We the honorable judges hereby declare that we are above law and morality!
Selection of judges
By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 21 Jan, 2010
According to some well-involved sources a new row between the judiciary and the executive has begun and the issue is the appointment of judges to the superior courts.
The case of filling a large number of vacancies in the Lahore High Court has been hanging fire for quite some time. A serious difference of opinion between the judicial and executive organs of the state has apparently developed on the filling of a fresh vacancy in the Supreme Court.
Judiciary-executive differences have a fairly long history and the stories of the executive’s manipulations against the judiciary, including the way chief justices Yaqub Ali, Sajjad Ali Shah, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Iftikhar Chaudhry were removed, are well-known.
In any country blessed with responsible and upright authorities the constitutional scheme of appointment of the judges of the superior courts should not have presented a serious difficulty, but Pakistan has not been that fortunate. Here the judiciary has had to supplement the constitutional provisions with its own rulings.
The most exhaustive Supreme Court ruling came in the Al-Jehad Trust case in 1996. Some of the court’s conclusions in this case were:
1. The opinion of the chief justice of Pakistan and the chief justice of the high court as to the fitness and suitability of a candidate for judgeship is entitled to be accepted in the absence of very sound reasons to be recorded by the president/executive.
2. Permanent vacancies occurring in the offices of the chief justice and judges should be filled within 30 days except for unforeseen situations when the period may be extended to 90 days.
3. No ad hoc judge can be appointed to the Supreme Court while permanent vacancies exist.
4. The most senior judge of a high court is entitled to be appointed as chief justice except where concrete and valid reasons are recorded by the president/executive.
5. Additional judges of the high courts are entitled to be confirmed, if vacancies exist and if they are recommended by the chief justice of the high court concerned and the chief justice of Pakistan.
6. The political affiliation of a candidate for judgeship may not be a disqualification provided the candidate meets the eligibility test and is appropriately recommended.
7. Any appointment/confirmation of a judge without the mandatory consultation with the consultees identified in the constitution would be invalid.
The implementation of this verdict posed many problems. Differences between the judiciary and the Punjab government were reported in the spring of 1997, though both sides denied this. Later in the same year a far more serious clash between the executive and the judiciary developed when the country’s chief justice recommended the appointment of five Supreme Court judges. The government issued a presidential notification whereby the Supreme Court’s strength was reduced to 12, and thus demolished the case for new appointments. The notification was later withdrawn but while the government insisted that the apex court’s strength was to be fixed by parliament, the Chief Justices Committee called for implementation of the chief justice’s recommendations. This tussle eventually led to a mob attack on the Supreme Court and the deposition of the author of the Al-Jehad judgment himself.
Although the Al-Jehad case judgment has not always been scrupulously followed it is still frequently relied upon. In addition, after the restoration of the judges last year the National Judicial Policymaking Committee laid down a few principles which were later on endorsed at a conference on the new policy’s implementation.
The key recommendations were that judges working on positions lower than their status were to be recalled, that the vacant posts of judges must be filled on an urgent basis so as to discourage ad hocism in judicial appointments, that all selections be made on the basis of competence and integrity, and that candidates for judgeship should not be closely associated with a political party.
It should be possible to resolve the present difference of opinion within the framework evolved over the years. The prime minister also has categorically dispelled the possibility of a clash with the judiciary. However, two questions will pose problems. First, parliament’s right to prescribe the judiciary’s terms and conditions cannot easily be denied. Secondly, what will happen if the judiciary makes exceptions to rules made by itself?
But that is not all. Political parties and other civil society organisations have been making suggestions on the subject for many years. Civil society has been vigorously pleading that the state’s chief justice should be appointed by the president in consultation with both leaders of the house and the opposition in the National Assembly. Strangely enough, nobody is referring to the proposal for the judges’ appointment through a commission contained in the Charter of Democracy. There have also been suggestions that the judges’ appointments should be subject to public hearings. However, in view of the lack of any tradition of a serious, responsible and disciplined discourse this idea cannot be recommended in Pakistan.
There remains a broader question of the judge’s social orientation that can no longer be ignored. The judiciary in most countries belongs to the conservative stock and is seldom found in harmony with the democratic and egalitarian aspirations of the masses, particularly in a developing society. The difficulties the judiciary in Pakistan faces in doing justice to the weaker sections of society — women, non-Muslim citizens and workers — have sometimes been admitted by high judicial authorities themselves. If Pakistan is to be a democratic, welfare state all its organs, the judiciary included, must be geared to the realisation of these objectives.
This debate is not peculiar to Pakistan. The British judiciary took decades to grow out of the shadows of the conservative nobility. When Mr Churchill chose a Tory MP to succeed Sir Maurice McGuire as the chief justice of the federal court of India the outgoing chief justice vehemently protested at the passing over of competent Indians who understood the people better, including Ch. Zafrulla. In the United States the Republican presidents’ bids to pack the supreme court with conservative judges and the Democrats’ efforts to put liberals on the bench have often led to spectacular contests.
This emphasis on the judge’s disposition does not conflict with the principles of competence and integrity. The conservatives and liberals both are supposed to be competent persons of integrity and both can fairly interpret the constitution and the law. It is while interpreting the law that they fall into the locally recognised categories of judges who are inclined always to justify the state’s actions and those that are inclined to give relief to the victims of state’s oppression.
Thus, it is time to start assessing candidates/nominees for judges’ offices not only on the basis of competence and integrity but also on the basis of their record in relation to the rights of the disadvantaged — especially women, minorities, workers and the poor generally. Justice will be better served if those chosen to dispense it are sensitive to the disadvantaged people’s rights to equity and fair play.
Source: Dawn
Alleged Demand For The Trial of NRO Creators.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/alleged-demand-for-trial-of-nro.html
NRO maker should also be penalised: Justice Raza – ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan on Wednesday added his note to the detailed judgment on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). The detailed verdict was announced on Tuesday, which was authored by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and contained two additional notes of Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Ahmed and Justice Jawad S Khawja, while the third note was added on Wednesday. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, in his four-page note, said the maker of the ordinance should also be brought to accountability. “What about the beneficiary who clearly confessed through the ordinance that many accountability cases were politically motivated, politically indicted, and politically prolonged, obviously as a sword of Damocles?” he raised a question. THE NEWS – Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan who was a member of the 17-judge Supreme Court bench which declared the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) unconstitutional has stressed the need of also punishing the maker of the ordinance for perpetuating corruption and violating the Constitution. “The maker (former president Pervez Musharraf) of the ordinance should also be brought to accountability for perpetuating corruption and for violating the Constitution,” the judge suggested in his additional note that to many appeared to be a dissenting note. “No doubt,” observed Justice Raza in his note which was released on Wednesday, “such beneficiary was not a party to the present petitions but so were the other beneficiaries taken care of in our judgment. “Moreover, this court has, on many occasions, given verdict against persons not party to the proceedings (referring to last year’s July 31 judgment under which several superior court judges who took oath under the PCO but were not party to the petition were fired). All beneficiaries of the NRO, are to be dealt with equally, equitably and without discrimination. If one is proceeded against, the other must also be,” the note emphasised. REFERENCES: NRO maker should also be penalised: Justice Raza Thursday, January 21, 2010 http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26791 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jan2010-daily/21-01-2010/main.htm
Justice Raza stresses need for punishing NRO author By Nasir Iqbal Thursday, 21 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/12-justice-raza-stresses-need-for-punishing-nro-author-110–bi-10
A quick look at the list reveals that majority of the judges got residential plots in Islamabad when they were serving in the high courts. JUDGES: Following are Supreme Court judges who got plots: Justice (retd) Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Justice (retd) Manzoor Hussain Sial, Justice Saad Saud Jan, Justice Fazal Elahi Khan, Justice Abdul Hafeez Memon, Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, Justice Raja Afrasiab Khan, Justice Moahmmad Bashir Jahangiri, Justice Saeeduzzam Siddiqi. Besides, the following judges of the four provincial high courts also got plots.
Justice Dilawar Mahmood (Ministry of Labour), Justice Abdul Karim Khan Kundi (PHC), Justice Mian Ghulam Ahmed (LHC), Justice Agha Saifuddin Khan (SHC), Justice Kazi Hameeduin (PHC), Justice Arif Iqbal Bhatti (LHC), Justice Syed Ibne Ali (PHC), Justice Mohammad Aqil Mirza (LHC), Justice Sheikh Mohammad Zuabir (LHC), Justice Abdul Hafeez Cheema (LHC), Justice Sharif Hussain Bokhari (LHC), Justice Abdul Rehman Khan (LHC), Justice Mohammad Islam Bhatti (LHC), Justice Kamal Mansoor Alam (SHC), Justice Sajjad Ahmed Sipra (LHC), Justice Mahboob Ali Khan (PHC), Justice Ali Mohammad Baloch (SHC), Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq (PHC), Justice (R) Mohamamd Nasim (LHC), Justice Munir A Sheikh (LHC), Justice Fida Mohammad Khan (Federal Sharaiat Court), Justice Tanveer Ahmed Khan (LHC), Justice Amir Alim Khan (LHC), Justice Ehsanul Haq Ch (LHC), Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqi (LHC), Justice Mian Nazir Akthar (LHC), Justice Ahmed Ali Mirza (SHC), Justice Raja Mohammad Sabir (LHC), Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari (LHC), Justice Rashid Aziz Khan (LHC), Justice Munwar Ahmed Mirza (BHC), Justice Bhagwandas (SHC), Justice Mohammad Nawaz Marri (BHC), Justice Nawaz Khan Gandapur (PHC), Justice Nawaz Abbasi (LHC), Justice Falaksher (LHC), Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar (SHC), Justice Khailur Rehman Ramday, Justice Malik Qayyum (LHC), Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza (PHC), Justice Amir Mulk Mengal (BHC), Justice Chaudhry Iftikhar Hussain (LHC), Justice Mohammad Khursheed Khan (Chief Court Northern Areas) and Justice Mohammad Khial (Ombudsman office) also got plots in the federal capital.
JOURNALISTS: Sohail Ilyas, Mujeebur Rehman Shami, Abdul Ghani Ch, Zia Shahid, Rukhsana Saulat Saleem, Mohammad Anwar Khalil, Abdul Wadood Qureshi, Mian Ghaffar Ahmed, Rana Tahir Mahmood, Malik Abdul Rehman Hur, Nadeem Fazil Khan, Hamad Raza Shami, Farooq Ahmed, Rana Assar Ali Chohan, Azeem Chaudhry, Aslam Khan, Mohammad Naeem Chaudhry, Mohammad Aniq Zafar, Abdul Saeed Khan Qamar, Mohammad Dilshaad Khan, Naveed Miraj, Tahir Masood Ikram, Sultan Mohammad Sabir, Saghir Khalid, Mazhar Barlas, Maqbool Elahi Malik, Mohammad Arshad Yousuf, Javed Iqbal Qureshi, Haroon Rashid, Malik Shakeelur Rehman Hur, Wajid Rasool, Ashfaq Ahmed, Mohammad Zahid Jhangvi, Tahir Khalil, Khalid Azeem Ch, Mian Khursheeduzaman, Abdul Mohi Shah, Hilal Ahmed, Khalid Sial, Amir Iyas Rana, Zamir Hussain Shah, Aziz Ahmed Alvi, Ahmed Hussain, Rafaqat Ali, Syed Najamul Islam Rizvi, Mohsin Raza Khan, Irfan Ahmed Qureshi, Syed Ibrar Hussain Shah Kunwal, Nasir Aslam Raja, Mohammad Arshad, Ch Iylas Mohammad, Ghazanfar Ali Zaidi, Fazeela Gul, Iftikar Shakeel, Syed Ejaz Shah, Mohammad Ayub Nasir, Mohammad Saleem and Tariq Aziz. REFERENCES: New list of plot beneficiaries presented in Senate Saturday, January 16, 2010 By our correspondent
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=219055 Journalist and Plots, read page 4 of Daily Jang Friday, January 15, 2010, Muharram 28, 1431 A.H
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jan2010-daily/15-01-2010/main4.htm The News Senate gets list of judges, bureaucrats who got two plots each Friday, January 15, 2010 By Rauf Klasra http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=218849
ISLAMABAD: There were at least a dozen principal players, who had roles in clinching the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) that was issued hours before the 2007 presidential polls in which Pervez Musharraf was re-elected. Apart from the then desperate and cornered Musharraf, Lt-Gen (retd) Hamid Javed, Tariq Aziz, Farooq H Naek, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Rehman Malik, Safdar Abbasi, the then Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt-Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi played varying roles, an aide of the then president told The News on condition of anonymity. He said that these actors gave their inputs at different stages in the process of finalising the NRO. The controversial NRO is now before parliament for a final decision about its fate. Petitions are also pending in the Supreme Court. As the story narrated by the former Musharraf aide, who opted to be in the background since his ouster, the substantive talks about quashing corruption and criminal cases against Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari and a multitude of others were held when Musharraf met the Pakistan Peopleís Party (PPP) chairperson for the first time in Abu Dhabi in July 2007. The meeting followed a hectic campaign by senior American and British officials to bring about a rapprochement between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto and intense talks between Hamid Javed with Benazir Bhutto and her confidants in London. As Musharraf sought PPPís support in his October 2007 re-election, Benazir Bhutto expressed willingness, by boycotting the polls, but demanded two things in exchange ñ undoing of the embargo on her to serve as prime minister for the third term and all corruption and criminal cases registered in Pakistan and abroad against her, Zardari and others. REFERENCE: The many other players of NRO saga Thursday, October 22, 2009 By Tariq Butt http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=204448
“QUOTE”
Musharraf recalls in his memoir, “In the Line of Fire.” Within months Kiyani had unraveled the two plots and arrested most of the participants. He was rewarded in 2004 with a promotion to chief of ISI, and the next year his agency scored big with the arrest of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the senior Qaeda lieutenant who masterminded the attempts on Musharraf’s life. A former U.S. intelligence official who dealt personally with Kiyani says the ISI “took a lot of bad guys down” under his leadership. Kiyani has earned his boss’s confidence, even serving as Musharraf’s personal envoy in recent talks with exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. REFERENCE: The Next Musharraf – A Westernized, chain-smoking spy could soon become the most powerful man in Pakistan. By Ron Moreau and Zahid Hussain NEWSWEEK From the magazine issue dated Oct 8, 2007 http://www.newsweek.com/id/41883
“UNQUOTE”
A good advice for all and sundry is conveyed in an Editorial of Daily Dawn Dated 08-Mar-2008.
“Quote”
Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani announced on Thursday his institution’s complete support for the elected government and the democratic process. However, he called for avoiding schism between various pillars of the state and dispelled a perception that the army was distancing itself from the president. Alluding to a perception about ‘the army distancing itself from the president’, he stressed the importance of the constitutional relationship between the army and the National Command Structure. Highlighting the need for understanding, he pointed out that any kind of schism, at any level, under the circumstances would not be in the larger interest of the nation.” REFERENCE: ‘Army not distancing itself from president’: Gen Kayani announces support for elected govt By Iftikhar A. Khan March 07, 2008 Friday Safar 28, 1429 http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/07/top2.htm
THERE is something unmistakably oxymoronic about the statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations directorate after the corps commanders meeting at the GHQ on Thursday. If you read the subtext, it means that though the army will support the next democratic government, the latter should not let “schisms” develop in the working of the political system; though the army will keep its distance from politics, the impression that it has distanced itself from the president is wrong; and, finally, the army should not be “dragged” into politics and be allowed to concentrate on its professional duties. There can be no two opinions on the last-mentioned wish attributed to Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. However, the ISPR does not tell us who or what prompted this reaction from Gen Kayani. If the army wishes to stay out of politics then why come out with an opinion on matters purely political and constitutionally beyond the pale for generals? Pray, who is stopping the armed forces from going back to their professional duties, from returning to the barracks? Pakistan has had eight years during which the military’s running of affairs well outside its designated area of responsibility has wreaked havoc on the country. One man who led the military and the country called all the shots. Pakistan slipped deeper and deeper into anarchy, with even the economic windfall from Islamabad’s readiness to join the US-led war on terror failing to brake this slide. Little wonder then that all state institutions, including the army, received a pat on the back for organising a by and large fair (on the day at least) election on Feb 18. A tense, tentative nation heaved a sigh of relief for the result was not disputed and the country spared the turmoil which could have imperilled its very existence. The nation has spoken. Let its voice be heard. If the elected parliament wants to undo the tampering the constitution was subjected to by the former chief of army staff so be it. It is time the generals sought a complete break from the divisive role their erstwhile army chief ended up playing. It should resolutely resist being “dragged” into politics. It should be left to the parliament to sort out any “schisms” that may develop. The army should help the civilian government tackle the daunting challenges posed by the scourge of religious extremism and terrorism. One would caution General Kayani against opting for any role for himself other than that of the army chief. His is a full-time job and so much needs to be done to restore the fighting edge to the military and the morale of the soldiers. Known as a ‘thinking’ man, one hopes that he’ll not be tempted by talk of power troikas for the consequences of choosing such a path are disastrous. REFERENCE: Reading the subtext March 08, 2008 Saturday Safar 29, 1429
http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/08/ed.htm#1
“QUOTE”
How is it that those behind the deal-making based on this unconstitutional and illegal ordinance were not named and shamed/charged outright? Indeed, as reported widely at the time, the present chief of army staff was the DG ISI when the final draft of the NRO was being presented to Benazir in Dubai and was part of Musharraf’s team sent to convince her. REFERENCE: Let us be grateful for small mercies By Kamran Shafi Tuesday, 22 Dec, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/let-us-be-grateful-for-small-mercies-229
Read ANOTHER ROCKET.
Interestingly, General Kayani was the only senior officer present with President Pervez Musharraf when he had the historic meeting with Benazir Bhutto at the Musharraf palace in the suburbs of Abu Dhabi in July this year. Then he was the director general inter-services intelligence (ISI). General Kayani also took part in the interactions and deliberations with different political leaders, including Benazir Bhutto, for quite sometime till his promotion as the four-star general. The meeting at the Presidency was also attended by the prime intelligence agencies and other heads of the law-enforcement agencies. The initial report that was submitted to the high-level meeting disclosed that Benazir Bhutto was hit by the ball bearings of the suicide bomber’s jacket that hit and cut her jugular vain. REFERENCE: It was not a bullet, president told at high-level meeting Friday, December 28, 2007 http://www.thenews.com.pk/print3.asp?id=11928
Here’s what I wrote two years ago: “By now, the dynamics set in place by America seem immutable: what Washingtonwants, it gets. Never mind about the people of Pakistan and what they wanted. Benazir Bhutto made Washington her second home this summer. And it paid off. The State Department turned a brokerage house facilitating political deals between Bhutto and the Pakistan Army led by General Musharraf’s heir-in-chief, General Kayani. The broker, that is America, stands to reap huge dividends… Secretary of State Rice admitted that America was pressing General Musharraf “very hard” to allow for free and fair elections. When asked if Benazir Bhutto had a role in the future political setup, she answered, “Well, I don’t see why not”. When asked how the corruption cases against Benazir Bhutto would play into the new equation, Condi Rice deflected it by going off on a tangent: “There needs to be a contested parliamentary system, but whether or not she is able to overcome that and whether Pakistanis are willing to allow that is really up to them.” The reason for her gobbledygook response is now as clear as the blue sky. Washington was working around the clock to get Musharraf to pass an ordinance providing amnesty to Bhutto for her alleged corruption. And Ms Rice was the one pushing the general to go for it.” REFERENCE: Last tango in Washington — II Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Anjum Niaz http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=205482
Pakistan’s cadre of elite generals, called the corps commanders, have long been kingmakers inside the country. At the top of that cadre is Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, General Musharrafís designated successor as Army chief. General Kayani is a moderate, pro-American infantry commander who is widely seen as commanding respect within the Army and, within Western circles, as a potential alternative to General Musharraf. General Kayani and other military leaders are widely believed to be eager to pull the Army out of politics and focus its attention purely on securing the country. REFERENCE: If Musharraf falls… Friday, November 16, 2007 US making contingency plans http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=11176
A former U.S. intelligence official who dealt personally with Kiyani says the ISI “took a lot of bad guys down” under his leadership. Kiyani has earned his boss’s confidence, even serving as Musharraf’s personal envoy in recent talks with exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. REFERENCE: The Next Musharraf A Westernized, chain-smoking spy could soon become the most powerful man in Pakistan. By Ron Moreau and Zahid Hussain NEWSWEEK From the magazine issue dated Oct 8, 2007 http://www.newsweek.com/id/41883
“UNQUOTE”
Some Dark Pages from the Recent History of Pakistan and these pages were drowned in the storm of the so-called Judicial Activism????
Right after the resignation of General Musharraf from the Post of the President of Pakistan, Mr. Athar Minallah the Chief Spokesman of the then defunct Defunct Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary in Private Pakistani TV Channel [AAJ], 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 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. 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.
“QUOTE”
The crackdown, announced late Saturday night after General Musharraf suspended the Constitution, was clearly aimed at preventing public demonstrations that political parties and lawyers were organizing for Monday. “They are showing zero tolerance for protest,” said Athar Minallah, a lawyer, and a former minister in the Musharraf government. REFERENCE: Musharraf Consolidates His Control With Arrests By JANE PERLEZ Published: November 4, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04cnd-pakistan.html?_r=1&hp
Asif Zardari, husband of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has waited for more than 5 years for the start of his trial on charges of killing his brother-in-law, Murtaza Bhutto in 1997. In April 1999, Zardari was tried and convicted separately on corruption charges. In December 2001 Zardari received bail but was not released; the NAB ordered his continued detention on suspicion of corruption. Despite government claims that NAB cases would be pursued independent of an individual?s political affiliation, NAB has taken a selective approach to anti-corruption efforts (see Section 1.d.). The Musharraf Government in 1999 created by ordinance the NAB and special accountability courts to try corruption cases (see Section 1.d.). The NAB was created in part to deal with as much as $4 billion (PKR 208 billion) that was estimated to be owed to the country’s banks (all of which were state-owned at the time; several have since been privatized) by debtors, primarily from among the wealthy elite. The Musharraf Government stated that it would not target genuine business failures or small defaulters and does not appear to have done so. The NAB was given broad powers to prosecute corruption cases, and the accountability courts were expected to try such cases within 30 days. As originally promulgated, the ordinance prohibited courts from granting bail and gave the NAB chairman sole power to decide if and when to release detainees. The ordinance also allowed those suspected by the State Bank of Pakistan of defaulting on government loans or of corrupt practices to be detained for 15 days without charge (renewable with judicial concurrence) and, prior to being charged, did not allow access to counsel. In accountability cases, there was a presumption of guilt, and conviction under the ordinance can result in 14 years’ imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of property. Those convicted also originally were disqualified from running for office or holding office for 10 years. In August 2000, the Government announced that persons with a court conviction would be barred from holding party office. This provision was used during the general election to prevent certain candidates from entering the contest. REFERENCE: Pakistan Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 2002 March 31, 2003 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18314.htm
Pakistan
National Level: The Musharraf Government in 1999 created by Ordinance the NAB (National Accountability Bureau) and special accountability courts to try exclusively corruption cases. These Courts are part of the national judicial system and operate under the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Pakistan. For up-to-date statistics on the number and type of cases files, convicted and acquitted, please refer to the Appendix. The NAB was created in part to deal with as much as $4 billion (PKR 208 billion) that was estimated to be owed to the country’s banks (all of which were state-owned at the time; several have since been privatized) by debtors, primarily from among the wealthy elite. The Musharraf Government stated that it would not target genuine business failures or small defaulters and does not appear to have done so. The NAB was given broad powers to prosecute corruption cases, and the accountability courts were expected to try such cases within 30 days. As originally promulgated, the ordinance prohibited courts from granting bail and gave the NAB chairman sole power to decide if and when to release detainees. The ordinance also allowed those suspected by the State Bank of Pakistan of defaulting on government loans or of corrupt practices to be detained for 15 days without charge (renewable with judicial concurrence) and, prior to being charged, did not allow access to counsel. In accountability cases, there was a presumption of guilt, and conviction under the ordinance can result in 14 years’ imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of property. Originally, those convicted were set to disqualify from running for office or holding office for 10 years. In August 2000, the Government announced that persons with a court conviction would be barred from holding party office. This provision was applied during the general election to prevent certain candidates from entering the contest. REFERENCE: I. Special Corruption Courts in Asia http://www.u4.no/helpdesk/helpdesk/queries/query19.cfm
The new government’s principal vehicle for detaining former officials and party leaders, however, was the National Accountability Ordinance, a law ostensibly created to bring corrupt officials to account. The ordinance confers sweeping powers of arrest, investigation, and prosecution in a single institution, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and permits detainees to be held for up to ninety days without being brought before a court. The law was later amended to facilitate conviction by shifting the burden of proof during trial from the prosecution to the defense. There were persistent reports of ill treatment in NAB custody, particularly in the case of high profile detainees who were held early in the year in Attock Fort. Persons convicted under the ordinance were prohibited from holding public office for a period of twenty-one years. An amendment to the Political Parties Act in August also barred anyone with a court conviction from holding party office. The combined effect of these acts, as they were applied, was to eliminate the existing leadership of the major political parties. While administration officials said that parties would be allowed to participate in future elections to the Senate and national and provincial assemblies, local government elections, scheduled to be held in December, were to be conducted on a non-party basis.
The Musharraf government also suppressed political activity by conducting raids on party offices, preventing political rallies from being held, and lodging criminal cases against rally organizers under laws governing sedition and the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance. The sedition law, Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, criminalizes speech that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Central or Provincial Government established by law.” Section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance prohibits speech that “causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public” or any section thereof, or which “furthers or is likely to further any activity prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order.” Rana Sanaullah Khan, a member of the suspended Punjab provincial assembly from Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML), was arrested in Faisalabad on November 28, 1999. The arrest came after he criticized the army at a meeting of former legislators and urged his colleagues to launch a protest movement against the military government. He was tortured while in custody, and criminal charges were registered against him under the sedition law and MPO.
On March 15, the government formally curtailed freedom of association and assembly with an order banning public rallies, demonstrations, and strikes. The order’s enforcement against a procession from Lahore to Peshawar that Nawaz Sharif’s wife, Kulsoom Nawaz, had planned to lead, resulted in the arrests of at least 165 PML leaders and activists. On September 21 the ban was also invoked against 250 members of the hardline Sunni Muslim group, Sipah-e-Sahaba, who had planned a march to celebrate a religious anniversary. REFERENCE: Human Rights Developments http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k1/asia/pakistan.html
General Pervez Musharraf, Former Martial Law Administrator and President of Pakistan – [1999 – 2008] Alleged Trial of General Pervez Musharraf!
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/07/alleged-trial-of-general-pervez.html
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THE ARTICLE 6 OF 1973 CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN WHILE READING ABOUT THE COLLABORATORS AND ABETTORS IN 12 OCT 1999 MILITARY MUTINY
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
====================
An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.
As per two leading National Newspapers of Pakistan:
In his petition, the senator, on whose petition the Supreme Court had earlier validated the Oct 12, 1999, military coup by Gen Musharraf, also challenged a provision in Section 3 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973, which required the federal government to move a reference for any proceedings under high treason and said this provision was against Article 6 of the Constitution, which does not demand such condition. The petition also asked whether former army chief (Gen Musharraf) did not commit breach of his constitutional oath through his Oct 12, 1999, military coup in disregard of the Constitution and, if faith and allegiance to Pakistan means upholding the Constitution which embodies the will of the people, does it not amount to treason. SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/sc-moved-against-musharraf-pmln-disowns-zafars-plea-389
The armed forces, the petition alleged, were not only ridiculed but insulted by exploiting them only for personal gains. They were made to climb the wall of the prime minister’s house on Oct 12 and used to maintain Gen Musharraf in his extra-constitutional usurpation of power, the petition alleged. To relinquish the office of Chief Executive in accordance with the Supreme Court’s May 12, 2000 judgment, means that Gen Musharraf should have surrendered the command of the armed forces to the then Prime Minister, Mir Zafraullah Khan Jamali, after holding the general elections, but by not doing so, Gen Musharraf disobeyed and violated the order of the apex court, the petition contended. SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/sc-moved-against-musharraf-pmln-disowns-zafars-plea-389
Sayed Zafar Ali Shah submitted that General (R) Pervez Musharraf used force against the elected prime minister, overturned the entire political and democratic system, he acted against the integrity and security of the country and was liable to be punished under Article 6 of the constitution of 1973 read with Section 2 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973. SC moved for Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 By Sohail Khan dated Sunday, August 23, 2009 http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24034
A BLAST FROM THE PAST: PAKISTANI JUDICIARY SUPPORTED 12 OCT 1999 MUTINY OF PAKISTAN ARMY
Courtesy: Mr Wusatullah Khan, Correspondent BBC, فوجی بغاوت کے دس سال
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2009/10/091012_mm_12_oct_nine_years.shtml
“QUOTE”
As per learned and respected Mr. Ayaz Amir (Member National Assembly – Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz),
“Historic”, we are being told — and told without end — is what the judgment of their Supreme Court lordships is. General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s Nov 3, 2007, action has been declared “unconstitutional” and “civil society” is ecstatic, some of our wilder drumbeaters assuring us that the doors on military interventionism have been closed forever. Ah, if wishes were horses.
The Supreme Court judgment not so much revises history as cuts it up, wrapping it in neat packages. For it declares only one action of Musharraf’s unconstitutional — his Nov 3 Emergency, which came at the fag end of his rule. The inescapable conclusion we are left with is that everything else the man did fell within the ambit of the Constitution. Now what was Musharraf’s original sin from which flowed everything else? Why, his coup d’état of Oct 12, 1999, when his generals overthrew an elected government, disbanded the National Assembly, put the Constitution into cold storage and imprisoned not only the then prime minister but his closest colleagues and even members of his family. Just as Adam ate the apple he wasn’t supposed to touch and as a consequences was expelled from Paradise, the apple which Musharraf plucked and put into his mouth was on the fateful evening of Oct 12, all those years ago, when he was in the air on a flight from Sri Lanka, while his generals — chief among them Usmani, Aziz and Mahmood — went about the removal of the elected government. That was the mother of all sins. So how strange and dripping with irony this omission: about that seminal event, which set in train all the sorrows the nation was to reap thereafter, their lordships in their “historic” judgment have nothing to say.
For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections. So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures. Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water. REFERENCE: Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Islamabad diary by Ayaz Amir Dated Friday, August 07, 2009 http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=191800
Public memory anywhere is short-lived. In Pakistan it is also steered by the shortsightedness of those who insist on erasing it from the record altogether. The transition to democracy is hardly a fait accompli as we speak. Democratic institutions weakened by Gen Musharraf’s tinkering with the constitution are far from being stable entities today. While anyone in their right mind must blame the general for the mess at hand, the judiciary should also show the moral courage to shoulder its part of the blame. The fact that it was the Supreme Court headed by the same honourable chief justice which gave Gen Musharraf the right to amend the constitution single-handedly in May 2000 cannot be overlooked. This was far more than what the then chief executive had expected to get from the apex court; he had just sought indemnity for the circumstances under which the Oct 12, 1999 coup took place. The general himself did not stage the coup from mid-air, aboard a PIA commercial flight which was not even in Pakistani airspace when the 111 Brigade struck to depose the prime minister. Reference: Why Musharraf alone? By Murtaza Razvi Thursday, 30 Jul, 2009 08:27 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/16-why-musharraf-alone-hs-04
====
RECENT HISTORY OF THE CONNIVANCE OF PAKISTANI JUDICIARY I.E. THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF JUDICIARY AND MILITARY JUNTA FROM 1999 – 2007
Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chief Imran Khan has hailed the SC verdict on the Oct 12 change and said that it will provide the present government with an element of legitimacy. Mr Khan said the government should start the implementation of the seven-point agenda. He said it should give priority to the accountability process. It should declare casting of vote mandatory for every voter and undertake other needed electoral reforms to discourage the election of corrupt elements for parliamentary slots. He said the government should also set a limit for election expenditure.
In a Press statement issued on Friday, he said after the announcement of the SC verdict the government would no longer be able to give lame excuses to the people who were waiting for positive results. He said the government should have got a vote of public confidence directly through a referendum soon after the takeover. But now the regime should fulfil its promises without any delay and work in accordance with public expectations as it has been provided a period of three years for this purpose by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Reference: PML accepts SC verdict: Shujaat Reporter
13 May 2000 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/may13.html#pmla
On PCO Judiciary I will just quote Daily Newspapers. One of the wonders of Internet is this that the History can no more be kept hidden.
1 – Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report [Daily Dawn Feb 2000]
ISLAMABAD, Feb 2: The government elevated five judges to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. According to a notification, the president has appointed Justice Rashid Aziz, Chief Justice, Lahore High Court; Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Chief Justice Sindh High Court; Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice, Balochistan High Court; Qazi Farooq, former chief justice of Peshawar High Court; and Justice Rana Bhagwan Das, judge, Sindh High Court, judges of the Supreme Court. After the elevation of Justice Rashid Aziz Khan to the SC, Justice Mohammad Allah Nawaz has been appointed Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah has been appointed Chief Justice of Sindh High Court and Justice Javed Iqbal Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court. After these appointments, the number of SC judges has risen to 12, leaving five posts vacant. Reference: Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/05feb00.html#five
2 – Chaudhry Iftikhar named new CJ [Daily Dawn 2005]
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, May 7: President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday appointed Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court, as the next chief justice. He will assume the office on June 30 after retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, on June 29. “The notification has ended speculations of appointment of a junior judge as chief justice in violation of the seniority principle settled under the 1996 Judges case,” commented a senior Supreme Court lawyer on condition of anonymity. Justice Chaudhry will reach the superannuation age of 65 years in 2012, which will make him one of the longest serving chief justices in the judicial history of Pakistan. He will serve as chief justice for over seven years. Earlier Justice A. R. Cornelius and Justice Mohammad Haleem served as chief justice for eight years from 1960 to 68 and 1981 to 89, respectively. Justice Chaudhry was elevated as a judge of the apex court on February 4, 2000. He has performed as acting chief justice from January 17 to 29, 2005. He holds the degree of LLB and started practice as an advocate in 1974. Later he was enrolled as an advocate of high court in 1976 and as an advocate of Supreme Court in 1985.
In 1989, Justice Chaudhry was appointed as advocate-general of Balochistan and elevated to the post of additional judge in the Balochistan High Court in 1990. He also served as banking judge, judge of Special Court for Speedy Trials and Customs Appellate Courts as well as company judge. He served as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court from April 22, 1999 to February 4, 2000. He was elected the president of the High Court Bar Association, Quetta, and twice a member of the Bar Council. He was appointed as the chairman of the Balochistan Local Council Election Authority in 1992 and for a second term in 1998. Justice Chaudhry also worked as the chairman of the Provincial Review Board for Balochistan and was appointed twice as the chairman of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society, Balochistan. Presently he is functioning as the chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court Buildings Committee. Reference: Caudhry Iftikhar named new CJ By Our Staff Reporter May 8, 2005 Sunday Rabi-ul-Awwal 28, 1426 http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/08/top4.htm
“UNQUOTE”
General Pervez Musharraf, Former Martial Law Administrator and President of Pakistan – [1999 – 2008] Alleged Trial of General Pervez Musharraf!
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/07/alleged-trial-of-general-pervez.html
CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF 12 OCTOBER 1999
One will be amazed to know that General Musharraf wasn’t physically involved [he was in the air riding airplane with then Brigadier Nadeem Taj who is now Lt General Nadeem Taj]in Occupying his own country and people but following characters were thoroughly involved in 12 Oct 1999 Military Mutiny against the Elected Government of 160 Million Pakistanis:
General [Now Retd] Aziz Khan.
General [Now Retd and in Deviant i.e. Gumrah Tableeghi Jamat] Mahmud Ahmed who later sold Pakistan to the USA when he was ISI Chief during 2001 when he literally pissed in his pants when Richard Armitage tharshed him. He used to torture Nawaz Sharif physically with the help of General Ali Jan Orakzi when after 12 Oct 1999 Nawaz was detained in Attock Fort. But Mahmood couldn’t sustain American Threat which he supposed to resist being an ISI Chief.
General [Now Retd] Javed Hasan. [Kargil Fiasco]
General [Now Retd and in PPP] Tauqir Zia. [Kargil Fiasco] DETAILS:
Shaheen Sehbai, Ansar Abbasi and Ahmed Quraishi – 2 http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/01/shaheen-sehbai-ansar-abbasi-and-ahmed_16.html
Munawar Hassan, Jamat-e-Islami, Nawaz Sharif and US Agenda http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/04/munawar-hassan-jamat-e-islami-nawaz.html
General [Now Retd] Rafiullah Khan. [Former Director General of IB under General Musharraf]
And last but least MMA [Jamat-e-Islami and JUI] who LEGALIZED General Musharraf’s MARTIAL LAW, HIS UNIFROM AND EVERY ILLEGAL STEP HE TOOK, through LFO i.e 17 Constitutional amendment and obviously MQM also cooperated in that.
=================================================
General [Retd] Parvez Musharraf didn’t take over the Government on 12 Oct 1999. Correct and Recheck your facts again. Court Proceedings says something entirely different version which is quite oppostie to Popular Version. By the way The Demented Pervert Head Honcho of Ex Servicemen Society Lt General Retd. Hamid Gul appreciated 12 Oct 1999 Martial Law against Nawaz Sharif and guess what that is recorded by BBC. Generals [now Retd] Mahmood, Aziz Khan, Tauqir Zia, Ali Jan Orakzai, Rafiullah, and Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani were the physically involved in 12 Oct 1999 Coup.
Pakistan coup ‘unplanned’ Friday, 11 February, 2000, 13:44 GMT
Gen Musharraf ‘did not know he was sacked’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/638970.stm
Pakistan’s military ruler General Musharraf did not plan last October’s coup in advance, according to evidence given at the trial of ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Brigadier Nadeem Taj, a private secretary to General Musharraf, was giving evidence for the prosecution about events on 12 October, when a plane carrying General Musharraf was alleged to have been prevented from landing in the country. Mr Sharif’s brother, Shahbaz, and five others, are being tried on charges of hijacking, attempted murder and terrorism.
“It is not true that the coup was prearranged [Brigadier Nadeem Taj]”
Brigadier Taj said that at no time was General Musharraf aware that he had been sacked by Mr Sharif, or of the army’s move to take control in response. “It is not true that the coup was prearranged,” he said. He said he only became aware of it when the army took over the control tower at Karachi airport and contacted General Musharraf through air traffic control.
‘Confusion’
Describing events on board the plane, Brigadier Taj said that when they were told by the pilot that he had been refused permission to land at Karachi airport, General Musharraf told them to keep the news from the other passengers in order to avoid creating panic. They had discussed with the pilot the possibility of landing in Ahmedabad in neighbouring India. However, that was rejected by General Musharraf on safety grounds. “The pilot was in a state of confusion. The situation was getting grim, tense and disappointing by the minute,” said Brigadier Taj. He also denied that General Musharraf was in control of the plane.
“It is also not true that after 7 pm [local time] I and the chief of the army staff were controlling the plane and not allowing the pilot to land,” he said.
The brigadier was the only witness to testify on Friday.
So far, more than 15 witnesses have given evidence since the trial began more than two weeks ago. Many of them have described the ousted prime minister as the main player in the events of 12 October. Mr Sharif and the other accused have all pleaded their innocence. If found guilty, they could face the death penalty.
GENERAL HAMID GUL SUUPPORTED THE MILITARY MUTINY OF 12 OCT 1999
General Hamid Gul: “The army acted in the national interest” [LISTEN]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/473297.stm
Pakistan’s coup: The 17-hour victory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/475195.stm
It took Pakistan’s military only 17 hours to carry out a devastating military coup.
But it could have unravelled in less than an hour as the man at the centre of the overthrow sat in a plane circling above Karachi, battling to land before the plane ran out of fuel.
But Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s failure to stop General Pervez Musharraf from uniting the army showed how well prepared the military had been to defend their high command and take on the civilian government.
Conspiracy in Islamabad
Events began on Tuesday when General Musharraf, on an official visit to Sri Lanka, received intelligence that tension between the prime minister and himself had finally reached a head. Mr Sharif and intelligence chief General Ziauddin, secretly meeting in Islamabad, were to move against him that very day.
The sacking would be presented as a “retirement” and General Ziauddin would step into the most powerful job in the Pakistani military.
Acting immediately, General Musharraf dashed for the Karachi-bound Pakistan International Airlines PK805 flight from Colombo, leaving at 1545 local time.
Back in Islamabad, chief of the general staff Lieutenant-General Mohammed Aziz, and head of the 10th Corps Lieutenant-General Mahmood Ahmed, began plans to mobilise troops stationed in nearby Rawalpindi.
Sharif makes his move.
Nawaz Sharif formally appointed General Ziauddin at his official residence at 1540 that afternoon.
But it is believed that it was at this stage they realised that events may not be going to plan.
The English-language The News newspaper reports that within 30 minutes General Ziauddin had failed to find a single senior officer prepared to accept his command.
Suspecting that General Aziz and Ahmed had already set events in train, Mr Sharif and General Ziauddin realised that they had to prevent General Musharraf from returning. They had less than 200 minutes to stop the plane landing.
General Ziauddin reportedly told the prime minister that he could take control of the army if the flight was prevented from reaching Karachi.
Mr Sharif agreed to the high-stakes plan and at about 1600, his staff officially announced General Musharraf’s retirement.
It was all the excuse the army high command needed and an hour later troops from 111 Brigade of the 10th Corps were on their way to Islamabad.
Counter attack
The next 90 minutes changed the future of Pakistan. As troops poured onto the streets of the capital, the 111 Brigade stormed the state television station in Islamabad, watched by international correspondents who had gathered outside.
Inside, officers were heard shouting “take it off! take it off!” and minutes later Pakistani families saw the television picture cut as the signal was shut down.
Elsewhere, troops disarmed security guards protecting Mr Sharif’s residence. With the odds already heavily in their favour, the generals entered the home.
In an interview with the BBC, Mr Sharif’s son Hasan, a student in London, told what his relatives had recounted to him.
“My father was about to leave to address the nation,” he said. “At that moment he was placed under house arrest.
“The generals and commanders asked for his resignation and that he should take back all the orders to sack the army chief of staff.
“Obviously, he rejected both the idea of resignation and taking back his orders.”
Faced with the prime minister’s refusal to accept the coup, the officers reportedly escorted him from the building and placed him in a guest house near to the airport.
One report also suggests that troops in the Sharif home town of Lahore prevented other members of his family fleeing to Kuwait.
Soldiers fanned out across the nation, taking control of administrative buildings in every province and placing Sharif loyalists and the cabinet under house arrest.
But one man was still needed to complete the coup, and he was still in the air.
Stand-off over Karachi.
General Musharraf approached Karachi airport at about 1830.
But as the army were busy cutting telephone lines, air traffic control refused the plane, holding some 200 passengers, permission to land.
According to the charges now laid against Nawaz Sharif, air traffic controllers ordered the flight to Nawabshah in the Sindh province where, it is believed, the prime minister had despatched his own jet and security team to take the general into custody.
Smelling a rat, Musharraf apparently ordered the pilot to ignore the order and continue to circle Karachi, despite the fact that fuel was now running low.
The general is said to have personally spoken with air traffic controllers, demanding the right to land, saying that they did not have enough fuel to go elsewhere.
The controllers initially refused but as soldiers surrounded the control tower they thought again and General Musharraf finally reached home soil more than hour late at 1947. Gen Musharraf has since said that the plane had only seven minutes of fuel remaining.
After the general whisked though the airport, officers across the nation reported in a hastily prepared operational command conference that the coup was virtually complete.
They controled the TV stations, administrative buildings, the power and communications infrastructure – and had the entire cabinet under guard.
Musharraf addresses the nation
At 2215 the army restored television broadcasts.
Fifteen minutes later, a terse announcement ran across the bottom of the screen stating that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had been dismissed.
The continuity announcer later added that General Pervez Musharraf, who had spent a tense 200 minutes in the air, would address the nation.
As his prerecorded statement was broadcast for the first time at 0250 Wednesday morning, the Sharif era appeared to come to a close.
I am sorry to say that we have been crying our head off of Army’s involvement in politics now we have Judiciary fully involved in politics. God knows what will happen with our country?
Omar Khattab Sahib,
Did you ask I A Rehman for permission to head up his thoughtful article with the lurid headline above? Rehman’s article in “Dawn” has the simple heading “Selection of judges”, which is basically what this article is about. To misuse this article for political purposes by printing it under a headline which slanders the judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is an unworthy act. Such spiteful attacks on one of Pakistan’s great institutions will simply besmirch the name of Pakistan, which is an unpatriotic thing to do.
I did not modify the article. It would have been dishonest of me. But commenting on the nature of the article is every reader’s right. You have called me spiteful based upon my one-line comment. Why can’t I write one line based upon a long article?
Here is yet another example of the ‘integrity’ and ‘morality’ of our holy cows in the Supreme Court of Pakistan:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/13+bureaucrats-and-judges-given-more-than-one-plot-510-za-02
http://criticalppp.com/archives/4960/comment-page-1#comment-1368
Cardio is fine for legs. I have the same problem. Unless you have skinny legs, you should mostly focus on upper body. Cardio is better for you in end anyway. It is easy to lose muscle but takes years to lose built up cardio exercises.