan and Maldives may show higher averages of government effectiveness on account of being governed by autocracy and / or oligarchy, which leaves little space for non-state actors to dissent government’s actions. Countries with stronger democratic values may show a mid level average like that of India where government’s effectiveness indicators may confront a potent civil society interference. Countries like Nepal for example may show a major diversion and stay at the bottom as far as effectiveness stats are concerned, in the presence of a strong people’s opposition to autocracy. That explains Pakistan’s comparatively higher average compared to other indicators!
Rule of law, an important cornerstone of governance in any country is the measure of the level of social agents’ confidence in and abiding by the rules of society in particular, the value of writ enforcement, the police, the judiciary and the likelihood of crime and violence (we may use the word terrorism complying with emerging international linguistics). Pakistan ranks sixth among eight South Asian countries with a country average at 24.2 compared with Bhutan at number one with 64.7, Maldives at number two at 60, India at number three with an average of 56.4, Sri Lanka at number four with 54.1, Nepal at number five with 25.1, Bangladesh with 19.8 and Afghanistan with 1.4 at numbers seven and eight respectively. A country with greater value for democracy and people’s voices may display foreign and domestic policies with greater mass acceptance. A factor that minimizes people’s concerns resultantly less violent attitudes, more people-friendly policies, greater political and social freedom and social safety nets. All contributing to a just and equitable society thus leading to rule of law.
Conceptually and rationally, all these elements of governance support and reinforce each other. Accountability is related to citizens participation in decision making processes, which in turn is linked to transparency, information openness, government responsiveness to people’s needs and concerns, government efficiency and predictable decision making of autonomous government agencies. Similarly, the transparency and accessibility can not be ensured with out legal frameworks to balance people’s right to information against governments’ right to confidentiality along side a wide institutional acceptance to accountability. Finally, a democratic system facilitates governments to take informed decisions, incorporate people’s interests and voices in policy formulation, a free media to act as autonomous watchdog that props predictable outcome of governance. It, therefore, appears to be an unmistakable reality that the flag of good governance can only be unfurled under the bright sunlight of democratic system. The octagon has to be perfectly figured if soft image of Pakistan is to be popularized!

 
No Comments

Posted in Writings

 

Two Courts, Why Not?

10 Sep

Published on: May 19, 2008

As the judicial imbroglio thickens the air between two coalition partners, the speculative analyses and predictions keep creeping through the op-ed columns and current affairs talk shows on umpteen TV channels in Pakistan. Whatever the analysts say, however serenity and reason PPP leadership tries to bring to the negotiating table, the fact remains that it’s not the dearth of solutions that is leading to uncertainty in reinstatement of judges, its lack of political commitment to do so. The solutions that have came up so far range from an executive order to a constitutional amendment or the act of Parliament. Considering the significant moves on the part of political movers and shakers, it is becoming all the more necessary to reach an upshot as soon as possible. The more time is spent on proving that every proposed way out has more cons than pros, the easier it would be for the anti democratic forces to draw the conclusion that no solution is possible for this political riddle.
The recent proposal, which was instantly denied by the Prime Minister, was that of establishment of two supreme courts. The idea perceptibly seems to be mala fide and an attempt to appease the lawyer / civil society pressure and placate a presidency that is shamelessly being lactated by the world powers. But at the same time, it deserves a serious thinking and analysis. The two Supreme Courts would mean a judicial system that allows the power of constitutional review to concentrate within a single judicial body. This proposal has a history of being in force in various countries of Western Europe alongside new democracies of Eastern Europe; and has displayed a widely accepted version of constitutional protection and control.
The presence of Constitutional courts gives rise to the anomalies of overlapping jurisdiction of Federal Constitutional Court and the supreme civil court, their absence critically contradicts with the principles of sovereignty of parliament and judicial review especially in democracies like Pakistan and India whose constitution remains a major source of this paradox. In India, where no Constitutional Court exists, the constitution has successfully fought back to be the supreme law of the land; in Pakistan, it still is a political instrument that every regime uses to consolidate its power. This fundamental difference in political cultures of both the countries makes them incomparable as far as judicial system is concerned. The emerging democracies in the European world, on the other hand, might offer an attractive judicial package to be replicated here in the backdrop of fierce battle between the state and the judiciary in Pakistan over last one year – a case much similar to postwar Germany when Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) was established.
The German Constitutional Court had to encounter five branches of specialized courts already well established in the pre-Natzi tradition of German judiciary. The specialized courts had to overcome the failure of their immediate past, whereas, the Constitutional Court was offered a considerable chance of success by the climate of postwar reform. If in Pakistan, the existing Supreme Court takes on the jurisdiction of civil, criminal and administrative cases and a new Federal Constitutional Court is established with the mandate of constitutional interpretation, it is expected to correspond well with the democratic tradition of separation of power and centrality of constitution.
It should, however, be kept in mind that developing a commonly accepted model of cohabitation at the supreme judicial level will be extremely difficult and would require stronger political commitment from parliament, the existing Supreme Court as well as from other power players. The answer to fundamental question of distribution of judicial power between the two courts would largely depend on the intent of establishment of such bi-faceted judicial system that divorces American system of diffused judicial review. If the sole objective is to keep one single individual from heading the apex constitutional court, and limiting his power to civil and criminal suits, the new system may lack vision and design to sustain and might not produce popularly desired results.
The apprehensions of some experts, as reported in media over last few days, about the establishment of Constitutional Court in Pakistan weigh much lesser compared to the positives of it. If established on the following lines, the system can, by design, respond to most of the apprehensions:
1. The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) should be structurally independent with respect to the Executive Branch and to the Supreme Court
2. The FCC should be mandated to develop the concept of direct applicability of the Constitution (including its guarantees of fundamental rights) and to impose that concept on other segments of the judicial branch.
3. Procedures of the constitutional complaints should be such designed that they should extend the applicability of complaints to all the situation involving conflicts with fundamental rights of individual liberty
4. The FCC, while preserving the last word in the wake of a controversy, should not claim a monopoly over application of the Constitution but, rather, should act as a coordinator of that process.
5. The FCC should be vested with the competence to review ordinary statutes and other legal regulations as well as to annul them in case of unconstitutionality or nonconformity with any international instrument to which Pakistan is a party. Such decisions of the FCC should be universally binding i.e., also binding on all other courts, including Supreme Court.
6. Each court (Higher and Supreme) while resolving an individual case should consider whether the statutory provisions based on which the judgment will be give, are in conformity of the constitution or not. In case of a doubt expressed by the complainant or the judge herself about the constitutionality of such provision, the judge should refer that issue to the FCC as a legal question. The decision of FCC should be binding on the other courts to be applied to the case(s).
7. The FCC’s composition should be such that all the provinces and other federating units are equally represented.
While smoothening public opinion on any set of judicial solutions, we need to keep in mind that present crisis has a hidden opportunity – the opportunity of making our judicial system more relevant to a parliamentary democracy and constitutionalism. Change is sometimes uneasy, but it surely bears the fruit of development. And the key to change is . . . let go of fear!

 
No Comments

Posted in Writings

 
 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes