Original Articles

Pakistan’s apex court decides not to examine evidence against intelligence agencies in the missing persons case

Evidence against agencies not to be examined: SC

Friday, 19 Feb, 2010

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan said on Friday it will not examine evidence against intelligence agencies in the missing persons’ case.

A written order released to the media states that evidence and allegations of involvement of intelligence agencies in abducting people will be examined by an ‘appropriate forum at the relevant time.’

The written orders were released a week after the last hearing in the case, which was conducted by Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Sair Ali and Justice Tariq Pervez.

The four-page order noted that police officials have expressed their inability to make further probes in certain cases regarding the missing persons’ due to alleged involvement of various intelligence agencies.

Over a thousand people have been missing for the last four years amid allegations of intelligence agencies kidnapping them as part of in relation to the war against terror. The Supreme Court took notice of the complaints and started a probe in 2006.

After assurance of progress from Attorney General Anwar Mansur Sohail, the apex court will now take up the case again next week. —

Source: Dawn

However, while the ‘honourable’ judges in the Supreme Court are reluctant to investigate the despicable role of the ISI and other spy agencies in the case of missing persons in Pakistan, they seem to be extra pro-active and in an undue haste in not letting go a single chance to defame the democratic government. The traditional judiciary-military alliance against democracy seems to be at work yet again in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

CJ takes NAB to task over graft cases
By Nasir Iqbal
Saturday, 20 Feb, 2010

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry upbraided the National Accountability Bureau on Friday for sitting on the court order of reopening corruption cases closed under the National Reconciliation Ordinance, including those against President Asif Ali Zardari pending in Swiss courts.

The chief justice made the remarks while hearing bail pleas of Syed Rahat Mehmood, Mohammad Akhtar and Mohammad Farooq Ansari, allegedly involved in a fraud case relating to the Bankers City Housing Society.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by the chief justice and comprising Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmad and Justice Ghulam Rabbani warned NAB chairman Nawid Ahsan that coercive measures would be taken against him, including attachment of his salary, and NAB representatives would be stopped from appearing before the court if compliance of the Dec 16 verdict about NAB’s prosecutor general Dr Danishwar and additional prosecutor general Abdul Baseer Qureshi was not implemented by March 2 — the next date of hearing.

The court observed that after the NRO judgment the appearance of representatives/prosecutors on behalf of NAB in different cases had become irregular, except in a few cases where one of the prosecutors was appearing regularly.

The court summoned the NAB chairman after briefly adjourning the proceedings and asked him about his failure to implement the Dec 16, 2009, judgment of the 17-judge bench against the NRO.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court had expressed displeasure over the conduct and lack of proper and honest assistance provided to it by the NAB chairman, its prosecutor general and additional prosecutor general and suggested to the government to replace them with persons possessing high degree of competence and impeccable integrity.

On Friday, the court asked the NAB chairman why had the PG and APG not been removed so far.

The NAB chairman said he was seeking guidance from the law ministry on how to comply with the judgment. He also said that his post was protected by the Constitution and he could not be removed unless a reference was sent to the Supreme Judicial Council.

The bench said it wanted the NAB chairman to take action against the PG and APG because they were working under him. “We also know about the status of your post and we are looking into that as well,” the chief justice observed. He said: “Don’t think for a second that the court could not ensure implementation of its orders.”

Source: Dawn

About the author

SK

68 Comments

Click here to post a comment
  • Pakistanis are in US Custody and their case is pending in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Please define wouldn’t the meeting of CJ with a key US Figure jeopardize [or already jeopardized the case] and compromised the pending case.

    Perhaps the real question I should ask is, why do I even care? When I took time off from Harvard to be part of the lawyers’ movement I had seen a ray of hope. There were concerned citizens and lawyers who stood for what was right, no matter what the consequences. We fought for a principle and won, with the hope that things will slowly improve. Today the very judges we had faith in released the Lal Masjid cleric whose crimes everyone knows about. If the judiciary was going to release people whose crimes were recorded on TV, perhaps it does explain why the Taliban are growing popular. Having said that, rays of hope like Afzal Khan Lala, who has refused to move from Swat while he is alive, appear every now and then. However, he stands alone in facing the storm. Other than Ayaz Amir, not a single Pakistani leader has spoken out against the Taliban. Will the real leader who can get rid of these monsters stand up, please? Imran Khan? Qazi? Nawaz Sharif? This silence is criminal! The Taliban are here By Samad Khurram http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=173372

    And same Mr Samad Khurram was “looking after” CJ’s visit to the USA and of course Aitzaz Ahsan [PPP] was there as well:

    CJ Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and USA http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/12/cj-iftikhar-muhammad-chaudhry-and-usa.html

  • @Abdul.
    Good you spotted an important a very important news, this is very disappointing indeed. By the way do you know “where is Mrs. Janjua these days?”

  • @Peja
    Thanks. It would appear that Mrs Janjua is in the same ‘safe house’ in which Aafia Siddiqui’s children have been kept by the [censored].

  • When Advocate Hashmat Habib requested the court to summon heads of the Military Intelligence and the Inter-Services Intelligence, Justice Iqbal said that last time when “we tried to summon them we were sent home for almost 16 months”. Moving scenes were witnessed in the courtroom when Mrs Amina Masood Janjua, chairperson of the Defence of Human Rights who is campaigning for the release of detained persons including her husband Masood Janjua, regretted that there was silence despite the fact that witnesses were ready to help locate her husband. – ISLAMABAD: In the missing persons’ case’s proceedings on Wednesday, Justice Javed Iqbal, who heads the bench hearing the case, stated that individuals taken by intelligence agencies were considered as missing persons. The military’s role was also brought into question over the disappearances of these individuals. Justice Javed Iqbal said in the missing persons’ cases “there is always a mention of brigadiers and majors, who has given them power?” “Frontier Corps has no rights to arrest and detain any person,” Justice Iqbal said, adding that the court will be satisfied even if one person was recovered and the anxiety of one family was over. Meanwhile, Justice Raja Fayyaz said “there is a Gestapo-like reign of terror…anyone can come into a house, where is the enforcement of law?” Incidents involving hundreds of missing persons have been reported to the court in the past four years. Relatives of the missing allege they were picked up by intelligence agencies. — DawnNews – REFERENCE: http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-vs-judiciary-demented.html

    Right after the resignation of General Musharraf from the Post of the President of Pakistan, Mr. Athar Minallah the Chief Spokesman of Defunct Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary in Private Pakistani TV Channel [AAJ TV], demanded Treason Trial under article 6 of 1973 Constitutiuon of Islamic Republic of Pakistan while shamelssly forgetting that Athar Minallah, also served in the Musharraf cabinet for two years. Shouln’t Mr Athar Minallah be brought to Justice as well because abetting in a crime is tantamount to committing a crime. Athar Minallah joined the prestigious Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) and after serving for 10 years left the post of Additional Collector Customs to join the firm as a partner. Athar Minallah brings not only rich taxation experience but also valuable scholastic input. Athar completed his law degree from the International Islamic University (Islamabad) and his LLM from University of Cambridge, UK. And his areas of interest are taxation, judicial review, Athar was appointed Minister for Law, Local Government, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights by the Provincial Government of NWFP (2000-2002). He also was the member of the Task Force constituted by the Federal Government for revamping the Taxation regime in Pakistan. Currently he is the member of the Policy Board of Intellectual Property of Pakistan and Chairman of Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee (ADRC) for Sales Tax constituted by the Central Board of Revenue. – Athar was appointed Minister for Law, Local Government, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights by the Provincial Government of NWFP (2000-2002) by General Musharraf Military Regime. REFERENCE: Musharraf Consolidates His Control With Arrests By JANE PERLEZ Published: November 4, 2007 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-vs-judiciary-demented.html

    Sometimes Intellectual Dishonesty is more fatal than the Financial or Moral Corruption. Financial/Moral Corruption is mostly related with few and destroys few [I REPEAT I AM NOT CONDONING IT] but Intellectual Dishonesty destroys nations e.g. Sharifuddin Pirzada, A K Brohi and many many more. I will just restrict myself to the swinging pendulum of Mr. Ansar Abbasi’s pen and journalism and will quote news/columns/opinions filed by him in all these years and every article is contradicting the earlier one. Remember one thing that Ansar Abbasi had demanded Treason Trial of Musharraf for violating article 6 of 1973 Constitution whereas shamelessly Mr. Ansar Abbasi is in favour of retaining National Accountability Bureau to hound politicians [the NAB was founded by Martial Law Regime! Where is the validity? Violation is Violation and cannot be condoned through Law of Necessity. To Proceed

    Mr Ansar Abbasi was a Musharraf supporter while working for Daily Dawn:

    “QUOTE”

    During 1999 Mr. Ansar Abbasi was Praising General Musharraf Martial Law regime’s “Alleged Reforms” when Ansar Abbasi used to be a Correspondent in Daily Dawn, he never mentioned even a single time that Impsoing Martial Law is Treason and Violation of Article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. Read the news reports which Ansar Abbasi filed in the Daily Dawn in 1999. Not a single time Ansar adress Musharraf as CMLA but Ansar was very respectful towards “Alleged Chief Executive” Musharraf. You may not find a single personal observation by Ansar Abbasi on Constitutional Tampering by Military Regime. Musharraf was given mandate by the Judiciary to tamper with the Constitution. Everybody knows who was part of that Supreme Court Bench. REFERENCES: http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-vs-judiciary-demented.html

    Ansar Abbasi Praising General Musharraf’s Martial Law Regime’s “Alleged Reforms” when Ansar Abbasi used to be a Correspondent in Daily Dawn, he never mentioned even a single time that Impsoing Martial Law is Treason and Violation of Article 6 of 1973Constitution of Pakistan

    As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

    “QUOTE”

    PART I

    6. (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

    (2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

    (3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

    “UNQUOTE”

    AND AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, READ THE SAME JOURNALISTS SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA IN 2009 AND THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT SOMEBODY DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS [READ THOSE JOURNALISTS AFTER READING CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN’S AFFDAVIT]

    “QUOTE”

    ISLAMABAD, May 29: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on Tuesday narrated for the first time his version of the events of of May 9 at the President’s camp office in Rawalpindi. He said in an affidavit that top intelligence officials had constantly pressured him into resigning, and after keeping him confined at the office for over five hours, he was allowed to leave in a flagless car. “I was informed that I have been restrained from acting as the chief justice.” The `non-functional’ chief justice informed the full-bench hearing identical petitions against the presidential reference that since the action of March 9, he had remained a victim of intrusive and not-so-intrusive intelligence and police operation. “I replied that it was not based on facts as my case was decided by a two-member bench and that attempts are being made to maliciously involve the other member of the Bench as well.” After this, the president said there were a few more complaints as well, directing his staff to call the ‘other persons’. The ‘other persons’ entered the room immediately. They were: Prime Minster Shaukat Aziz, the Directors General of Military Intelligence (MI), Director General of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Director General Intelligence Bureau (IB), Chief of Staff (COS) and another official. All officials (except the IB chief and the COS) were in uniform. “The meeting lasted about 30 minutes. The chiefs of the MI, ISI and IB stayed back, but they too did not show him me a single piece of evidence.” In fact, Justice iftikhar said, no official, except the ISI chief, had any document with him. The officials, however, alleged that Justice Iftikhar had used his influence to get his son admitted in Bolan Medical College, Quetta, when he was serving as a judge of the Balochistan High Court. The ISI and MI heads persisted in their demand for resignation, the CJ said. “I refused, saying that the demand has a collateral purpose.” “I was kept there absolutely against my will till 5pm. I was stopped there on one pretext or the other and at one stage was told the president will once again see me. “After 5pm, the MI chief told me `This is a bad day. Now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained from working as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of Pakistan’.” Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry further said when he came out of the room, he was stunned to find that the national flag and the insignia of office were no longer there on his car. “My staff officer later informed me Justice Javed Iqbal has taken oath as Acting Chief Justice and it has been shown on TV. My driver said he had been instructed not to drive the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.” REFERENCE: CJ says chiefs of MI, ISI asked him to quit: Affidavit on March 9 camp office event By Iftikhar A. Khan May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428

    “UNQUOTE”

    NOW READ THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR TOP JOURNALISTS!

    “QUOTE”

    ISLAMABAD: The detailed judgment in the case of the restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan on July 20, 2007 reveals that not only Pervez Musharraf but the then Director General ISI and the DG Military Intelligence (MI) had also insisted that the chief justice resign during his illegal detention at the Army House Rawalpindi on March 9, 2007. The judgment, penned by Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, says: “The petitioner CJP went on to depose that ‘the respondent (the president) insisted that the deponent (the CJP) should resign’. He added that his refusal to oblige, ‘ignited the fury of the respondent (the president); he (the president) stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS, and the prime minister of Pakistan, saying that others would show evidence to the deponent’ (about the allegations of misconduct against the CJP).” “As per the CJP, his meeting with the president lasted for about thirty minutes meaning thereby that the president and the prime minister would have left by about 12.15/12.30 pm and the CJP was then left behind in the company only of the DG MI, the DG ISI allegedly to be shown the evidence in support of the above-noticed accusations. The CJP alleged that no evidence at all was shown to him and “in fact, no official except DG ISI had some documents with him but he also did not show anything to the deponent” (the CJP). He added that they only accused him of having secured a seat for his son in Bolan Medical College while he was serving as a judge of Balochistan High Court. “The CJP further alleged that the DG MI and the DG ISI kept insisting that he should resign from his office while he continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and were being levelled only for a collateral purpose and that he would not resign at any cost and would rather face the said false charges.” The judgment states, “While the CJP was still at the President’s Camp Office in Rawalpindi during the said crucial ‘FIVE HOURS’ and when according to the CJP he was being detained there against his wishes after 12 noon and when according to the respondents he was sitting there, in the company of the intelligence chiefs examining the reference and the material available in support thereof, a notification dated March 9, 2007, was issued by the Government of Pakistan in the Law, Justice and Human Rights Division mentioning therein that since the President of Pakistan had been pleased to make a reference called a ‘DIRECTION’ by Article 209(5) of the Constitution) to the SJC against the CJP, therefore, the President had restrained Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry from acting as the Chief Justice of Pakistan or even as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”

    The honourable judges of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the case had nothing to do with army as an institution but acts of a person who happened to be chief of army staff. The judgment regarding the statement of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that ‘it was a matter between army and judiciary’ states, “This, in our opinion, was a naive attempt to create a wedge between two important and indispensable arms of the State and to put them on a war-path. What was in question before us was an act of the President and it was just an accident or a coincidence that the said President also happened to be the Chief of Army Staff. The matter had obviously nothing to do with the Army as an institution. Needless to add that the Army was an invaluable organ and instrument of the State and was as precious to us all as any other institution of our homeland. We, therefore, take this opportunity to express our disapproval and displeasure about the said statement.” Political analysts and observers who had watched the situation at the time, however, told The News that the involvement of junior military officers was minimal and on the specific orders of General Pervez Musharraf who had his own personal vested interest to protect.

    They said whatever happened at the time was planned and ordered by General Musharraf and no other army or intelligence officer could be blamed for it. “It was Musharraf and Musharraf alone who must be held responsible for the treatment he meted out to the judiciary and the judges have also noted this in their judgment when they said the army had nothing to do with it as an institution,” an analyst said. It should be noted that both the ISI and the MI were directly under control of the then COAS, General Musharraf, although the ISI is supposed to be under the prime minister. A retired general who was closed to General Pervez Musharraf when contacted said that Musharraf tried to show the door to the chief justice because he wanted extension in his tenure that was expiring, election results of his own desire and government of his own choice. He considered the chief justice as the only person who could create hurdles in the achievement of his objectives. He said Musharraf’s stakes were very high and he wanted to achieve his objectives at all costs. Musharraf, he said, used his senior colleagues, to press the chief justice to quit. He said the then DG MI General Nadeem Ijaz, who was relative of Musharraf, crossed all limits in dealing with the opponents of the former dictator. The DG MI was the strong man of Musharraf. He said Musharraf took aggressive steps against judiciary on the advice of the DG MI, who was in fact responsible for spoiling Musharraf’s all matters related to judiciary. The DG IB went too far in bid to protect the interests of his boss (Musharraf).

    He said under Musharraf’s pressure the DG MI Ijaz, DG IB Ejaz Shah, the then secretary interior and some others also submitted affidavits in the Supreme Court against the chief justice. He reminded that the DG ISI did not submit an affidavit. It was believed that Musharraf asked the DG ISI to submit his affidavit but the latter said sorry to the former. Musharraf, he said, was reportedly offended by the DG ISI. He said despite Musharraf’s intensive efforts, the then DG ISI Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani kept a reasonable distance from this issue in grace. He said Gen Kayani was popular as a simple soldier. He did not show any interest in Musharraf’s machinations and that was why he did not submit any affidavit. Observers are pleasantly surprised that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry wrote the names of military generals including the former DG ISI Gen Kayani, who is present army chief, and the full court also mentioned them in their judgement without showing any fear. They said the chief justice and all the members of the full court deserve praise and esteem for showing rare courage. Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday also mentioned the reasons for delay in writing the detailed judgment. The judgment says, “And before I put my pen down, I wish to offer a personal explanation which I owe in connection with this judgment. As is known, the short judgment in the matter was announced on July 20, 2007 and these reasons in support of the said judgment are being recorded after almost 2-1/2 years. This rather extraordinary delay, which was on account of equally extraordinary circumstances, warrants clarification and elucidation.” He mentioned that after vacations he was a part of a bench hearing the eligibility case of Pervez Musharraf but, when the said matter had almost reached the final stages, martial law (called emergency) was imposed in the country by General Musharraf on November 3, 2007 in his capacity as the Chief of Army Staff. Thirteen out of seventeen Judges were removed from office and some including the Chief Justice were put under house arrest which detention continued till March, 2008. “Thereafter, I was of course a free man but being a ‘REMOVED’ Judge, had no access to the Supreme Court and consequently the entire record of this case, including all the notes, were out of my reach. I, along with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and some other learned brothers, got restored to office in March, 2009 and it is thereafter that I got down to collecting the lost, the forgotten and the scattered threads and this is what I have been able to produce now.” REFERENCE: How dictator Musharraf used his colleagues against Justice Iftikhar Friday, December 25, 2009 By Usman Manzoor http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-vs-judiciary-demented.html

    URDU TEXT IS AS UNDER:

    “UNQUOTE”

    MR. ANSAR ABBASI OF THE SAME JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS REFUTES THE ABOVE REPORT. WHAT A JOKE! – LIES OF MR. ANSAR ABBASI IN VIEW OF NEWS ABOVE AND IF THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH MR. ANSAR ABBASI ALSO TRIED HIS BEST TO PROVE THAT CJ’s AFFIDAVIT WAS WRONG [he didn’t write that but his article “missed” a crucial information – read the last paragraph and then read CJ Affidavit as reported in Daily Dawn above]

    “QUOTE”

    MURREE: The Pakistan Army would stay distant and neutral from the Supreme Court’s proceedings against the ex-army chief and condemned dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s trial on account of his Nov 3, 2007 unconstitutional action. While many wonder if the Pakistan Army would defend Musharraf despite what he did to Pakistan, its institutions and to the constitution as a 14-member bench of the apex court is currently adjudicating the former dictator’s Nov 3 actions, the military under General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani intends to stay neutral. It is not interested to drag itself into unnecessary controversy by siding with a man, who is no more associated with the Army and is sought by the country’s superior judiciary for his unconstitutional actions. The Supreme Court Wednesday summoned Musharraf to appear before the 14-member bench or get himself represented through his counsel to defend his actions of Nov 3 and later. Although the military spokesman when contacted by a member of The News Investigative Reporting Wing did not offer his comment on the question if Pakistan Army would defend its former chief in the apex court, a senior army source simply ruled out any such possibility. “What army has to do with this,” said the source, adding that the Supreme Court has taken up a political case that has nothing to do with the army.

    “We have nothing to do with it,” the source said when precisely asked about the Nov 3rd unconstitutional actions of the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, the military source added, is no more in army. “You know better that he is retired now and have no link with army,” the source said, adding that dragging Pakistan Army into this would be uncalled for. In an interesting twist of fate Musharraf, who had perpetuated his dictatorial rule by misusing his powers as chief of army staff and even at the cost of the reputation of the institution of Pakistan Army, is all alone and is now trying to settle down in London as he fears facing music if comes back to Pakistan. Musharraf is becoming such a lesson for others that even Washington to whom he had sold his soul and served even at the cost of damaging Pakistan, has been abandoned by his real master. US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke Wednesday said President Pervez Musharraf is now history and that the US will not come to defend him.

    The reputation of Pakistan Army was at its worse when Musharraf handed over the military command to the incumbent Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who took no time to get the army out of politics and repeatedly proved military’s neutrality from political and government matters. Kayani, the man who enjoys utmost respect both within the army and outside for his professionalism, kept army out of any electoral manipulation early last year though Musharraf was keen to rig the elections to get his choice parties elected all over Pakistan. After Musharraf’s departure and the emergence of President Asif Ali Zardari as the major opponent to the restoration of the deposed judges, again it was the incumbent army chief who played his positive role and have had a series of interactions with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to settle the issue to the best interest of the people, the country and the judiciary. This is also in public knowledge that even during the days when Musharraf was an all powerful dictator, he had also refused to give an affidavit against the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry following his controversial suspension on March 9, 2007. Perhaps not many know that Musharraf and some of his other Generals misbehaved with the chief justice on March 9 in order to coerce him into tendering resignation, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the then ISI chief, was decent and polite with the chief justice. While others were rude towards the CJ, it was Gen Kayani, who had even offered a cup of coffee to Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. REFERENCE: Army to stay away Thursday, July 23, 2009 Kayani treated Iftikhar with respect when Musharraf and aides misbehaved with him By Ansar Abbasi http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-vs-judiciary-demented.html

  • disgusting! but what else can be expected from this Supreme Court that wrote the Zia-ist NRO verdict.

    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/06-commission-on-missing-people-likely-220-rs-05

    “Justice Iqbal observed that the court would not like to create the impression that it was out to destroy or tarnish the image of intelligence agencies as it was not against security agencies.

    The judge recalled that the court had also not found massive involvement of intelligence agencies in a majority of cases.”

  • Rabia :
    disgusting! but what else can be expected from this Supreme Court that wrote the Zia-ist NRO verdict.
    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/06-commission-on-missing-people-likely-220-rs-05
    “Justice Iqbal observed that the court would not like to create the impression that it was out to destroy or tarnish the image of intelligence agencies as it was not against security agencies.
    The judge recalled that the court had also not found massive involvement of intelligence agencies in a majority of cases.”

    Establishment VS Judiciary & Demented Pakistani Media.
    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/establishment-vs-judiciary-demented.html

    When Advocate Hashmat Habib requested the court to summon heads of the Military Intelligence and the Inter-Services Intelligence, Justice Iqbal said that last time when “we tried to summon them we were sent home for almost 16 months”. Moving scenes were witnessed in the courtroom when Mrs Amina Masood Janjua, chairperson of the Defence of Human Rights who is campaigning for the release of detained persons including her husband Masood Janjua, regretted that there was silence despite the fact that witnesses were ready to help locate her husband. – ISLAMABAD: In the missing persons’ case’s proceedings on Wednesday, Justice Javed Iqbal, who heads the bench hearing the case, stated that individuals taken by intelligence agencies were considered as missing persons. The military’s role was also brought into question over the disappearances of these individuals. Justice Javed Iqbal said in the missing persons’ cases “there is always a mention of brigadiers and majors, who has given them power?” “Frontier Corps has no rights to arrest and detain any person,” Justice Iqbal said, adding that the court will be satisfied even if one person was recovered and the anxiety of one family was over. Meanwhile, Justice Raja Fayyaz said “there is a Gestapo-like reign of terror…anyone can come into a house, where is the enforcement of law?” Incidents involving hundreds of missing persons have been reported to the court in the past four years. Relatives of the missing allege they were picked up by intelligence agencies.

    Right after the resignation of General Musharraf from the Post of the President of Pakistan, Mr. Athar Minallah the Chief Spokesman of Defunct Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary in Private Pakistani TV Channel [AAJ TV], demanded Treason Trial under article 6 of 1973 Constitutiuon of Islamic Republic of Pakistan while shamelssly forgetting that Athar Minallah, also served in the Musharraf cabinet for two years. Shouln’t Mr Athar Minallah be brought to Justice as well because abetting in a crime is tantamount to committing a crime. Athar Minallah joined the prestigious Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) and after serving for 10 years left the post of Additional Collector Customs to join the firm as a partner. Athar Minallah brings not only rich taxation experience but also valuable scholastic input. Athar completed his law degree from the International Islamic University (Islamabad) and his LLM from University of Cambridge, UK. And his areas of interest are taxation, judicial review, Athar was appointed Minister for Law, Local Government, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights by the Provincial Government of NWFP (2000-2002). He also was the member of the Task Force constituted by the Federal Government for revamping the Taxation regime in Pakistan. Currently he is the member of the Policy Board of Intellectual Property of Pakistan and Chairman of Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee (ADRC) for Sales Tax constituted by the Central Board of Revenue. – Athar was appointed Minister for Law, Local Government, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights by the Provincial Government of NWFP (2000-2002) by General Musharraf Military Regime.

    Sometimes Intellectual Dishonesty is more fatal than the Financial or Moral Corruption. Financial/Moral Corruption is mostly related with few and destroys few [I REPEAT I AM NOT CONDONING IT] but Intellectual Dishonesty destroys nations e.g. Sharifuddin Pirzada, A K Brohi and many many more. I will just restrict myself to the swinging pendulum of Mr. Ansar Abbasi’s pen and journalism and will quote news/columns/opinions filed by him in all these years and every article is contradicting the earlier one. Remember one thing that Ansar Abbasi had demanded Treason Trial of Musharraf for violating article 6 of 1973 Constitution whereas shamelessly Mr. Ansar Abbasi is in favour of retaining National Accountability Bureau to hound politicians [the NAB was founded by Martial Law Regime! Where is the validity? Violation is Violation and cannot be condoned through Law of Necessity. To Proceed

    Mr Ansar Abbasi was a Musharraf supporter while working for Daily Dawn:

    “QUOTE”

    During 1999 Mr. Ansar Abbasi was Praising General Musharraf Martial Law regime’s “Alleged Reforms” when Ansar Abbasi used to be a Correspondent in Daily Dawn, he never mentioned even a single time that Impsoing Martial Law is Treason and Violation of Article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. Read the news reports which Ansar Abbasi filed in the Daily Dawn in 1999. Not a single time Ansar adress Musharraf as CMLA but Ansar was very respectful towards “Alleged Chief Executive” Musharraf. You may not find a single personal observation by Ansar Abbasi on Constitutional Tampering by Military Regime. Musharraf was given mandate by the Judiciary to tamper with the Constitution. Everybody knows who was part of that Supreme Court Bench. REFERENCES: Special courts to try cases of accountability Ansar Abbasi 06 November 1999 Issue : 05/45 [Courtesy Daily Dawn Wire Service]

    Ansar Abbasi Praising General Musharraf’s Martial Law Regime’s “Alleged Reforms” when Ansar Abbasi used to be a Correspondent in Daily Dawn, he never mentioned even a single time that Impsoing Martial Law is Treason and Violation of Article 6 of 1973Constitution of Pakistan

    As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

    “QUOTE”

    PART I

    6. (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

    (2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

    (3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

    “UNQUOTE”

    AND AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, READ THE SAME JOURNALISTS SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA IN 2009 AND THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT SOMEBODY DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS [READ THOSE JOURNALISTS AFTER READING CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN’S AFFDAVIT]

    “QUOTE”

    ISLAMABAD, May 29: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on Tuesday narrated for the first time his version of the events of of May 9 at the President’s camp office in Rawalpindi. He said in an affidavit that top intelligence officials had constantly pressured him into resigning, and after keeping him confined at the office for over five hours, he was allowed to leave in a flagless car. “I was informed that I have been restrained from acting as the chief justice.” The `non-functional’ chief justice informed the full-bench hearing identical petitions against the presidential reference that since the action of March 9, he had remained a victim of intrusive and not-so-intrusive intelligence and police operation. “I replied that it was not based on facts as my case was decided by a two-member bench and that attempts are being made to maliciously involve the other member of the Bench as well.” After this, the president said there were a few more complaints as well, directing his staff to call the ‘other persons’. The ‘other persons’ entered the room immediately. They were: Prime Minster Shaukat Aziz, the Directors General of Military Intelligence (MI), Director General of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Director General Intelligence Bureau (IB), Chief of Staff (COS) and another official. All officials (except the IB chief and the COS) were in uniform. “The meeting lasted about 30 minutes. The chiefs of the MI, ISI and IB stayed back, but they too did not show him me a single piece of evidence.” In fact, Justice iftikhar said, no official, except the ISI chief, had any document with him. The officials, however, alleged that Justice Iftikhar had used his influence to get his son admitted in Bolan Medical College, Quetta, when he was serving as a judge of the Balochistan High Court. The ISI and MI heads persisted in their demand for resignation, the CJ said. “I refused, saying that the demand has a collateral purpose.” “I was kept there absolutely against my will till 5pm. I was stopped there on one pretext or the other and at one stage was told the president will once again see me. “After 5pm, the MI chief told me `This is a bad day. Now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained from working as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of Pakistan’.” Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry further said when he came out of the room, he was stunned to find that the national flag and the insignia of office were no longer there on his car. “My staff officer later informed me Justice Javed Iqbal has taken oath as Acting Chief Justice and it has been shown on TV. My driver said he had been instructed not to drive the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.”

    “UNQUOTE”

    NOW READ THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR TOP JOURNALISTS!

    “QUOTE”

    ISLAMABAD: The detailed judgment in the case of the restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan on July 20, 2007 reveals that not only Pervez Musharraf but the then Director General ISI and the DG Military Intelligence (MI) had also insisted that the chief justice resign during his illegal detention at the Army House Rawalpindi on March 9, 2007. The judgment, penned by Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, says: “The petitioner CJP went on to depose that ‘the respondent (the president) insisted that the deponent (the CJP) should resign’. He added that his refusal to oblige, ‘ignited the fury of the respondent (the president); he (the president) stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS, and the prime minister of Pakistan, saying that others would show evidence to the deponent’ (about the allegations of misconduct against the CJP).” “As per the CJP, his meeting with the president lasted for about thirty minutes meaning thereby that the president and the prime minister would have left by about 12.15/12.30 pm and the CJP was then left behind in the company only of the DG MI, the DG ISI allegedly to be shown the evidence in support of the above-noticed accusations. The CJP alleged that no evidence at all was shown to him and “in fact, no official except DG ISI had some documents with him but he also did not show anything to the deponent” (the CJP). He added that they only accused him of having secured a seat for his son in Bolan Medical College while he was serving as a judge of Balochistan High Court. “The CJP further alleged that the DG MI and the DG ISI kept insisting that he should resign from his office while he continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and were being levelled only for a collateral purpose and that he would not resign at any cost and would rather face the said false charges.” The judgment states, “While the CJP was still at the President’s Camp Office in Rawalpindi during the said crucial ‘FIVE HOURS’ and when according to the CJP he was being detained there against his wishes after 12 noon and when according to the respondents he was sitting there, in the company of the intelligence chiefs examining the reference and the material available in support thereof, a notification dated March 9, 2007, was issued by the Government of Pakistan in the Law, Justice and Human Rights Division mentioning therein that since the President of Pakistan had been pleased to make a reference called a ‘DIRECTION’ by Article 209(5) of the Constitution) to the SJC against the CJP, therefore, the President had restrained Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry from acting as the Chief Justice of Pakistan or even as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”

    The honourable judges of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the case had nothing to do with army as an institution but acts of a person who happened to be chief of army staff. The judgment regarding the statement of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that ‘it was a matter between army and judiciary’ states, “This, in our opinion, was a naive attempt to create a wedge between two important and indispensable arms of the State and to put them on a war-path. What was in question before us was an act of the President and it was just an accident or a coincidence that the said President also happened to be the Chief of Army Staff. The matter had obviously nothing to do with the Army as an institution. Needless to add that the Army was an invaluable organ and instrument of the State and was as precious to us all as any other institution of our homeland. We, therefore, take this opportunity to express our disapproval and displeasure about the said statement.” Political analysts and observers who had watched the situation at the time, however, told The News that the involvement of junior military officers was minimal and on the specific orders of General Pervez Musharraf who had his own personal vested interest to protect.

    They said whatever happened at the time was planned and ordered by General Musharraf and no other army or intelligence officer could be blamed for it. “It was Musharraf and Musharraf alone who must be held responsible for the treatment he meted out to the judiciary and the judges have also noted this in their judgment when they said the army had nothing to do with it as an institution,” an analyst said. It should be noted that both the ISI and the MI were directly under control of the then COAS, General Musharraf, although the ISI is supposed to be under the prime minister. A retired general who was closed to General Pervez Musharraf when contacted said that Musharraf tried to show the door to the chief justice because he wanted extension in his tenure that was expiring, election results of his own desire and government of his own choice. He considered the chief justice as the only person who could create hurdles in the achievement of his objectives. He said Musharraf’s stakes were very high and he wanted to achieve his objectives at all costs. Musharraf, he said, used his senior colleagues, to press the chief justice to quit. He said the then DG MI General Nadeem Ijaz, who was relative of Musharraf, crossed all limits in dealing with the opponents of the former dictator. The DG MI was the strong man of Musharraf. He said Musharraf took aggressive steps against judiciary on the advice of the DG MI, who was in fact responsible for spoiling Musharraf’s all matters related to judiciary. The DG IB went too far in bid to protect the interests of his boss (Musharraf).

    He said under Musharraf’s pressure the DG MI Ijaz, DG IB Ejaz Shah, the then secretary interior and some others also submitted affidavits in the Supreme Court against the chief justice. He reminded that the DG ISI did not submit an affidavit. It was believed that Musharraf asked the DG ISI to submit his affidavit but the latter said sorry to the former. Musharraf, he said, was reportedly offended by the DG ISI. He said despite Musharraf’s intensive efforts, the then DG ISI Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani kept a reasonable distance from this issue in grace. He said Gen Kayani was popular as a simple soldier. He did not show any interest in Musharraf’s machinations and that was why he did not submit any affidavit. Observers are pleasantly surprised that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry wrote the names of military generals including the former DG ISI Gen Kayani, who is present army chief, and the full court also mentioned them in their judgement without showing any fear. They said the chief justice and all the members of the full court deserve praise and esteem for showing rare courage. Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday also mentioned the reasons for delay in writing the detailed judgment. The judgment says, “And before I put my pen down, I wish to offer a personal explanation which I owe in connection with this judgment. As is known, the short judgment in the matter was announced on July 20, 2007 and these reasons in support of the said judgment are being recorded after almost 2-1/2 years. This rather extraordinary delay, which was on account of equally extraordinary circumstances, warrants clarification and elucidation.” He mentioned that after vacations he was a part of a bench hearing the eligibility case of Pervez Musharraf but, when the said matter had almost reached the final stages, martial law (called emergency) was imposed in the country by General Musharraf on November 3, 2007 in his capacity as the Chief of Army Staff. Thirteen out of seventeen Judges were removed from office and some including the Chief Justice were put under house arrest which detention continued till March, 2008. “Thereafter, I was of course a free man but being a ‘REMOVED’ Judge, had no access to the Supreme Court and consequently the entire record of this case, including all the notes, were out of my reach. I, along with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and some other learned brothers, got restored to office in March, 2009 and it is thereafter that I got down to collecting the lost, the forgotten and the scattered threads and this is what I have been able to produce now.”

    “UNQUOTE”

    MR. ANSAR ABBASI OF THE SAME JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS REFUTES THE ABOVE REPORT. WHAT A JOKE! – LIES OF MR. ANSAR ABBASI IN VIEW OF NEWS ABOVE AND IF THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH MR. ANSAR ABBASI ALSO TRIED HIS BEST TO PROVE THAT CJ’s AFFIDAVIT WAS WRONG [he didn’t write that but his article “missed” a crucial information – read the last paragraph and then read CJ Affidavit as reported in Daily Dawn above]

    “QUOTE”

    MURREE: The Pakistan Army would stay distant and neutral from the Supreme Court’s proceedings against the ex-army chief and condemned dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s trial on account of his Nov 3, 2007 unconstitutional action. While many wonder if the Pakistan Army would defend Musharraf despite what he did to Pakistan, its institutions and to the constitution as a 14-member bench of the apex court is currently adjudicating the former dictator’s Nov 3 actions, the military under General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani intends to stay neutral. It is not interested to drag itself into unnecessary controversy by siding with a man, who is no more associated with the Army and is sought by the country’s superior judiciary for his unconstitutional actions. The Supreme Court Wednesday summoned Musharraf to appear before the 14-member bench or get himself represented through his counsel to defend his actions of Nov 3 and later. Although the military spokesman when contacted by a member of The News Investigative Reporting Wing did not offer his comment on the question if Pakistan Army would defend its former chief in the apex court, a senior army source simply ruled out any such possibility. “What army has to do with this,” said the source, adding that the Supreme Court has taken up a political case that has nothing to do with the army.

    “We have nothing to do with it,” the source said when precisely asked about the Nov 3rd unconstitutional actions of the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, the military source added, is no more in army. “You know better that he is retired now and have no link with army,” the source said, adding that dragging Pakistan Army into this would be uncalled for. In an interesting twist of fate Musharraf, who had perpetuated his dictatorial rule by misusing his powers as chief of army staff and even at the cost of the reputation of the institution of Pakistan Army, is all alone and is now trying to settle down in London as he fears facing music if comes back to Pakistan. Musharraf is becoming such a lesson for others that even Washington to whom he had sold his soul and served even at the cost of damaging Pakistan, has been abandoned by his real master. US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke Wednesday said President Pervez Musharraf is now history and that the US will not come to defend him.

    The reputation of Pakistan Army was at its worse when Musharraf handed over the military command to the incumbent Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who took no time to get the army out of politics and repeatedly proved military’s neutrality from political and government matters. Kayani, the man who enjoys utmost respect both within the army and outside for his professionalism, kept army out of any electoral manipulation early last year though Musharraf was keen to rig the elections to get his choice parties elected all over Pakistan. After Musharraf’s departure and the emergence of President Asif Ali Zardari as the major opponent to the restoration of the deposed judges, again it was the incumbent army chief who played his positive role and have had a series of interactions with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to settle the issue to the best interest of the people, the country and the judiciary. This is also in public knowledge that even during the days when Musharraf was an all powerful dictator, he had also refused to give an affidavit against the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry following his controversial suspension on March 9, 2007. Perhaps not many know that Musharraf and some of his other Generals misbehaved with the chief justice on March 9 in order to coerce him into tendering resignation, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the then ISI chief, was decent and polite with the chief justice. While others were rude towards the CJ, it was Gen Kayani, who had even offered a cup of coffee to Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

  • Let us refrain from making over- the-top kind of comments prematurely. If the judiciary decides to take on the army and its secret agencies in the same bruising manner that it adopted with the government earlier in the week, the outcome is probably a foregone conclusion. The fact is that we have a three-headed monster ruling Pakistan – government, judiciary and military – with each head thinking independently of the other two. The real issues that ought to concern us are pushed to the background amid the bickering indulged in by the three heads.

    I would commend Saleem Safi’s perceptive article in Jang today to the LUBP readers. The points he makes are certainly worth considering. To some extent his ideas have been implemented in Turkey already.

    http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2010-daily/20-02-2010/col3.htm

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    Let us refrain from making over- the-top kind of comments prematurely. If the judiciary decides to take on the army and its secret agencies in the same bruising manner that it adopted with the government earlier in the week, the outcome is probably a foregone conclusion. The fact is that we have a three-headed monster ruling Pakistan – government, judiciary and military – with each head thinking independently of the other two. The real issues that ought to concern us are pushed to the background amid the bickering indulged in by the three heads.
    I would commend Saleem Safi’s perceptive article in Jang today to the LUBP readers. The points he makes are certainly worth considering. To some extent his ideas have been implemented in Turkey already.
    http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2010-daily/20-02-2010/col3.htm

    Just one question. Do you know that Saleem Saif re-introduced that Butcher Brigadier Imtiaz through GEO TV as a Saviour for Pakistan.

  • Have the judges done a deal with the government over NRO and are they contemplating another with the army over the ‘missing persons’?

    Anjum Niaz: http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=225225

    Friend and foe!

    Saturday, February 20, 2010
    Anjum Niaz

    A brain scan may be the answer. We should arrange for scanners to be sent to the presidency and the Prime Minister’s House. No, make it to the house of the Senate chairman, law minister and adviser to the prime minister on law, as well. The five need to be psychoanalysed in the light of why they acted as they did, last week. Any good psychiatrist would declare their spat and later ‘friendship’ with the Supreme Court over judges’ appointment to be weird; abnormal and irresponsible. For sure they’d be declared unbalanced and therefore unfit for the titles that the five helmsmen hold.

    Prime Minister Gilani is a prime example of a ‘good cop/bad cop’ all in one. I hate this cliché but for the lack of a better example, do bear with me. It’s like being a friend and foe at the same time. In the classic definition, there is a team of two interrogators. The ‘bad cop’ takes an aggressive, negative stance towards the subject, making blatant accusations, derogatory comments, threats, and in general creating antipathy between the subject and himself. The good cop appears sympathetic, supportive, understanding, and cooperative. Gilani was the bad cop on the floor of the house directing his threats towards the apex court. The following day he became the ‘good cop’. He crashed into the Supreme Court dinner party thrown by the chief justice in honour of Justice Ramday.

    The ‘bad cop’ as we well know is the president and his Punjab governor. Both have remained consistent in their antithetical attitude towards the chief justice and his court. They have gone public many times with their castigation. Will they continue with their overt and covert attacks in future is easy to answer. They will if their positions of power are threatened.

    But the oddest part of this ongoing saga is the Sharifs’ demand for the removal of Salmaan Taseer. The governor is the brothers’ bête noire or the ‘dark beast’ as the term denotes. Taseer has defied the Sharif hegemony in Punjab and tried his best to destroy it. The battle between the two groups wages as one writes.

    Was Gilani trying to lure the superior judiciary to relent on the NRO when he became the ‘guest who came to dinner’ at the Supreme Court? Was he trying to negotiate an unmolested full term for Zardari so that he is able to continue ruling us without the blot of being accused of corruption? The government may have given in on the judges’ appointment, but it’s the NRO question that is on everyone’s mind. How that will pan out in the coming days is the $1.5 billion question!

    Our rulers at the centre and in the provinces have thus far flunked the morality test. We hear that NAB is now investigating into the corruption cases of the Sharifs. How come it’s doing it now and at whose instance? Has NAB, whose chairman Navid Ahsan cannot be sacked, so says Gilani, been given government orders to go after the Sharifs? If so, this amounts to a ‘shut-up call’ to the Sharifs from the Zardari camp.

    With the government and the opposition calling each other corrupt, the circus has gone on too long.

    Reading The adventures of an officer in the service of Runjeet Singh by H M L Lawrence, I came across a passage where he describes the then judicial system: “Under such a system, the poor man has little chance; and though the vagabond thief, pressed perhaps by hunger, has his nose and ears cut off, and is thereby irrecoverably branded one of the profession, the wealthy robber and the dexterous ruffian ride unmolested through the land.”

    Does the above passage apply to us today? It seems the rules of the game during the Runjeet Singh era live on. Why else would our VVIPs be given immunity?

    The writer is a freelance journalist with over twenty years of experience in national and international reporting. Email: anjumniaz@rocketmail.com & http://www.anjumniaz.com

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    Have the judges done a deal with the government over NRO and are they contemplating another with the army over the ‘missing persons’?
    Anjum Niaz: http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=225225
    Friend and foe!
    Saturday, February 20, 2010
    Anjum Niaz
    A brain scan may be the answer. We should arrange for scanners to be sent to the presidency and the Prime Minister’s House. No, make it to the house of the Senate chairman, law minister and adviser to the prime minister on law, as well. The five need to be psychoanalysed in the light of why they acted as they did, last week. Any good psychiatrist would declare their spat and later ‘friendship’ with the Supreme Court over judges’ appointment to be weird; abnormal and irresponsible. For sure they’d be declared unbalanced and therefore unfit for the titles that the five helmsmen hold.
    Prime Minister Gilani is a prime example of a ‘good cop/bad cop’ all in one. I hate this cliché but for the lack of a better example, do bear with me. It’s like being a friend and foe at the same time. In the classic definition, there is a team of two interrogators. The ‘bad cop’ takes an aggressive, negative stance towards the subject, making blatant accusations, derogatory comments, threats, and in general creating antipathy between the subject and himself. The good cop appears sympathetic, supportive, understanding, and cooperative. Gilani was the bad cop on the floor of the house directing his threats towards the apex court. The following day he became the ‘good cop’. He crashed into the Supreme Court dinner party thrown by the chief justice in honour of Justice Ramday.
    The ‘bad cop’ as we well know is the president and his Punjab governor. Both have remained consistent in their antithetical attitude towards the chief justice and his court. They have gone public many times with their castigation. Will they continue with their overt and covert attacks in future is easy to answer. They will if their positions of power are threatened.
    But the oddest part of this ongoing saga is the Sharifs’ demand for the removal of Salmaan Taseer. The governor is the brothers’ bête noire or the ‘dark beast’ as the term denotes. Taseer has defied the Sharif hegemony in Punjab and tried his best to destroy it. The battle between the two groups wages as one writes.
    Was Gilani trying to lure the superior judiciary to relent on the NRO when he became the ‘guest who came to dinner’ at the Supreme Court? Was he trying to negotiate an unmolested full term for Zardari so that he is able to continue ruling us without the blot of being accused of corruption? The government may have given in on the judges’ appointment, but it’s the NRO question that is on everyone’s mind. How that will pan out in the coming days is the $1.5 billion question!
    Our rulers at the centre and in the provinces have thus far flunked the morality test. We hear that NAB is now investigating into the corruption cases of the Sharifs. How come it’s doing it now and at whose instance? Has NAB, whose chairman Navid Ahsan cannot be sacked, so says Gilani, been given government orders to go after the Sharifs? If so, this amounts to a ’shut-up call’ to the Sharifs from the Zardari camp.
    With the government and the opposition calling each other corrupt, the circus has gone on too long.
    Reading The adventures of an officer in the service of Runjeet Singh by H M L Lawrence, I came across a passage where he describes the then judicial system: “Under such a system, the poor man has little chance; and though the vagabond thief, pressed perhaps by hunger, has his nose and ears cut off, and is thereby irrecoverably branded one of the profession, the wealthy robber and the dexterous ruffian ride unmolested through the land.”
    Does the above passage apply to us today? It seems the rules of the game during the Runjeet Singh era live on. Why else would our VVIPs be given immunity?
    The writer is a freelance journalist with over twenty years of experience in national and international reporting. Email: anjumniaz@rocketmail.com & http://www.anjumniaz.com

    Anjum Niaz shifts her position faster than a Rabbit. Read her columns in Dawn and watch her shows on NEWSONE [I wouldn’t want to remind you as to what she wrote on Senator Saifur Rehman]

  • Shame on you judges. If you have any sense of shame or honor, you should hang yourselves. But you are corrupt and crooked. You will not.

  • For those hoping that the resolution of the recent crisis between the judiciary and the executive would give all sides pause, two shots fired by the judiciary across the executive’s bow on Friday will have eroded that hope. First, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry gave the NAB chairman a dressing-down in open court for the ‘non-implementation’ of the court’s NRO judgment.

    What seemed to particularly irk the court was that three officials of the NAB, including its chairman, whom the court suggested be removed continue to serve in office. Next, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, while addressing the freshly sworn-in judges of the Lahore High Court, made a damning comparison: the chief justice suggested that the move by the presidency last week to appoint judges to the Supreme Court without the chief justice’s input amounted to the creation of a Nov 3-like emergency.

    What does all of this mean? On the issue of the ‘non-implementation’ of the NRO judgment, the Supreme Court does have an option that it has not yet exercised. It could write to the executive, listing what in its opinion are specific violations and demand prompt action. Verbal dressing-downs may make for great headlines but they are less effective and, perhaps more to the point, contribute to the climate of crisis. And to compare last week’s crisis to Gen Musharraf’s actions in November 2007 is a bit odd at the least and a misrepresentation at the worst.

    Gen Musharraf had in effect ousted the entire judiciary for blocking his route to another term as president. President Zardari’s move, on the other hand, while thoroughly ill-advised and wrong from a constitutional perspective, was essentially about the fate of the chief justiceship of a single high court, and then too the candidate proposed was considered by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry himself to be worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court. Moreover, now that the CJ has got his way entirely on the issue of judicial appointments, it behoves such a high official to at least be aware of how his remarks will be interpreted outside the confines of his institution. Publicly dwelling on the meaning of such a crisis cannot really be helpful to the democratic project.

    Dawn Editorial
    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/16-continuing-tension-hs-02

  • However, with the greatest respect to the superior judiciary, the troubling aggressiveness creeping into the judiciary’s pronouncements inside and outside the courts, whose thrust is mainly the incumbent government and ruling party, leaves questions in the mind whether this is possible only because a civilian elected government is in power in a crisis-ridden time? With the exception of the ‘No’ the honourable CJ threw back at a military dictator, which galvanised the lawyers, civil society and the polity against General Musharraf, our past does not bear witness to too many similar cases of defiance of unconstitutional rulers by our judiciary. Quite the contrary, in fact. The newly found independence of the judiciary should not only be seen to be dispensing justice, it must do so in a manner that raises the dignity and respect of this august institution. Restraint has always served the bench well throughout judicial history. Despite its peculiarities, Pakistan cannot be considered an exception in this regard.

    Another troubling development is the pronouncement by the SC bench hearing the missing persons case that it would no longer examine the role of intelligence agencies. This case was a feather in the present SC and its CJ’s cap for having challenged for the first time in our history, the culture of impunity enjoyed by our intelligence agencies. Since they are widely believed to be behind the disappearance of thousands of persons in complete violation of the law and constitution, the SC seems to have retreated from its commitment to provide justice to the relatives and families of the ‘disappeared’. Surely this is not what the CJ meant by serving justice to the people.

    http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\21\story_21-2-2010_pg3_1

  • @Aamir Mughal

    Dear Aamir,

    Thanks for telling me that Anjum Niaz “shifts her position faster than a rabbit”! So, she doesn’t measure up to your lofty standards? What a shame. No, I do not read that awful newspaper Dawn, an insult to Quaid-e-Azam’s memory and a haunt of westernised fascists. I am, therefore, unaware of what Anjum writes there and I do not watch her television show either. By the way, I had a brief e-mail exchange with her once and she was gracious enough to admit she had gone a bit over the top.

    OK, if Anjum is not your cup of tea, how about Amina Jilani – I’ll post her article in ‘The Nation’ below. As for Saleem Safi, I do not watch his television shows – his poker faced, expressionless presentations are not to my liking. I am, however, a fan of his writings. I have no idea what he said about ‘Billa’ for I do not remember an article by him on that subject. If you know of one let me know and I’ll be happy to read it and re-assess my views on Saleem Safi.

    Herewith Amina Jilani:

    Once more into the breach…

    There we were again – haggling over that old issue, the pesky interpretation of a pesky uninterpretable constitution. Old also was the spectacle of the executive, in the form of president and prime minister, and the judiciary at each others’ throats over the interpretation of the constitution.

    This time round, for sure those who make up the presidential advisory team were clueless about the constitution, probably never having even seen that revered document, let alone read it. And, of course, even had they read it any interpretation would have been far beyond their range of comprehension. This present civilian president’s choice of manpower to prop him up is as disastrous as was that of his military predecessor.

    Highly unedifying and certainly undemocratic are these ongoing battles between the elected or unelected heads of state, who have little or no interest in the constitution unless it can be brought forth for their own personal benefit, taking on the judges of the apex court. We are fully deserving of the international sniggers at a banana-like republic indulging in un-acrobatic antics, and it all only further adds to the battered image of this country’s politics.

    Such is the constitution of the Islamic Republic that from the day it was promulgated it has been a bone of contention and an object to be used and manipulated by whatever leadership is in place. Within four hours of its promulgation on Independence Day 1973, the then newly-made democratic prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who had democratically tailored it to give maximum advantage to the head of government leaving the head of state as an insignificant figurehead, suspended the fundamental rights and rendered them non-justiciable for an unspecified time (as long as a state of emergency was in place) so that he could ‘fix’ his political opponents – which he did.

    In 1976 he brought in the Fifth Amendment which, inter alia, extended the period of separation of the judiciary from the executive, and fixed the tenure of the chief justices of the Supreme and High Courts. This was followed in 1977 by the Sixth Amendment by which, inter alia, chief justices of the Supreme and High Courts were to hold office for fixed tenures irrespective of the specified retirement ages. These two amendments were made solely to favour judges of ZAB’s liking and to extend the term of the chief justice of Pakistan even though he had reached his retirement age. Thus was the trend set of moulding the judiciary to suit the whims and fancies of the executive.

    The shape of the judiciary at that point in time bore little vestiges of independence with its past record of upholding the dissolution of an assembly and a dictatorial military takeover. Then came General Ziaul Haq with his massive Eighth Amendment which entirely overturned the constitutional applecart, and his vice-like hold further browbeat a pliant judiciary into submission. His damaging amendment, affecting a number of constitutional articles that it did, rendered the constitution open to multiple interpretations according to individual tastes and desires and to divisive opinions.

    The constitutional and judicial haggling arose with the re-dawning of democracy in 1988, with both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif being incapable of tolerating any signs of independence in the judiciary, and both doing their utmost to bend it to their respective wills. Nawaz Sharif, now a breast-beating champion of the independence of the judiciary, in 1997 even went to the extent of sending in his party storm-troopers to physically attack the Supreme Court building and bring to heel certain recalcitrant judges. His move succeeded, up to a point as it helped remove a sitting Chief Justice of Pakistan of whom he wished to be rid.
    The constant pinprick of the interpretation of the unin-terpretable came under another military dictatorship in 1999 and again the judiciary fell into place. It was not until General Pervez Musharraf’s moment of March madness in 2007 that judicial independence raised its weary head, put its heels to ground, and stood up. It took it two years to prevail.

    And then came last weekend and the futile scuffle over the interpretation of the word ‘consultation’ as it appears in the mangled constitution, a reading of a dozen articles of which is necessary to attempt to make sense of one article. Was it at all necessary? Did the president’s team advise him to do what he did to divert attention from the NRO issue, or what exactly was the unwise and rather stupid purpose of again taking up cudgels with the Chief Justice of Pakistan?
    Then, after a few days of acrimony and public burning of assorted effigies, when hug and make-up time arrived, what inspired the prime minister whose only job is to cover for his boss, the man who put him where he is, to ‘gate crash’ a dinner hosted by the chief justice, and then to lengthily confer with him the following day? Was all this not traditionally unseemly and against the accepted democratic norms of the executive-judicial relationship?

    Now, has the Constitutional Reforms Committee, which seems to have sat twiddling its thumbs since it was formed, taken into account the enormous difficulty in interpreting the constitution? Have they done anything about rendering it interpretable so that future silly wrangles do not occur?

    The writer is a freelance columnist.
    Email: jilani.amina@gmail.com

    http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/21-Feb-2010/Once-more-into-the-breach

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Dear Aamir,
    Thanks for telling me that Anjum Niaz “shifts her position faster than a rabbit”! So, she doesn’t measure up to your lofty standards? What a shame. No, I do not read that awful newspaper Dawn, an insult to Quaid-e-Azam’s memory and a haunt of westernised fascists.

    Memory of Quaid is as under in the light of your attack on me by saying “westernised fascists”. Do tell me who is westernised fascists after going through Muhammad Ali Jinnah [Quaid for you]’s First Choice for the Important and Strategic Post like Foreign Ministry..

    Now Read:

    Al-Hajj Sir Chaudhry Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, KCSI (6 February 1893 – 1 September 1985) was a Pakistani diplomat who was appointed by Jinnah and Mr Zafar was Quadiyani. Ch Muhammad Zafrulla Khan – a devout Ahmadi who did his bai’at at the hand of the Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of Ahmadiyya Movement on September 16, 1907 – was the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan.

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Dear Aamir,
    Thanks for telling me that Anjum Niaz “shifts her position faster than a rabbit”! So, she doesn’t measure up to your lofty standards? What a shame. No, I do not read that awful newspaper Dawn, an insult to Quaid-e-Azam’s memory and a haunt of westernised fascists.

    Dear Shakib Sahab,

    Ms. Anjum Niaz used to be a Foreign Correspondent for Dawn and often contribute for “awful newspaper Dawn, an insult to Quaid-e-Azam’s memory and a haunt of westernised fascists” in Images in fact she belongs to the very class you have been condemning and above all my “Lofty Standards” don’t count. I just gave my opinion.

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Dear Aamir,
    Thanks for telling me that Anjum Niaz “shifts her position faster than a rabbit”! So, she doesn’t measure up to your lofty standards? What a shame. No, I do not read that awful newspaper Dawn, an insult to Quaid-e-Azam’s memory and a haunt of westernised fascists. I am, therefore, unaware of what Anjum writes there and I do not watch her television show either. By the way, I had a brief e-mail exchange with her once and she was gracious enough to admit she had gone a bit over the top.
    OK, if Anjum is not your cup of tea, how about Amina Jilani –

    Shakib Sahab,

    Again, you would have to read and investigate a lot to justify your obsession with “awful newspaper Dawn, an insult to Quaid-e-Azam’s memory and a haunt of westernised fascists” because Ms. Amina Jillani was Ardeshir Cowasjee’s Secretary and used to be Regular Contributor for Dawn from 1988 till 2002 and her columns used to appear in Sunday Magazine in Dawn [when there was no image] and by the way she also belong to the same “Elite Class”. She is above 55 and a daughter of a Former Colonel of British Amry i.e. Late. Colonel Jilani of the British Army Medical Corps later Pakistan Army. She is very Westernized [I don’t mind] and I have met her way back in 1997 and 1998 when she was working with Mr Cowasjee and if you would dig deep you may find that she used to write “Jaywalker” columns in Daily Dawn.

  • @Aamir Mughal

    Dear Aamir,

    I have not condemned any class – that is simply YOUR perception of what I write. I have just criticised a group of individuals who share certain traits – do you see the difference?

    I am also disappointed with your apparent prejudice against some fellow Pakistanis. Quaid-e-Azam, in his judgement, had appointed Sir Zafrullah as the best man for the job. Why does that upset you? Professor Abdus Salam, a product of an Urdu-medium school and the only Pakistani Nobel winner, was also a Qadiani. So, what are you trying to say?

    As a general principle, let me tell you that I am very happy to consider any piece of writing, wherever it comes from, and form my own views on the merits of that article. Thus, you may be surprised to learn that I have (very) occasionally agreed with the views of one or two westernised fascists on some topics. By the way, I quite like Ardeshir Cowasjee with whom I have exchanged e-mails. However, he alone cannot save that ridiculous newspaper.

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Dear Aamir,
    I have not condemned any class – that is simply YOUR perception of what I write. I have just criticised a group of individuals who share certain traits – do you see the difference?
    I am also disappointed with your apparent prejudice against some fellow Pakistanis. Quaid-e-Azam, in his judgement, had appointed Sir Zafrullah as the best man for the job. Why does that upset you? Professor Abdus Salam, a product of an Urdu-medium school and the only Pakistani Nobel winner, was also a Qadiani. So, what are you trying to say?
    As a general principle, let me tell you that I am very happy to consider any piece of writing, wherever it comes from, and form my own views on the merits of that article. Thus, you may be surprised to learn that I have (very) occasionally agreed with the views of one or two westernised fascists on some topics. By the way, I quite like Ardeshir Cowasjee with whom I have exchanged e-mails. However, he alone cannot save that ridiculous newspaper.

    What happened to the slogan of so-called Islamic Republic of Pakistan [as per Shariah you don’t appoint Non-Muslim a Foreign Minister]?? What happened to the slogan of Islamic Ideology its either Westernized Secular Fascists or Islamic Ideology.

    And above all you should also know that Cowasjee is also a member of the Board of Dawn Trust.

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Dear Aamir,
    I am also disappointed with your apparent prejudice against some fellow Pakistanis. Quaid-e-Azam, in his judgement, had appointed Sir Zafrullah as the best man for the job. Why does that upset you? Professor Abdus Salam, a product of an Urdu-medium school and the only Pakistani Nobel winner, was also a Qadiani. So, what are you trying to say?

    Zimmis should live as a second Class Citizen in Islamic Republic of Pakistan [with specified mark on their dress to be identified and it should be compulsory to always carry that identification] or should also be given opportunities to contest for the Post of Prime Minister and President of Pakistan and Chief of the Army Staff [as per Westernized Fascist Secular Theory] .

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Dear Aamir,
    I am sorry to see that you have some peculiar notions about Islam. Please read my article on Islam before we take this meandering discussion any further:
    http://sakibahmad.blogspot.com/2009/10/islam.html
    Quite simply, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a supreme example of a true Muslim in the twentieth century. Cast away your cold history books and get to know Jinnah, the man.

    Dear Shakib Sahab,

    With utmost humility you are free to understand/interpret Islam as you like and I have no problem with it. About Jinnah and him being a True Muslim [lets leave this debate of True Muslim and False Muslim to Allah]. If that is your opinion on Books above is true then May Allah help us all.

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Dear Aamir,
    I am sorry to see that you have some peculiar notions about Islam. Please read my article on Islam before we take this meandering discussion any further:
    http://sakibahmad.blogspot.com/2009/10/islam.html
    Quite simply, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a supreme example of a true Muslim in the twentieth century. Cast away your cold history books and get to know Jinnah, the man.

    Jinnah was a Politicians and that is it and if you want to Worship him by putting at the place of Allah then I have no problem.

    To me Jinnah was only a Political Leader [i.e. a Human Being] Scotch Whiskey Lover and his favorite sandwich was Pork Sandwich. Jinnah of Pakistan (1984) by Stanley Wolpert.

  • Sakib Ahmad :
    @Aamir Mughal
    Quite simply, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a supreme example of a true Muslim in the twentieth century. Cast away your cold history books and get to know Jinnah, the man.

    Real Jinnah!!!

    Jinnah thrusted Urdu forcefully down the throats of Bengalis as a National Language. Federation is not run like Unitary form of Government and Jinnah and other Founding Fathers of Pakistan were on wrong footing in dealing with Bengalis and later on with others: Background is as under: Politics of Ethnicity – 3
    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/01/politics-of-ethnicity-3.html

  • امریکہ نے سن دو ہزار آٹھ میں باقاعدہ طور پر عافیہ کی اپنے پاس موجودگی کا اعتراف برطانوی صحافی یون رڈلے کی اس پریس کانفرنس کے دو ہفتے بعد کیا جس میں رڈلے نے انسانی حقوق کے ایک کارکن ایلین وائٹ فیلڈ شارپ کی یہ اطلاع افشا کی کہ بگرام کے امریکی فوجی اڈے پر موجود قیدی نمبر چھ سو پچاس اصل میں عافیہ صدیقی ہیں۔امریکیوں کے بقول عافیہ کو ان کے بیٹے محمد کے ساتھ عزنی میں گرفتار کیا گیا اور پوچھ گچھ کے دوران عافیہ نے ایک امریکی سارجنٹ کو فائرنگ کر کے زخمی کر دیا۔اس کے بعد عافیہ کا مقدمہ نیویارک کی ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ میں شروع ہوگیا اور ان پر باقاعدہ فردِ جرم عائد کی گئی۔

    عافیہ صدیقی کے اغوا ہونے کے واقعہ سے امریکیوں کے اعتراف کے درمیان پانچ برس کی مدت حائل ہے۔ ان پانچ برسوں میں عافیہ کہاں اور کس کس ادارے کی تحویل میں رہیں۔ آج جو جماعتیں اور تنظیمیں عافیہ کی رہائی کی سرگرم مہم چلا رہی ہیں انہیں ان پانچ برسوں میں عافیہ صدیقی کیوں یاد نہیں آئی۔اگر یون رڈلے انکشاف نہ کرتیں تو پھر یہ جماعتیں اور تنظیمیں کیا کرتیں۔ عافیہ کی رہائی کی مہم میں پیش پیش لوگوں نے اس بات کی کتنی کوشش کی کہ چندہ جمع کر کے امریکہ میں ایک اچھا سا وکیل کرنے کی مہم بھی چلاتیں تاکہ عافیہ کو اس کھیل میں مشکوک حکومتِ پاکستان کا احسان مند نہ ہونا پڑتا۔ مسلم لیگ ق کے رہنما بھی آج عافیہ رہائی مہم میں پیش پیش ہیں۔اگر وہ یہ نہیں بتا سکتے کہ عافیہ کے اغوا میں کس کس پاکستانی ادارے یا فرد نے کیا کردار ادا کیا تو ان کے پاس عافیہ کی رہائی کا نعرہ بلند کرنے کا اخلاقی جواز کیا ہے؟

    ایسا کیوں ہے کہ اس ساری مہم کا رخ امریکہ کی طرف ہے۔ بینرز یا احتجاجی ریلیوں میں ان لوگوں میں سے کسی کا نام جذباتی مقررین کی زبان پر کیوں نہیں آتا جن کی مرضی یا اجازت کے بغیر یہ سب ممکن نہیں تھا۔ کیا کسی فرد یا تنظیم نے کسی مقامی عدالت میں ایسی پٹیشن داخل کی جس میں ان اداروں اور افراد کے نام ہوں جن پر اس پورے ڈرامے میں اہم کردار ادا کرنے کا شبہہ ہے۔ جذباتی گفتگو سے لوگ تو مشتعل کیے جا سکتے ہیں۔ اپنے گناہوں پر پردہ تو ڈالا جاسکتا ہے۔ اپنی سیاسی دکان تو با رونق رکھی جا سکتی ہے لیکن اس کرتب بازی سے عافیہ صدیقی کیس میں کیا مدد مل سکتی ہے؟ کیا عافیہ کسی فٹ بال کا نام ہے ؟ کوئی تو بتائے ؟؟

    کیا عافیہ فٹبال ہے!

    وسعت اللہ خان
    بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/03/100307_baat_se_baat_np.shtml