Original Articles

Whom are you fooling Nawaz Sharif? – by Shah Hussain Lahori

Is there a new deal between Nawaz Sharif and the khakis?

The cat is out of the bag. Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif and his associates attacked the Supreme Court in 1997 and this time they attacked judicial conventions for the second time. The great Quaid of Punjab’s largest party, Sharif, entered the Supreme Court by-passing security protocols and was treated as a VVIP.

These judges have short memories. Only a decade ago he had asked his goons to physically attack the highest court of the land but the free judges of 21st century gave him attention as if he was the Ameer ul Momineen of the Caliphate that the terrorists want Pakistan to become.

Here is the video which shows without doubt the VVIP status of Sharif and his armed guards:


The Supreme Court officials were quick to deny the earlier charges levelled by the traitors of PPP. But the video above has also exposed their feeble attempts to cover up a blunder that will now tarnish the image of the Lords for all times to come.

The proceedings were strange:

  • a) a petitioner was allowed to read his list of charges against a sitting elected, legitimate government
  • b) relief was granted without hearing the point of view of the federal government
  • c) a Pakistani citizen Haqqani’s fundamental right of movement was snatched without hearing him
  • d) A parliamentary committee was considered as not ‘constitutional’ and cabinet not given chance to explain what the committee was
  • e) flagrant bypassing of the parliamentary supremacy was seen – this is not the first time the Court has done it. In the case of judges appointment, it has overruled the constitutional amendment passed by people’s representatives. Court is NOT above the Constitution

More worryingly, Sharif’s effort to implicate President Zardari in a treason case is alarming. Sharif has faced similar situation at the hands of kangaroo courts. Perhaps he has forgotten that. Or there is a deal brewing between him and the khakis.Or he has been rattled by Imran Khan. All these questions will unfold soon.

But Pakistan establishment should remember what happened when they declared Sheikh Mujeeb as a traitor?

We welcome Asma Jahangir’s bold stance to defend Haqqani and also for speaking her mind on the violation of judicial norms by the Court. Thank God for such people Pakistan survives.

About the author

Abdul Nishapuri


Click here to post a comment
  • How can Pakistan’s apex court allow this?

    SC accords warm welcome to Nawaz Sharif

    ISLAMABAD: When Chief of PML (N) Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif arrived the Supreme Court, the court officials welcomed him with special protocol. Due to his arrival even entry passes to other people were not issued.

    Additional Registrar Supreme Court Sajid Mehmood Qazi has issued instructions in particular to the security officials deputed there regarding protocol of Nawaz Sharif.

    When Nawaz Sharif entered the premises of Supreme Court at the hearing of memogate scam, he was received by the high officials. He was taken to the court No1, but by taking advantage of leniency by the security officials, his armed guards also entered inside the court along with weapons, which was against the decorum of the court.

    It had been the routine for the supreme court that the security is beefed up to red alert level on the occasion of hearing of important case and special passes are issued to the selected people but this time no one was allowed to enter the court premises expect Nawaz Sharif, his companions and journalists.

    The full bench of supreme court had to hear another case regarding duel membership of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif but it could not hear the case as all the three judges of including Justice Shakir Ullah Jan , Justice Jawad S. Khawaja and Justice Ijaz Amjad Chaudhary were included in the larger bench which is conducting the hearing of memo scam .



  • The SC should first protect its own sovereignty

    Mohammad Malick
    Sunday, December 04, 2011


    ISLAMABAD: The issue of whether the Mullen-memo was an attempt to compromise the country’s sovereignty will take some time to decide, but the developments of the last 48 hours have raised an equally important question: will the Supreme Court first stand up to protect its own sovereignty and honour before it tries doing the same for the country?

    Within hours of constituting a judicial commission to investigate the Mullen-memo issue, the Supreme Court was publicly and contemptuously mocked and tacitly accused of being partisan and thus dishonest by a battery of incumbent and former federal ministers. Besides accusing the court of not according the federation a due hearing, it was also accused of extending exceptional VVIP protocol to Nawaz Sharif while the court’s designated choice for the judicial commission was blown apart as being biased.

    The court was also castigated for only trying cases of choice and not necessarily on merit. The prime minister later described the uttering of his court-bashing team of ministers as the “response by his legal team”. The country’s chief law officer, the Attorney General, who in the courtroom had not raised any objection to the commission being formed despite being asked categorically by the court, is now shamelessly singing a new tune. The governor Punjab has thrown in his bit by announcing the launching of Wafaq Bachao Tehreek (Movement to Save the Federation) in “protest against the Supreme Court”.

    And what has been the response of the Supreme Court to all this indignant public mauling? Instead of throwing the book at those committing contempt, the SC has issued an almost apologetic ‘explanatory’ press note informing its detractors and the people that the claims about VVIP protocol etc. were not true and expressed the hope that, “baseless allegations will be avoided in future and the dignity and respect of the apex court will be maintained”. Respect is earned, My Lords, and not begged, and definitely not so from those deliberately and maliciously out to insult the apex judiciary, purely for political reasons.

    It’s tough to decide what is worse. A phalanx of government ministers holding a press conference a la court, twisting facts and hurling threats of Sindh Card and Bangladesh type separation besides insulting innuendos at the country’s Supreme Court, and everybody else, or the apex court meekly issuing a clarification the next day, instead of hauling them in for contempt?

    What is more damaging one wonders, the impunity with which the country’s elected chief executive refuses to obey the Supreme Court’s NRO verdict or the court looking the other way, instead of slapping a contempt verdict on him?

    What erodes a court’s respect faster, the question looms. Tough worded verdicts sans the will to implement, or simply no verdicts at all. What is more disappointing, many ask.

    A Dogar court that willfully let the powerful have their way, or one brought back with great sacrifice by millions of Pakistanis allowing the powerful to maraud around as it hunkers low in the name of ‘saving the system’. These questions merit answers because all this is happening at a time we claim having an omnipotent and independent superior judiciary.

    Courts of law, which do not have the conviction to convict the guilty, are themselves guilty of abdication of their responsibilities. Societies, countries, ‘systems’, do not fail or get derailed because of the imposition of an unsparing and equitable rule of law. On the contrary, it is the very absence of this critical element, which sows the seeds for the destruction of a pluralistic and a truly representative system of governance.

    History of human civilisation is replete with examples of countries, and even empires, perishing due to the absence of the writ of law and respect for its institutions, but not a single example exists where a society or a nation lost out because it had a functioning system of law, and respect for the institutions.

    Going with the flow and not disturbing the status quo is always a convenient option but are the courts supposed to do justice and make the guilty do time, or just feign it all? At times we have heard observations coming from the superior judiciary about certain actions, rather inactions, being preferred in the interest of not derailing the system. Does such deliberate choice also not violate the basic cannon of justice, which warrants a verdict based purely on evidence and points of law while being totally divorced of the consequences outside the confines of the courtroom?

    Can our apex court realistically expect the lower cadres of the executive to respect it, or the people to repose unqualified faith in its pronouncements if it is seen to be reluctant in standing up for its own honour. Or is the honour of the court subservient to the ‘pragmatic appreciation’ of the powers of those crossing the red line?

    The government’s vitriolic reaction to the memo commission is understandable because the time has come for it to put the court’s credibility in question. But not, as many suspect, because of the fear of devastating truths coming out of the promised judicial probe but the real cause is actually the verdict in the NRO review petition.

    It has already been indicated that the government will not comply by writing letters to the three foreign governments amongst other actions and the PM is already on record for saying that he’d rather go down than going to Geneva.

    The issue here is, will the court have the moral courage in the future to convict those defying the orders for implementation of its verdicts, or will it opt for ‘saving the system from derailing’. And derailing from which rails, it is already dysfunctional and is being sustained through threats, blackmail and coercion.

    Within the last 48 hours, Ms. Asma Jehangir was also quoted in the press stating that the apex court was bereft of moral authority. Is it time for more explanatory press notes or meaningful action.

    But the biggest question at this time is whether any will and commitment is left in any state institution to call a spade a spade and not use expediency as the core strategy. That never works.


  • PBC body criticises judiciary’s role
    Nasir Iqbal

    ISLAMABAD, Dec 2: Lines are being drawn fast and stakeholders are indicating where they stand a day after the Supreme Court’s order on PML-N’s petition against the memogate scandal.

    The situation became clear on Friday when two clarifications were issued — one by the Supreme Court and the other by the Attorney General’s office — while a committee of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) adopted a resolution blaming one institution for transgressing the domain of the other.

    Accepting a set of nine petitions, a nine-judge larger bench had on Thursday ordered an inquiry into the memo scandal within 15 days and stopped former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani from leaving the country. It had also asked President Asif Ali Zardari, Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and ISI chief Lt-Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to explain their positions by filing

    The decision prompted top government leaders, including former law minister Dr Babar Awan, to call a press conference in which a number of allegations were levelled, including the one that special treatment was given to Nawaz Sharif by allowing armed security guards to accompany him into the courtroom.

    It was the resolution adopted by the PBC’s Free Legal Aid Committee at a meeting here on Friday which struck a hard blow.

    The meeting, chaired by its president, Mohammad Ramzan Chaudhry, was also attended by Ahsan Bhoon, Kalbe Hassan and Maqsood Butter. Referring to the memo case, the resolution said the PBC could not shut its eyes when “one institution is encroaching upon the domain of the other” as this could lead to chaos and anarchy.

    The memogate affair, it said, should not have been brought on the initiation of one political party and the court should not have taken up such political issues when a parliamentary committee was already seized with the matter.

    “Matters like memogate which even did not offend any fundamental right should not have been brought before the Supreme Court at the cost of valuable time of general litigants whose cases are pending adjudication,” it said. To maintain the dignity of parliament and independence of judiciary in view of the trichotomy of powers as enshrined in the Constitution, the resolution said parliament was the only competent forum to take decisions relating to political affairs.

    The committee members recalled that these views had also been supported by the Supreme Court in two judgments — PLD 2009 SC 75 and PLD 1958 SC 397 — whereby it was held that when a matter was under debate in a parliamentary committee, courts should stay away.

    The resolution also asked vice-chairman Latif Afridi and president of the Supreme Court Bar Association Yasin Azad to “defend the democratic system and its unhindered functioning”.

    To keep the record straight, the Supreme Court issued a press release denying accusations of any protocol. It clarified that as per usual practice all litigants, including leaders of the PML-N, had entered the court building through the public reception gate and after security clearance they were given visitor cards to enter the courtroom.

    “No one was given any protocol or any special favour as far as entry in the court premises or in the courtroom No 1 is concerned.”

    The court further clarified that security personnel and court officials on duty were trained and instructed to treat litigant parties and advocates with dignity and respect without any distinction or discrimination whatsoever.

    A careful review of CCTV cameras installed in the court building also revealed that no armed private guards accompanied the PML-N leaders into the court, as wrongly alleged in the press conference, the clarification said, adding that contents of the news conference were totally false, misleading and contrary to facts.

    The apex court expressed the hope that baseless allegations would be avoided in future and dignity and respect of the court would be maintained.

    ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKS: A press release issue by the Attorney General office’s clarified that Maulvi Anwarul Haq did not represent the federal government in the memogate case on Thursday. The AG appeared before the bench on a court notice, and not to advance the government’s stance.

    It said: “Office of the Attorney General for Pakistan has taken note of the impression emanating what was said during some talk shows on various TV channels last (Thursday) evening and newspapers of Dec 2 as if the federation of Pakistan was being represented in constitutional petitions filed by Mr Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and some others, taken up by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Dec 1.”

    The cases were listed for preliminary hearing on the said date. The notice was issued to the AG in terms of Order 27-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The AG as such appeared on the said notice and not to represent the federation. The proceedings of the court also bespeak for the said factual position, the press release said.


  • And if the political statements were not enough, a new technicality has arisen pertaining to the federation’s presence while the apex court passed its orders on Thursday. Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq entered the fray on Friday, echoing former Law Minister Babar Awan’s opinion that the federation was denied a hearing at the memogate case while the apex court passed a spate of orders.

    The attorney general said that he was not holding the federal government’s brief, ie representing the government, when the Supreme Court sought his opinion on the formation of the commission. “I was only assisting the court as an officer of the court,” he added in a rare statement from his office.

    “We have been against the involvement of the Supreme Court in political affairs,” Supreme Court Bar Associatioin (SCBA) president Yasin Azad told The Express Tribune.

    “Parliament should step forward and resolve issues, which fall within its domain and rid the court of unnecessary burden,” he said. Azad felt that the Supreme Court should have allowed the federation to submit its point of view before setting up a commission to probe the memo affair.

    The SCBA president said: “Unless the court issues a formal notice to the federation, the attorney general’s opinion could not be attributed to the federal government.”

    Former law minister Khalid Anwar felt that the question whether the Supreme Court heard the federation or not “is a complicated one because of the gap between the law governing the attorney general’s role and the past practice”.

    Before Sharifuddin Pirzada became the attorney general for a martial law regime, the attorney general always represented the federation whenever he appeared before the Supreme Court. However, Pirzada started assigning federation cases to other lawyers and appeared before the court as an officer of the court to assist it, Anwar added.

    While the Supreme Court may deliver the final word on the controversy surrounding the federation’s point of view on the memogate commission, the Constitution clearly lays down the role of the attorney general.

    Clause (3) of Article 100 states: “It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General to give advice to the Federal Government upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character as may be referred or assigned to him by the Federal Government, and in the performance of his duties he shall have the right of audience in all courts and tribunals in Pakistan.”

    Technicalities in the courtrooms aside, the case has already created its fair share of political brinksmanship outside the court.

    In response to former Law Minister Babar Awan’s fiery press conference held on Thursday, in which he hit out at the apex court as well as premier and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, the Supreme Court asked the PPP to avoid raising “baseless allegations” against it.

    “We hope that baseless allegations will be avoided in future and the dignity and respect of the apex court will be maintained,” the Supreme Court said in the statement issued here on Friday.

    Awan had claimed that the Supreme Court gave protocol to Sharif and allowed his armed guards to accompany him to the court premises.

    “No one was given any protocol or any special favour as far as entry into the court premises or the courtroom No 1 (CJP’s courtroom) is concerned,” the statement said.

    Furthermore, Sharif, too, reacted to Awan’s press conference, stating that the failure of Parliament compelled him to go to the court.

    It also remains to be seen what the fate of the SC-mandated commission will be.

    The proceedings may take more twists and turns in the days ahead. Mansoor Ijaz, the central player in the memogate controversy, has said that he was ready to face the Supreme Court, according to the South Asian News Agency (SANA) on Friday.

    A written statement issued by Ijaz quoted him as saying that the apex court’s decision demonstrated that democracy was indeed alive and well in Pakistan.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has issued a 10-page detailed verdict of its orders passed in Thursday’s proceedings of the memogate scandal.


    To view the detailed verdict issued by the Supreme Court visittribune.com.pk/story/301260/supreme-court-visit-verdict

    Published in The Express Tribune, December 3rd, 2011.

  • December 02, 2011

    Share this story!
    PPP criticises Nawaz, SC over memo hearing

    * Babar Awan questions formation of commission by SC

    * Says Nawaz pitching institutions against each other

    By Tanveer Ahmed

    ISLAMABAD: Terming the petition of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in memogate scandal an attack on President Asif Ali Zardari, the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) on Thursday blamed the top leadership of the opposition party for repeating the drama of ‘Agartala conspiracy’.

    Addressing a press conference following their meeting in the Presidency, the PPP leaders, led by Senator Dr Babar Awan, took to task Nawaz Sharif and other PML-N leaders for labelling the elected president as a traitor.

    Federal Religious Affairs Minister Syed Khursheed Shah, Information and Broadcasting Minister Dr Firdaus Ashiq Awan, PPP’s Central Information Secretary Qamar-uz-Zaman Kaira accompanied Dr Babar Awan in the press conference.

    The PPP leaders pointed out that the Protocol Department of the Supreme Court received the Sharif brothers when they came in the apex court for the memogate fiasco.

    Awan, in his hard-hitting style, stopped short of even criticising the judiciary when he questioned the formation of a commission by the Supreme Court under the chairmanship of former Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general Tariq Khosa to investigate this matter. “The formation of the commission purely rests with the executive,” Babar pointed out and vowed that they would not allow the surrender of powers of the executive and supremacy of parliament.

    Addressing PML-N President Nawaz Sharif, Babar stated: “A political leader could not be terminated by labelling him as traitor” and asked Nawaz Sharif as on whose behest he had labelled an elected president a traitor.

    Awan declared that Asif Ali Zardari was not an individual but the continuation of Bhuttoism.

    He also accused Nawaz of pitching the national institutions against each other to take the revenge of his political defeat at the hands of the PPP and President Zardari.

    Babar said that Zardari would not flee the country rather he would fight or die.

    He said that it should be probed as who had established a “traitor manufacturing factory” in Punjab and felt that the PPP negated all such conspiracies, which were hatched to declare the politicians as traitor.


  • All lies, all deception by LUBP propagandists of Zardari League.

    Supreme Court has denied all the false charges:

    اہم خبریں

    نوازشریف کو کوئی پروٹوکول نہیں دیا،سپریم کورٹ کا اعلامیہ

    اسلام آباد(آن لائن) سپریم کورٹ نے بابر اعوان کی جانب سے گزشتہ روز کی گئی پریس کانفرنس اور اس میں لگائے گئے الزامات کو غلط قرار دیتے ہوئے کہاہے کہ سپریم کورٹ کے کمرہ عدالت نمبر ون میں سی سی ٹی وی کیمرے لگے ہوئے ہیں جنکا بغور جائزہ لینے کے بعد ایسی کوئی بات سامنے نہیں آئی جس سے یہ بات ثابت ہو کہ کوئی شخص اسلحہ لیکر عدالت میں گیا ہے ۔سپریم کورٹ کی جانب سے جاری وضاحتی اعلامیہ میں کہا گیا ہے کہ میمو کیس کی سماعت کے دوران سپریم کورٹ انتظامیہ کی جانب سے کسی کو کوئی پروٹوکول نہیں دیا گیا نہ ہی کسی کو بغیر تلاشی لئے اندر جانے کی اجازت دی گئی ۔وضاحت میں کہا گیا ہے کہ نواز شریف اور ان کے ساتھ آنے والے تمام افراد معمول کے گیٹ سے سپریم کورٹ میں داخل ہوئے ان کو تلاشی کے بعد کارڈ جاری کر کے جانے کی اجازت دی گئی لہٰذا پریس کانفرنس میں غلط الزامات لگائے گئے ہیں ۔سپریم کورٹ امید کرتی ہے کہ مستقبل میں اس طرح کے الزامات سے پرہیز کیا جائے گا اور عدالت کے وقار کا خیال رکھا جائیگا


  • All laws and rules are for ordinary people.

    Supreme Court has a different set of rule for Punjabi politicians and army generals and another for people from other parts of the country, children of a lesser God.

    Where is my saviour Imran Khan who said everything will be good in Pakistan once we had Iftikhar Chaudhry reinstalled as CJP?

    Change? My foot!

  • پاکستان مسلم لیگ نون کےصدر میاں نواز شریف امریکی فوج کی ہائی کمان کو
    لکھے جانے والے مبینہ خط کےخلاف دائر کی جانے والی درخواست کی پیروی کے
    لیے جب سپریم کورٹ پہنچے تو اُنہوں نے کالا کورٹ اور کالی ٹائی پہن رکھی
    تھی اور بڑے سنجیدہ دکھائی دے رہے تھے۔کمرہ عدالت کے باہر سیکورٹی کے سخت
    اقدامات کیےگئے تھے اور اُن کے ساتھ آنے والے سیکورٹی کے اہلکاروں کو
    کمرہ عدالت کے باہر ہی روک لیا گیا۔
    سپریم کورٹ کے کمرہ نمبر ایک کی اگلی نشستوں پر میاں نواز شریف، وزیر
    اعلیٰ پنجاب میاں شہباز شریف اور دیگر لیگی رہنما موجود تھے۔

    کمرہ عدالت میں سپریم کورٹ کے اہلکار کی جانب سے جب درخواست گُزار میاں
    نواز شریف کا نام پکارا گیا تو وہ خود ہی روسٹرم پر آگئے اور کہا کہ اُن
    کے وکیل فخرالدین جی ابراہیم چونکہ بیمار ہیں اس لیے وہ خود ہی دلائل دیں

    نواز شریف نے کہا کہ جب عدلیہ کو سابق فوجی آمر نے گھروں میں بند کر دیا
    تھا تو اُنہوں نے عوام کے ساتھ مل کر عدلیہ کی آزادی کے لیے جدوج
    ہد کی۔ جس پر چیف جسٹس نے اُن کا شکریہ ادا کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ وہ اپنے
    دلائل درخواست تک ہی محدود رکھیں اور کوئی سیاسی بیان نہ دیں ۔

    بینچ میں شامل جسٹس جواد ایس خواجہ نے میاں نواز شریف سے پہلا سوال ہی یہ
    کیا کہ وہ اس معاملے کو پارلیمنٹ میں لےکر کیوں نہیں گئے؟نواز شریف نے
    کہا کہ اگر پارلیمنٹ با اختیار ہوتی تو ارکان پارلیمنمٹ حتیٰ کہ حکومتی
    وزراء بھی سپریم کورٹ کا رخ نہ کرتے۔

    چیف جسٹس کی تجویز”چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری نے نواز شریف کو تجویز دی
    کہ اُنہیں اپنی درخواست میں سابق امریکی صدر رچرڈ نکسن کے خلاف مشہور
    واٹر گیٹ سکینڈل کا بھی زکر کرنا چاہیے تھا جس میں ایک مقامی عدالت کے
    حکم پر اُس وقت کے صدر کو استثنی ہونے کے باوجود شواہد اور ٹیپس بھی
    اکھٹی کی گئیں۔”

    نواز شریف نے کہا کہ سپریم کورٹ بھی اس میمو کے معاملے میں احکامات جاری
    کرے کیونکہ عدالتی مداخلت کے بغیر شہادتیں حاصل نہیں کی جاسکتیں۔

    بینچ میں شامل جسٹس جواد ایس خواجہ نے نواز شریف سے کہا کہ اس خط کا
    معاملہ ابھی تک مفروضوں پر مبنی ہے، اور اگر آپ کے پاس شواہد ہیں تو وہ
    عدالت میں پیش کریں۔میاں نواز شریف کچھ دیر کے لیے خاموش کھڑے رہے اور
    پھر اُن کا کہنا تھا کہ اس درخواست میں بنائے گئے فریقوں کو عدالت میں
    طلب کیا جائے تو حقائق سب کے سامنے آجائیں گے

    حکومت نے پہلے ہی معاملے کی تحقیق کے لیے پارلیمان کی قومی سلامتی کے
    بارے میں خصوصی کمیٹی کو اسے سونپ رکھا ہے ایسے میں سپریم کورٹ نے سماعت
    کا فیصلہ کیوں کیا؟
    میاں نواز شریف کے بقول ان کی جماعت نے یہ معاملہ پارلیمان میں اٹھایا
    لیکن وہاں حکومت کی جانب سے معقول جواب نہ ملنے پر انہوں نے سپریم کورٹ
    سے رجوع کیا ہے۔
    اگر میاں نواز شریف صاحب کی دلیل مان بھی لی جائے تو سوال پیدا ہوتا ہے
    کہ پارلیمان کی بالادستی کہاں گئی؟ کیا مسلم لیگ (ن) خود ہی پارلیمان کی
    بالا دستی کو ’سرینڈر‘ کر رہی ہے؟
    میاں رضا ربانی کی سربراہی میں پارلیمان کی قومی سلامتی کی کمیٹی نے پہلے
    ہی میمو گیٹ کے معاملے کا نوٹس لے رکھا ہے اور وضاحت کے لیے دفاع اور
    خارجہ وزارتوں کے سیکرٹریوں کو طلب کیا ہوا ہے۔ اب دیکھنا یہ ہے کہ یہ
    کمیٹی کیا فیصلہ کرتی ہے؟
    میاں نواز شریف کی جانب سے خود کالی ٹائی اور کوٹ پہن کر سپریم کورٹ میں
    وکالت کرنے سے اس کی اہمیت حد سے زیادہ بڑھ گئی ہے۔

    ظاہر ہے کہ میاں صاحب نے سوچ سمجھ کر ہی سپریم کورٹ کے فورم کا انتخاب
    کیا ہے کیونکہ انہیں معلوم ہے کہ ’میمو گیٹ‘ کے مقدمے کا فیصلہ ’چُھری
    اور خربوزے‘ کی مثال کے مانند ہوگا۔ اس مقدمے میں حکومت کا دامن داغدار
    ثابت ہو یا فوج کا دونوں صورتوں میں میاں صاحب کا تو فائدہ ہی فائدہ ہے۔
    لیکن سپریم کورٹ میں اس مقدمے کی سماعت سے بہت سے سوالات جنم لے رہے ہیں۔
    مثال کے طور پر اس سارے معاملے میں شواہد اکٹھے کرنے اور تحقیقات
    انتظامیہ کے تحقیقاتی ادارے کے دائرہ کار میں آتا ہے۔

    لیکن سپریم کورٹ نے تو یہ معاملہ کسی ریاستی ادارے کو سونپنے کی بجائے
    سپریم کورٹ کے ایک حاضر سروس جج کے بھائی اور ریٹائرڈ پولیس افسر طارق
    کھوسہ کی سربراہی میں کمیٹی بنائی ہے۔ طارق کھوسہ کو ایک ایماندار افسر
    تصور کیا جاتا ہے لیکن یہاں سوال ان کی نجی حیثیت میں تحقیقات کا ہے۔
    اگر اہم معاملات میں ریاستی اداروں کو نظر انداز کرکے نجی طور پر تحقیقات
    کرانے یا شواہد اکٹھے کرنے کی رسم چل پڑی تو بات پھر اس مقدمے تک نہیں
    رکےگی بلکہ اس سے ریاستی ڈھانچہ ہل سکتا ہے


    پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی کے رہنما بابر اعوان نے کہا ہے کہ سپریم کورٹ میں
    متنازع میمو کی سماعت حکومت کے خلاف سازش ہے اور میاں نواز شریف ملک کے
    منتخب صدر آصف علی زرداری پر غداری کا مقدمہ بنوانا چاہتے ہیں۔
    پیلزپارٹی کی جانب سے جلدی میں بلائی گئی پریس کانفرنس سے چند گھنٹے پہلے
    سپریم کورٹ نے متنازع میمو مقدمے کی سماعت کرتے ہوئے ایک ریٹائرڈ پولیس
    کو شواہد اکھٹے کرنے کا کام سونپا تھا اور حیسن حقانی کے بیرونی ملک سفر
    پر پابندی کا حکم دیا تھا۔ اس مقدمے کی ابتدائی سماعت کے دوران سابق وزیر
    اعظم میاں نواز شریف نے خود دلائل دیئے تھے۔

    جمعرات کی شام کو جلدی میں بلائی گئی پریس کانفرنس میں وفاقی وزیر خورشید
    شاہ، فردوس عاشق اعوان اور بابر اعوان نے کہا کہ تاریخ بتاتی ہے کہ پیپلز
    پارٹی کو کبھی انصاف نہیں ملا۔
    انہوں نے کہا کہ سپریم کورٹ نے وفاق پاکستان کے نمائندے کو سنے بغیر
    فیصلہ دیا ہے اور ایسے شخص کو شواہد اکٹھے کرنے کی ذمہ داری سونپی ہے، جن
    کے ایک بھائی پنجاب کے چیف سیکرٹری ہیں اور دوسرے سپریم کورٹ کے حاضر
    سروس جج ہیں اور جن کے سسر سپریم کورٹ کے سابق چیف جسٹس ہیں جو ذوالفقار
    علی بھٹو کو پھانسی دیے جانے کا حکم جاری کرنے والے بینچ کا حصہ تھے۔

    بابر اعوان نے کہا کہ پارلیمان کی قومی سلامتی کے بارے میں سترہ رکنی
    نمائندہ کمیٹی میمو معاملے کی جانچ کر رہی ہے اور جمعہ کو وزیراعظم اس
    میں پیش ہوکر بریفنگ دیں گے۔
    انہوں نے یہ تاثر دیا کہ پارلیمان کی بالادستی متاثر ہو رہی ہے اور جب تک
    وہ حکومت میں ہیں پارلیمان یا حکومت کا اختیار ‘سرینڈر’ نہیں کریں گے۔
    “پاکستان میں کمیشن تشکیل دینے کا صرف ایک قانون ہے جس کے تحت کسی بھی
    کمیشن کا اختیار صرف ایک ہی ادارے کو حاصل ہے اور وہ انتظامیہ ہے۔ ایک
    بات میں واضح کردینا چاہتا ہوں پیپلز پارٹی اور عوامی جمہوری حکومت کی
    طرف سے کہ جتنے دن پاکستان کی یہ پارلیمینٹ ہے ہم پارلیمینٹ کی بالادستی
    اور انتظامیہ کی اتھارٹی کو کہیں بھی سرینڈر نہیں کریں گے۔ اس بارے میں
    کسی کو کوئی شک نہیں ہونا چاہیے۔ ”
    بابر اعوان
    بابر اعوان نے کہا کہ میاں نواز شریف بنگال جیسا کھیل کھیل رہے ہیں اور
    اگر تلہ سازش کیس کی طرح پاکستان میں منتخب صدر پر بغاوت کا مقدمہ بنوانا
    چاہتے ہیں


    “I was contacted with a request to take up the case a few days ago and
    I said yes today,” Ms Jahangir confirmed to Dawn by telephone on
    Thursday night.

    Sources close to her said Ms Jahangir made her decision after
    consulting some of the leading lawyers and that her argument may focus
    on whether the ‘memogate’ petition was maintainable.


    In an op-ed on the News on October 06, former IG Police Balochistan
    Tariq Khosa wrote:

    “Everyone knows that after the escape of a hardcore LJ terrorist from
    the high security prison in Quetta, the LJ has regrouped and developed
    a nexus with BLA and other militant outfits in the province to cause
    systematic mayhem. It is not a secret that such forces have their
    hideouts near Mastung in Kabo and other Ferrari camps. These camps are
    located in the B Areas, which are out of the reach of Balochistan
    Police, thanks to power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats who have
    handed over 95% of the province to the rag-tag militias, called the

    Of course, it serves the army/ISI’s agenda to blame Baloch
    nationalists including the BLA for the Shia Hazara massacres enabling
    the military state to kill two birds in one stone, i.e. the rebel
    Baloch and the non-compliant (anti-Taliban) Shia. Unfortunately the
    same ISI-esque narrative has been adopted by some media persons and
    human rights organizations.


    SC accords warm welcome to Nawaz Sharif

    ISLAMABAD: When Chief of PML (N) Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif arrived
    the Supreme Court, the court officials welcomed him with special
    protocol. Due to his arrival even entry passes to other people were
    not issued.

    Additional Registrar Supreme Court Sajid Mehmood Qazi has issued
    instructions in particular to the security officials deputed there
    regarding protocol of Nawaz Sharif.

    When Nawaz Sharif entered the premises of Supreme Court at the hearing
    of memogate scam, he was received by the high officials. He was taken
    to the court No1, but by taking advantage of leniency by the security
    officials, his armed guards also entered inside the court along with
    weapons, which was against the decorum of the court.

    It had been the routine for the supreme court that the security is
    beefed up to red alert level on the occasion of hearing of important
    case and special passes are issued to the selected people but this
    time no one was allowed to enter the court premises expect Nawaz
    Sharif, his companions and journalists.

    The full bench of supreme court had to hear another case regarding
    duel membership of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif but it could not hear
    the case as all the three judges of including Justice Shakir Ullah Jan
    , Justice Jawad S. Khawaja and Justice Ijaz Amjad Chaudhary were
    included in the larger bench which is conducting the hearing of memo
    scam .


    Only executive can appoint commission: Babar Awan
    ISLAMABAD, Dec 1 (APP): Senator Babar Awan on Thusday expressed
    disappoinment over short order issued by Supreme Court and said only
    executive has the constitutional authority to appoint a commission to
    investigate Memo issue. It was right of the executive to appoint
    commission on such issues, he said while commenting on the short
    order, issued by the Supreme Court without hearing the Federation He
    was addressing a press conference alongwith Minister for Information
    and Broadcasting, Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, Minister for Religious
    Affairs, Khurshid Shah, and PPP Secretary Information Qamar Zaman
    Kaira here at PID.
    Babar Awan said the government would never allow anyone to exercise
    executive authority or undermine the supremacy of the Parliament.
    He said under Article 10-A, the Federation should be given an
    opportunity to be heard but the order was issued without hearing the
    Federation and even the former ambassador to Pakistan Hussain Haqqani
    who had returned to country to clear himself from charges.
    “He will be in the country unless exonerated from this charge, and PPP
    has history of facing charges in the court of law within the
    Constitutional limits,” he added.
    He said the Nawaz Sharif’s petition in memo case was a direct assault
    on the democracy.
    He said it was very unfortunate that effective order was issued in the
    constitutional petition without issuing notice to the Federation and
    neither the person against whom the petition was filed.
    He said that 17-member bicameral Parliamentary Committee, comprising
    all parties, was not given an opportunity to investigate the matter.
    He said the Nawaz Sharif had once again tried to divide the country by
    working on Bangladesh model.
    He suspected that Nawaz Sharif was working on the behest of someone
    else to declare an elected President of the Parliament and provincial
    assemblies as ‘a traitor’.
    He said that history was giving testimony that PPP was never given
    justice or relief and had always been subjected to suppression.
    He said Nawaz Sharif’s agenda was not in favour of country, people and
    democracy but it was only creating divisions in the country.
    Babar Awan said the Pakistan Peoples Party had always worked for the
    welfare of the people of the country and the recent decision of
    boycotting the Bonn conference was also taken in the best interest and
    sovereignty of the country after the NATO attack.
    Criticizing Nawaz Sharif for not challenging the Oct 12, 1999 coup in
    the court of law, he said Sharif brothers were always ready to
    sabotage democracy by moving courts against the democratic decisions.
    He said that Nawaz Sharif violated the Charter of Democracy which
    enshrines giving respect to each other’s mandate.
    Babar Awan questioned the composition of the bench hearing the memo
    case, saying certain judges were biased.
    Terming Asif Ali Zardari was spiritual son of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, he
    said it was unfortunate that conspiracy was being hatched to declare
    as traitor leader of the largest political party which represents
    federation and pioneer of Pakistan nuclear programme, giving NFC
    formula, 18th Amendment and giving identity to nations including
    Pakhtun, Gilgit Baltistan and Sairki.
    He hoped that independent court would also reopen petition of Asqhar
    Khan which was pending in the court for the last so many years.

  • At Samad
    Could u now watch Dawn fotage & decide yourself who is deceptive.
    This supreme court is in fact Sharif Court.

  • alas: we sacrificed our lives and honour for this one eyes judge who is writing principles of justice in his own words and according to his wishes and wishes of ganjas and of owner of big newspaper industry. afsos sad afsos