The night when judges could not sleep: An example of the ‘Geo-Judge alliance’ against Pakistan
Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, CEO of Geo TV and Jang Group is a hated name in Pakistan because of his blackmailing tactics and collaboration with the anti-democracy establishment
Geo TV’s rumour mongering
The Supreme Court’s “restraining order” to stop government functionaries from any moves to undermine the judiciary have brought to the fore the unsavoury role being played by a section of the electronic media [i.e., Jang Group (Geo TV, Jang, The News)] in the political arena.
On Thursday, the chief justice of Pakistan felt compelled to call an extraordinary session of the Supreme Court past midnight, acting on rumours spread by a TV anchor (Geo TV anchor: Kamran Khan, reporter: Ansar Abbasi) in his programme that the government plans to de-notify the restored judges who had been sent home after General Musharraf’s imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007.
During yesterday’s hearing, the attorney general tried his best to convince the apex court that no such move was being contemplated by the government. Even the prime minister’s statement that this was a conspiracy to pitch the two institutions against each other was not considered enough. The surprising factor was that the honourable court took the rumours, not backed by any evidence, seriously and acted promptly.
Unfortunately, the media group (Jang Group / Geo TV) from where these rumours originated, through its opinion pieces presented as news items and highly partisan anchors, has time and again attempted to provoke the judiciary to declare the president illegal and dismiss the government. One might recall the September 27 hearing of the NRO verdict implementation, when this channel (Geo TV) stopped its routine transmission and this same anchor started painting a doomsday scenario only to eat his words later when the Supreme Court partially accepted the government’s plea and postponed the NRO verdict implementation hearing for two weeks. The media generally, and this media group in particular, has crossed all limits and ridden roughshod on any and every thing we knew as ‘media ethics’.
There has been tension between the government and the judiciary since the judges’ restoration. If this kind of yellow journalism and rumour mongering is allowed to provoke the august court and create confusion and chaos in society, how can we expect sanity to prevail? Intellectuals and saner elements of society, who care for the future of the country, consider a clash of institutions to be extremely destabilising.
Seeing a section of the media working on an agenda to somehow incite this clash in order to throw out an elected government is disturbing. When already there is so much strain between the government and the judiciary owing to several cases before the court involving the government, this kind of scare mongering is intolerable. Disseminating unsubstantiated claims and calling opinions upon them on the powerful medium of television and manipulating public opinion to accept a certain view is a coup of sorts via the media. If state institutions start reacting to each ‘breaking news’, it might lead to more confusion and chaos than there already is. It is neither in the interests of such media groups, nor in the interests of the institution of journalism nor the country. Whether one likes a particular party or regime or not, weakening the system by inciting a clash of institutions is not in the country’s interest. We are engaged in a belated effort after many years, under a democratic dispensation, to strengthen the institutions of the state and get them to work within the parameters prescribed for them in the constitution. To establish their limits and define their relationships is a work-in-progress. This kind of journalism is definitely not helping that cause.
(Source: Daily Times)
A dramatic day ends in a whimper
By Cyril Almeida
Source: Dawn, 16 Oct, 2010
In a legal sense, nothing changed yesterday between the government and the Supreme Court. But because of a still-unconfirmed report in the electronic media (Geo TV), the judiciary-executive ‘clash’ had just chalked up another, thoroughly unexpected, quite bewildering, round.
ISLAMABAD: It’s now a familiar scene in Courtroom No 1.
The air thick with anticipation and apprehension, the room filled with TV anchors and stars from the legal firmament, everyone with a theory, no one really knowing what will unfold during the latest extraordinary proceedings.
Yesterday, however, there was a new twist: there was no clear legal point at dispute.
The Geo TV reporter who 'broke the news' failed to attend the court because of a 'family wedding'.
Essentially, a report aired late Thursday evening on a private TV news channel was the trigger for 17 judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan assembling on Friday morning to determine if the government may or may not be contemplating the ouster of judges. Good luck trying to explain that in legal terms.
What it was, however, extraordinary and unprecedented, so all anyone in the news pool at the Supreme Court wanted to talk about: was there any truth to the report the government may de-notify the March ’09 order restoring the deposed judges of the Supreme Court?
The reporter who broke the ‘news’ was nowhere to be found in or near the court. The word among fellow court reporters: he had left town overnight for a ‘family wedding’.
Curiously, more than 12 hours after the story first broke, no reporter appeared sure of the veracity or the provenance of the allegations. In the world of political reporting, 12 hours is a lifetime. Even more curiously, some members of a media house known for its ferocious criticism of the government were altogether dismissive of the story.
But all of that was beside the point. The 17 judges of the Supreme Court were clearly agitated, seeing stark parallels between the run-up to the Nov 3, 2007 Emergency and the present day.
Was it fear anchored in fact or mere paranoia? Hard to say.
If there was something unusual about Thursday evening in Islamabad, it was the presence of the Jadoogar of Jeddah, Sharifuddin Pirzada. The legend of the man and his dark arts is so entrenched, his mere presence in certain quarters can send alarm bells ringing.
But whatever caused the panic in the Supreme Court and whether the panic was justified or not, it did produce many odd moments in court yesterday.
One in particular was revealing. The normally restrained Justice Saqib Nisar tore into the mournful and laconic Attorney General, Maulvi Anwarul Haq.
The justice said he wasn’t interested in what the government may or may not be thinking or what it may or may not be planning, he just wanted to know, could — could, not would or should — the government issue a de-notification order to reverse a 14-member Supreme Court bench’s decision on the matter?
The question turned on its head the universally understood relationship between a judiciary and executive: here was the Supreme Court asking the government to give its opinion on a matter of law.
Was it a rhetorical question? No, other justices repeated the demand and Maulvi Mushtaq was dispatched to get an answer from a ‘high constitutional officer’.
When the court reconvened at 12.45pm, perhaps it wasn’t a surprise the Attorney General was left to say the prime minister had been unable to give an answer because he was ‘in a meeting’. A non-legal question had received a political response.
Cue more anguish and anger from the bench.
Eventually, Chief Justice Chaudhry interrupted the outpouring of consternation and unhappiness and began to dictate a long-winded order. His voice unsteady, the chief justice tripped up several times on routine legal and English phraseology. Clearly, it had been a long night.
Outside the court, reporters tried to make sense of what had transpired. Had the court issued a ‘restraining order’ against the government? Was the reference to ‘administrative heads’ an appeal to the army to protect the court?In truth, however, those were not the real stories of the day. The story of the day was that the Electronic Media Age is well and truly upon us.
In a legal sense, nothing changed yesterday between the government and the Supreme Court. But because of a still-unconfirmed report in the electronic media, the judiciary-executive ‘clash’ had just chalked up another, thoroughly unexpected, quite bewildering, round.
ہم سب رحم کے مستحق ہیں
سویرے سویرے…نذیر ناجی
15 اکتوبر کی شب‘ گھر لوٹتے ہی ٹیلیویژن آن کیا‘ تو ہنگامی نشریات دیکھ کر یوں لگا جیسے بغاوت ہو گئی ہے۔ کچھ سمجھ میں نہیں آ رہا تھا کہ اچانک کیا ہوا؟ رپورٹر بتا رہے تھے کہ سپریم کورٹ کے تمام جج صاحبان اچانک رات گئے سپریم کورٹ پہنچے ہیں۔ بیشتر کی کاروں پر پرچم بھی نہیں تھے۔ طرح طرح کی قیاس آرائیاں ہو رہی تھیں۔
مجھے یوں لگا جیسے پاکستانی رواج کے مطابق فوج نے اقتدار پر قبضہ کر لیا ہے اور سپریم کورٹ کے جج صاحبان ہنگامی طور پر جمع ہو کر‘ اپنے عہد کے مطابق یہ طے کررہے ہیں کہ آئین شکنی کرنے والوں کو‘ اس بار کسی قیمت پر تحفظ نہیں دیں گے اور اللہ جانے صورتحال کیا رخ اختیار کر جائے؟ آہستہ آہستہ یہ بات سامنے آئی کہ ایسا کچھ نہیں ہوا۔ کسی ٹی وی اینکر نے مستی کی حالت میں‘ ایک درفنطنی چھوڑ دی کہ وزیراعظم جج حضرات کی بحالی کا ایگزیکٹو آرڈر واپس لینے والے ہیں۔ جس کے بعد بحال ہونے والے تمام جج صاحبان ایگزیکٹو آرڈر سے پہلے کی پوزیشن پر واپس آ جائیں گے۔ گویا جج نہیں رہیں گے۔ یہ افواہ سن کر تمام جج صاحبان ہنگامی طور پر سپریم کورٹ میں جمع ہو رہے ہیں اور صورتحال کا سامنا کرنے پر غور کر رہے ہیں۔
بعد میں پتہ چلا کہ ججز کی بحالی کے نوٹیفکیشن کے معاملے کو تو سپریم کورٹ پہلے ہی طے کر چکی ہے۔ اب اگر ایسا آرڈر آیا بھی‘ تو غیرموثر ہو گا۔ کیونکہ ججوں کی تقرری اور انہیں ہٹانے کے لئے آئین میں درج طریقہ کار کی پابندی لازمی ہو چکی ہے۔ جس پر مجھے مزید حیرت ہوئی۔ جس آرڈر کی افواہ سن کر ملک کی اعلیٰ ترین عدلیہ کے تمام جج صاحبان کو رات گئے جمع ہو کر دو تین گھنٹے کی مشاورت کرنا پڑی‘ آئین کے مطابق وہ آرڈر جاری بھی ہو جاتا‘ تو کوئی فرق پڑنے والا نہیں تھا۔ پھر یہ سب کیوں ہوا؟ عدالت عظمیٰ کا احترام حائل ہے‘ ورنہ ایسی صورتحال پر کالم میں رنگ بھرنے کے لئے ان گنت لطیفے موجود ہیں۔
میں اکثر حیران ہوتا ہوں کہ ہم نے طویل انتظار اور بے شمار دکھ اٹھانے کے بعد‘ جو جمہوریت حاصل کی ہے‘ اس کی یوں بری طرح سے درگت کیوں بنا رہے ہیں؟ اس میں کوئی شک نہیں کہ اس جمہوریت کی بحالی اور اسے چلانے کا فارمولا سب کچھ امریکہ نے تیار کیا تھا۔ پرویزمشرف کو گھیرنے کا تانابانا بھی امریکیوں نے ہی بنا تھا۔ چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان کی برطرفی‘ جسے پرویزمشرف اب خود اپنی غلطی مان چکے ہیں‘ وہ بھی پیدا کردہ حالات کا نتیجہ تھی۔ اس کے بعد جو احتجاجی طوفان کھڑا ہوا‘ اس نے پرویزمشرف کو بے بس کر کے رکھ دیا اور اسے تسلیم شدہ فارمولے کے تحت سب کچھ کرنا پڑا۔ اس فارمولے میں محترمہ بے نظیربھٹو کی شہادت اور پرویزمشرف کا بے وردی ہونا شامل نہیں تھا۔ میں صرف یہ لکھ رہاہوں کہ فارمولے میں شامل نہیں تھا۔ یہ نہیں لکھ رہا کہ امریکی منصوبے میں بھی شامل نہیں تھا۔ بہرحال جمہوری حکومت کے لئے جو ڈھانچہ تیار کر کے ہمیں دیا گیا‘ اس میں اسی طرح کی حکومتیں بننا تھیں‘ جو اس وقت چل رہی ہیں۔ مگر ن لیگ کا وہ طرزعمل فارمولے کا حصہ ہرگز نہیں تھا‘ جو اس نے اختیار کیا اور جس کے تحت پہلے وزیرخزانہ اسحق ڈار نے بیرونی سرمایہ کاروں کے سامنے پاکستان کی ہولناک اقتصادی صورتحال کا نقشہ کھینچ کر انہیں خوفزدہ کر دیا تھا۔
سچی بات یہ ہے کہ حکومتیں تو فارمولے کے تحت بن گئیں‘ مگر جن دو جماعتوں کو ایک دوسری کے ساتھ باندھ کر جمہوری نظام چلانے پر مامور کیا گیا تھا‘ وہ اپنے طور اطوار نہ بدل سکیں۔ جب دو سیاسی جماعتیں‘ ایک دوسرے کے ساتھ کھینچا تانی کرتی ہیں‘تو زیادتی کا الزام ہمیشہ دوسرے کو دیا جاتا ہے۔
مگر موجودہ حالات میں صاف دکھائی دے رہا ہے کہ صدر زرداری کی ذات کو نشانہ بنا کر پورے نظام کو اپاہج بنائے رکھنے کا سلسلہ روزاول سے شروع ہے۔ ابتدا میں جب اس کی وجہ پوچھی گئی‘ تو جواب دیا گیا کہ وہ آمرانہ اختیارات چھوڑ دیں‘ تو ہمیں ان سے کوئی شکایت نہیں ہو گی۔ صدر نے ازخود آگے بڑھ کر آمروں کے غصب کردہ اختیارات پارلیمنٹ کو واپس کر دیئے۔ مگر ان پر تیراندازی ختم ہونے کے بجائے‘ پہلے سے بھی تیز ہو گئی۔ پھران کی کرپشن کے قصے شروع ہوئے۔ میں نے باربار لکھا کہ خدا کے بندو! موجودہ دوراقتدار میں انہوں نے کونسا گناہ کیا ہے‘ جس کی پاداش میں آپ پورے جمہوری نظام کو یرغمالی بنائے بیٹھے ہیں؟ اس بات پر فوراً 15سال پہلے کے وہ مقدمات گنوائے جانے لگتے ہیں‘ جنہیں کسی عدالت میں سچا ثابت نہیں کیا جا سکا۔ ملک کا آئین توڑنا اور آئین توڑنے والوں کا مددگار بننا غداری ہے اور اس کی سزا موت ہے۔ جن لوگوں نے آئین توڑا اور آئین توڑنے والوں کی مدد کی‘ انہیں تو معاف کر دیا گیا اور جس بیچارے پر سیاسی مخالفین نے جھوٹے مقدمات بنا کر‘ اسے 9 سال جیلوں میں رکھااور کوئی الزام ثابت بھی نہ کر سکے۔ اس کی اب تک جاں بخشی نہیں ہو سکی۔ حالانکہ اس کے خلاف بنائے گئے مقدمات میں کسی میں بھی سزائے موت نہیں دی جا سکتی۔ یہ کیا سیاست ہے کہ ایک فرد کو نشانہ بنا کر پوری حکومت مفلوج کر کے رکھ دی جائے؟
معاشرے میں ہر شخص کے اپنے اپنے انصاف کو دیکھ کر عام آدمی کے لئے تو یہ جاننا بھی دشوار ہو گیا ہے کہ انصاف کیا ہوتا ہے؟ عدالتوں میں ہزاروں مقدمات فیصلوں کے منتظر ہیں لیکن زیرسماعت وہی مقدمات آتے ہیں‘ جن کا تعلق کسی نہ کسی انداز میں صدر زرداری کی ذات سے ہو۔ تمام اخباری تبصرے‘ ٹی وی ٹاک شو اور سیاسی بیانات اور مذاکرے‘ سب میں ایک ہی رٹ لگی رہتی ہے کہ آصف زرداری کب پکڑے جائیں گے؟ کب عدالتی انصاف انہیں ایوان صدر سے باہر دھکیلے گا؟ کب انہیں پھر سے جیل میں ڈالا جائے گا؟ ایوان صدر سے وہ زندہ نکلیں گے یا ایمبولینس میں جائیں گے؟ خدا لگتی کہیے کیا یہ پاکستان کے بھوکے‘ بے گھر اور بیروزگار انسانوں کے ساتھ انصاف ہے کہ حکومت کو مفلوج کر کے رکھ دیا گیا؟ اس کے بہترین دماغ ان حملوں سے بچاؤ پر ہی لگے رہتے ہیں‘ جو ان کے مخالفین عدالتی کارروائیوں کے ذریعے کرنے کی کوشش میں مصروف ہیں۔
صدر اور وزیراعظم کو عدالتی کارروائیوں میں الجھے دیکھ کر ہر کوئی من مانی کر رہا ہے۔ کرپشن پر کوئی روک ٹوک نہیں۔ روک ٹوک کرنے والے تو ہر وقت مقدموں کے دباؤ میں رہتے ہیں۔ رہی سہی کسر اپوزیشن نئے نئے شوشے کھڑے کر کے نکال دیتی ہے۔ اس حکومت کے احکامات پر بیوروکریسی کیسے عمل کرے گی؟ جس کے بارے میں ہر شام یہ خبر اڑتی ہو کہ صبح تک یہ ختم ہونے والی ہے۔ کسی افسر کو علم نہیں کہ اس کے کس حکم پر‘ کب اسے عدالت میں کھینچ لیا جائے گا؟ بڑے انتظامی فیصلے کرنے سے ہر کوئی گریزاں ہے۔ سیلاب زدگان بھوکے مر رہے ہیں۔ افغان جنگ اپنے انجام کی جانب بڑھ رہی ہے۔ مقبوضہ کشمیر میں تحریک آزادی اپنی تاریخ کے فیصلہ کن لمحات سے گزر رہی ہے۔ ہماری معیشت کا جہاز ڈوبتا جا رہا ہے۔ لیکن ہمارے ملک کو چلانے والے بے یقینی کی صورتحال میں پھنسے ہیں۔
اس بے یقینی کی حالت میں صدر زرداری اور وفاقی حکومت ہی نہیں‘ ان کے سیاسی مخالفین بھی پھنسے ہیں اور 14 اکتوبر کی شب سپریم کورٹ کے جج صاحبان محض ایک افواہ پر جس طرح ہنگامی حالت میں جمع ہوئے‘ اس سے پتہ چلا کہ اعلیٰ ترین عدلیہ بھی اس بے یقینی کی صورتحال سے محفوظ نہیں‘ جس میں حکومت اور بیوروکریسی مبتلا ہیں۔ ایک افواہ پر اتنی اعلیٰ سطح کی عدالتی کارروائی اور حکومتی وضاحتیں۔ ہم سب کو اپنی اپنی حالت پر رحم کرنا چاہیے۔ ایک دوسرے کی حالت پر بھی رحم کرنا چاہیے۔ ہم سب رحم کے مستحق ہیں
Source: Jang, 16 Oct 2010
Sleepless night, anxious morning, fear of losing jobs
ججوں کو ایسا پریشان پہلے نہیں دیکھا‘
جمعہ کو ججوں کی بحالی کا نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کی خبروں کے بعد عدالت اعظمیٰ کے تمام تر جج جس پریشانی، اضطراب اور خوف کا شکار نظر آئے ماضی میں شاید ہی کبھی اس کی مثال ملتی ہو۔ ایسی ہی اضطرابی کی کیفیت میں ججوں کے دلچسپ مکالمے بھی سننے کو ملے۔
ججوں کی پریشانی اور خوف کی جھلک سترہ رکنی بینچ کے کچھ ججوں کے ریمارکس سے بھی عیاں ہوتی ہے۔ جناب جسٹس خلیل الرحمٰن رمدے نے دوران سماعت کہا کہ ‘بشمول ہمارے پوری قوم ساری رات جاگتی رہی ہے اور لوگ کہتے ہیں کہ ہم نے قوم کو مشکل میں ڈالا ہے۔‘
جب اٹارنی جنرل مولوی انوار الحق سے عدالت نے کہا کہ وہ وزیراعظم سے تحریری بیان لے آئیں کہ حکومت ججوں کی بحالی کا حکم واپس لینے کا ارادہ نہیں رکھتی اور آئین میں دیے گئے طریقہ کار کے علاوہ ججوں کو نہیں ہٹایا جائے گا تو اٹارنی جنرل نے کچھ دیر بعد عدالت کو بتایا کہ انہوں نے وزیراعظم کے سیکریٹری کو فون پر عدالت کی ہدایت سے آگاہ کیا ہے اور انہوں نے کہا کہ وزیراعظم ایک ملاقات میں ہیں اور جیسے ہی فارغ ہوں گے تو انہیں مطلع کر دیا جائے گا۔
اٹارنی جنرل کو مخاطب کرتے ہوئے جناب جسٹس آصف سعید کھوسہ نے کہا کہ ’ہمیں شدید خدشہ ہے کہ ملک میں آئینی طرز حکمرانی کو خطرہ لاحق ہے اور آپ کا ججوں کی بحالی کا حکم واپس نہ لینے کے بارے میں کوئی بیان نہ دینا جلتی پر تیل کا کام کر رہا ہے۔‘
جس پر جناب جسٹس خلیل الرحمٰن رمدے نے کہا کہ ’آگ تو وہاں بھڑکتی ہے جہاں سے دھواں اٹھتا ہے۔‘
اپنے لمبے بالوں کی پونی باندھنے والے جناب جسٹس جواد ایس خواجہ نے کہا کہ ’میں ٹی وی کے سامنے بیٹھا تھا، چار کلپ دیکھ کر آیا ہوں جس میں ایک میں وزیراعظم پارلیمان میں بیان دیتے ہوئے کہہ رہے ہیں کہ ایگزیکٹو آرڈر کی پارلیمان نے توثیق نہیں کی ہے۔ میں تو کہتا ہوں ایگزیکٹو آرڈر کی کوئی وقعت ہی نہیں ہے اور یہ محض کاغذ کا ایک ٹکڑا ہے۔‘
دنیا کے بیشتر ممالک میں ججز مقدمے سے متعلق مواد پر مبنی خبریں سننے یا پڑھنے تک گریز کرتے ہیں اور شاید یہی وجہ ہے کہ وکیل رہنما علی احمد کرد نے کچھ وقت پہلے کہا تھا کہ ہماری عدلیہ ٹی وی دیکھ کر فیصلے کرتی ہے اور ایسا نہیں ہونا چاہیے۔
عدالت میں باری باری جج صاحبان اٹارنی جنرل کو مخاطب کرتے ہوئے اپنے ریمارکس دیتے رہے اور جناب جسٹس ثاقب نثار نے کہا کہ ’اگر عدلیہ کو برطرف کیا گیا تو آئین توڑنے کے مترادف ہوگا اور یہ آئین کی شق چھ کے زمرے میں آتا ہے اور اٹارنی جنرل صاحب یہ بات آپ نے ہی وزیراعظم کو بتانی ہے۔‘
عدالت کے طلب کیے جانے پر ’آج نیوز‘، ’جیو‘ اور ’ایکسپریس‘ کے نمائندے اپنی گزشتہ شب نشر کردہ خبروں اور تبصروں کی سی ڈیز لے کر آئے تھے اور بعض پریشاں تھے کہ پتہ نہیں عدالت کیا کہے گی۔ لیکن آخر میں جب نامعلوم سرکاری ذرائع سے ججوں کو ہٹانے اور نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کی خبریں نشر کرنے پر جناب چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری نے اٹارنی جنرل کو مخاطب کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ’آپ ایک شخص سے رابطہ نہیں کر سکتے۔ یہ خبر جھوٹی نہیں ہے۔ تھینکس ٹو میڈیا۔ انہوں نے بر وقت یہ خبر دی ہے اور ہمیں کیوں میڈیا والے خراب کریں گے ہمیں آپ کریں گے۔‘ ان الفاظ کے بعد چیف جسٹس اپنے ساتھی ججوں کے ہمراہ پیر کی صبح تک سماعت ملتوی کر کے اٹھ گئے۔
بعد میں تین درجن کے قریب وکلا نے ٹی وی کیمروں کے سامنے عمارت کے صدر دروازے پر کھڑے ہوکر چیف جسٹس اور عدلیہ کے حق میں اور حکومت کے خلاف نعرہ بازی بھی کی۔
Judges deciding cases on media lines: Kurd Daily Times Monitor Wednesday, December 23, 2009 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\12\23\story_23-12-2009_pg7_12
LAHORE: Judges of the higher judiciary are making up their minds about cases after reading newspaper headlines and watching TV shows, former president Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Ali Ahmed Kurd said on Tuesday.
Describing the present situation as “justice hurry and justice worry”, Kurd deplored the fact that the judges were visiting and addressing the bars and said they would have to “prove themselves worthy of their positions”.
According to Kurd, judges in the United States neither read newspapers nor watched TV programmes, but focused only on their work.
Kurd unhappy over SC verdict on NRO By Iftikhar A. Khan
Wednesday, 23 Dec, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/12-kurd-unhappy-over-sc-verdict-on-nro–bi-09
ISLAMABAD: Ali Ahmed Kurd, the firebrand leader of the lawyers’ movement and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has been keeping quiet for quite some time, surprised a lot of people on Tuesday with his blunt criticism of the way the Supreme Court was behaving. Judges should “behave like judges”, he said.
Speaking during a talk show on “Challenges facing the judiciary”, he said that people had reservations about the verdict handed down by the Supreme Court on petitions challenging the National Reconciliation Ordinance.
According to him, the judgment appeared to be based on newspaper headlines and talk shows of private TV channels.
Mr Kurd said that an independent judiciary had been restored after a great struggle, adding that the country would become stronger if the judiciary acted in the manner expected by the nation during the struggle. “If it does not happen, it will cause a blow to national security.”
He said he had been invited by various bar councils after the restoration of the judiciary, but he preferred to keep quiet. He said he did not attend functions where the chief justice had been invited and quit his practice as a lawyer in the Supreme Court. It was astonishing to see judges visiting bar councils, he added.
Mr Kurd described the National Judicial Policy as detrimental to the judicial system. He pointed out that a deadline of Dec 31 had been set for courts to decide cases. He said the maxim of ‘justice hurried is justice buried’ would turn out to be true in many cases because these, including cases of murder and dacoity, and the rights of defence and the practice of producing evidence of many people would be compromised due to paucity of time.
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairperson Asma Jehangir also criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment on the NRO and said it appeared to be a decision pronounced by a ‘jirga’.
She was of the opinion that the NRO could have been declared null and void by merely declaring it as repugnant to Article 25 of the Constitution, but a Pandora’s box had been opened by the court. Syed Iqbal Haider and Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood also spoke on the occasion.
’عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود کچھ نہیں بدلا‘
شہزاد ملک
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد
آخری وقت اشاعت: Monday, 7 September, 2009, 12:58 GMT 17:58 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/09/090907_kurd_hit_judiciary_rr.shtml
ججز کیس کو ختم کرنےکو زیادہ اہمیت دے رہے ہوتے ہیں بجائے اس کی کہ انصاف کی فراہمی کی جائے:علی احمد کرد
سپریم کورٹ بار ایسوسی ایشن کے صدر علی احمد کُرد کا کہنا ہے کہ عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود ابھی تک کچھ نہیں بدلا اور حالات اُسی طرح کے ہی ہیں جو نو مارچ سنہ دو ہزار سات سے پہلے تھے۔
علی احمد کرد نے عدالتی سال شروع ہونے کی تقریب سے خطاب کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ایسا محسوس ہوتا ہے کہ ’فرعونوں‘ کےسامنے پیش ہو رہے ہوتے ہیں جو کیس کو ختم کرنےکو زیادہ اہمیت دے رہے ہوتے ہیں بجائے اس کے کہ انصاف کی فراہمی کی جائے۔
انہوں نے مزید کہا کہ یہی رویہ نو مارچ سنہ دوہزار سات سے قبل اعلٰی عدلیہ کے ججوں سے لےکر مقامی عدالتوں کے ججوں کا تھا۔
واضح رہے کہ سابق ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر جنرل ریٹائرڈ پرویز مشرف نے نو مارچ کو چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری کے خلاف سپریم جوڈیشل کونسل میں ریفرنس بھیجا تھا۔
ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کے خلاف ایک سو پچاس کے قریب پٹیشنز ریلیف کے لیے دائر کی جاتی ہیں جس میں سے بہت کم کو سول یا فوجداری اپیلوں میں تبدیل کردیا جاتا ہے جبکہ باقی رد کردی جاتی ہیں
علی احمد کرد
یہ پہلی مرتبہ ہے کہ ججوں کی بحالی کی تحریک کی کامیابی کے بعد وکلاء کے کسی سرکردہ رہنما نے کُھل کر ججوں کے رویے کے بارے میں تنقیدی کلمات کہے ہیں۔
علی احمد کُرد نے کہا کہ ججوں کی بحالی کے لیے شروع کی جانے والی تحریک میں نہ صرف وکلاء نے ان کا ساتھ دیا بلکہ سول سوسائٹی اور انسانی حقوق کی تنظیموں نے بھی اس میں بڑھ چڑھ کر حصہ لیا۔
انہوں نے کہا کہ اس تحریک میں وکلاء نے اپنی قیمتی جانوں کے نذرانے بھی پیش کیے۔ سپریم کورٹ بار کے صدر کا کہنا تھا کہ لوگ اُن سے یہی سوال پوچھتے ہیں کہ اس تحریک کی کامیابی کے کیا اثرات سامنے آئے ہیں۔
انہوں نے کہا کہ مشاہدے میں آیا ہے کہ وکلاء نے جو پٹیشنز دائر کی تھیں اُن میں سے بہت کم درخواستوں کو دیوانی یا فوجداری اپیلوں میں تبدیل کیاگیا ہے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کے خلاف ایک سو پچاس کے قریب پٹیشنز ریلیف کےلیے دائر کی جاتی ہیں جس میں سے بہت کم کو سول یا فوجداری اپیلوں میں تبدیل کردیا جاتا ہے جبکہ باقی رد کردی جاتی ہیں۔
علی احمد کُرد کا کہنا تھا کہ وکلاء ذمہ دار افراد ہیں اور کوئی بھی یہ نہیں چاہے گا کہ کوئی ایسی بےمقصد پٹیشن دائر کی جائے جس سے عدالت کا قیمتی وقت ضائع ہو۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ عدالت کا یہ فرض ہے کہ وہ وکلاء کو تحمل کے ساتھ سنے۔
’ججوں کو ایسا پریشان پہلے نہیں دیکھا‘
اعجاز مہر
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام ، اسلام آباد
آخری وقت اشاعت: جمعـء 15 اکتوبر 2010 , 15:28 GMT 20:28 PST http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/10/101015_sc_analysis_as.shtml
سپریم کورٹ کی عمارت کے باہر لوگ پریشانی کے عالم میں نظر آ رہے تھے
جمعہ کو سپریم کورٹ کے اندر اور باہر رینجرز کے اہلکار تعینات کیے گئے اور وہاں غیر معمولی چہل پہل نظر آئی۔ اس کی وجہ نجی ٹی وی چینلز پر نشر ہونے والی وہ تاحال غیر مصدقہ خبر ہے جس میں کہا گیا کہ حکومت ججوں کی بحالی کا حکم واپس لینے پر غور کر رہی ہے۔
کلِک آئینی ماہرین اس پر کیا کہتے ہیں
کلِک ’چند افراد عدلیہ پارلیمان تناؤ کے پیچھے‘
کلِک ججوں کی طویل مشاورت اور پھر پریس ریلیز
کلِک ’اداروں کو حدود میں رکھنا ہماری ذمہ داری‘
کلِک وزیر اعظم پہلے ہی تردید کر چکے ہیں: کائرہ
عدالتی احاطے کے اندر اور باہر پولیس کے ساتھ ساتھ رینجرز کے خصوصی دستے تعینات رہے اور خفیہ اداروں کے اہلکاروں کی چہل پہل بھی رہی۔ وکیل اور صحافی بھی بڑی تعداد میں موجود رہے اور عدالتی کارروائی کی لمحہ بہ لمحہ کوریج براہ راست پیش کرتے رہے۔
ججوں کی بحالی کی تحریک کے سرکردہ رہنما علی احمد کرد کو دیکھ کر کچھ نوجوان وکیلوں نے نعرے لگائے کہ ‘عدلیہ کے غداروں کو ایک دھکہ اور دو’۔ بعد میں کچھ وکلا نے اس پر علی احمد کرد سے معذرت بھی کر لی۔
کرد کہتے رہے ہیں کہ ’جس عدلیہ کی بحالی کے لیے انہوں نے قربانی دی تھی یہ وہ عدلیہ نہیں ہے کیونکہ غریب لوگوں کو انصاف آج بھی نہیں مل رہا ہے۔ یہ عدلیہ اور حکومت کی لڑائی کی بات نہیں ہے بلکہ صدر آصف علی زرداری اور چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری کی انا کا معاملہ ہے۔‘
جمعہ کو ججوں کی بحالی کا نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کی خبروں کے بعد عدالت اعظمیٰ کے تمام تر جج جس پریشانی، اضطراب اور خوف کا شکار نظر آئے ماضی میں شاید ہی کبھی اس کی مثال ملتی ہو۔ ایسی ہی اضطرابی کی کیفیت میں ججوں کے دلچسپ مکالمے بھی سننے کو ملے۔
آگ تو وہاں بھڑکتی ہے جہاں سے دھواں اٹھتا ہے
جسٹس خلیل الرحمٰن رمدے
سینئر وکیل اور سابق وزیر قانون افتخار حسین گیلانی نے بی بی سی سے بات کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ انہوں نے اپنی زندگی میں کبھی سپریم کورٹ کے ججوں کو اتنا پریشان، خوف یا اضطراب میں مبتلا نہیں دیکھا جیسا کہ آج نظر آیا ہے۔
ججوں کی پریشانی اور خوف کی جھلک سترہ رکنی بینچ کے کچھ ججوں کے ریمارکس سے بھی عیاں ہوتی ہے۔ جناب جسٹس خلیل الرحمٰن رمدے نے دوران سماعت کہا کہ ‘بشمول ہمارے پوری قوم ساری رات جاگتی رہی ہے اور لوگ کہتے ہیں کہ ہم نے قوم کو مشکل میں ڈالا ہے۔‘
جب اٹارنی جنرل مولوی انوار الحق سے عدالت نے کہا کہ وہ وزیراعظم سے تحریری بیان لے آئیں کہ حکومت ججوں کی بحالی کا حکم واپس لینے کا ارادہ نہیں رکھتی اور آئین میں دیے گئے طریقہ کار کے علاوہ ججوں کو نہیں ہٹایا جائے گا تو اٹارنی جنرل نے کچھ دیر بعد عدالت کو بتایا کہ انہوں نے وزیراعظم کے سیکریٹری کو فون پر عدالت کی ہدایت سے آگاہ کیا ہے اور انہوں نے کہا کہ وزیراعظم ایک ملاقات میں ہیں اور جیسے ہی فارغ ہوں گے تو انہیں مطلع کر دیا جائے گا۔
اٹارنی جنرل کو مخاطب کرتے ہوئے جناب جسٹس آصف سعید کھوسہ نے کہا کہ ’ہمیں شدید خدشہ ہے کہ ملک میں آئینی طرز حکمرانی کو خطرہ لاحق ہے اور آپ کا ججوں کی بحالی کا حکم واپس نہ لینے کے بارے میں کوئی بیان نہ دینا جلتی پر تیل کا کام کر رہا ہے۔‘
جس پر جناب جسٹس خلیل الرحمٰن رمدے نے کہا کہ ’آگ تو وہاں بھڑکتی ہے جہاں سے دھواں اٹھتا ہے۔‘
اپنے لمبے بالوں کی پونی باندھنے والے جناب جسٹس جواد ایس خواجہ نے کہا کہ ’میں ٹی وی کے سامنے بیٹھا تھا، چار کلپ دیکھ کر آیا ہوں جس میں ایک میں وزیراعظم پارلیمان میں بیان دیتے ہوئے کہہ رہے ہیں کہ ایگزیکٹو آرڈر کی پارلیمان نے توثیق نہیں کی ہے۔ میں تو کہتا ہوں ایگزیکٹو آرڈر کی کوئی وقعت ہی نہیں ہے اور یہ محض کاغذ کا ایک ٹکڑا ہے۔‘
دنیا کے بیشتر ممالک میں ججز مقدمے سے متعلق مواد پر مبنی خبریں سننے یا پڑھنے تک گریز کرتے ہیں اور شاید یہی وجہ ہے کہ وکیل رہنما علی احمد کرد نے کچھ وقت پہلے کہا تھا کہ ہماری عدلیہ ٹی وی دیکھ کر فیصلے کرتی ہے اور ایسا نہیں ہونا چاہیے۔
عدالت میں باری باری جج صاحبان اٹارنی جنرل کو مخاطب کرتے ہوئے اپنے ریمارکس دیتے رہے اور جناب جسٹس ثاقب نثار نے کہا کہ ’اگر عدلیہ کو برطرف کیا گیا تو آئین توڑنے کے مترادف ہوگا اور یہ آئین کی شق چھ کے زمرے میں آتا ہے اور اٹارنی جنرل صاحب یہ بات آپ نے ہی وزیراعظم کو بتانی ہے۔‘
عدالت کے طلب کیے جانے پر ’آج نیوز‘، ’جیو‘ اور ’ایکسپریس‘ کے نمائندے اپنی گزشتہ شب نشر کردہ خبروں اور تبصروں کی سی ڈیز لے کر آئے تھے اور بعض پریشاں تھے کہ پتہ نہیں عدالت کیا کہے گی۔ لیکن آخر میں جب نامعلوم سرکاری ذرائع سے ججوں کو ہٹانے اور نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کی خبریں نشر کرنے پر جناب چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری نے اٹارنی جنرل کو مخاطب کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ’آپ ایک شخص سے رابطہ نہیں کر سکتے۔ یہ خبر جھوٹی نہیں ہے۔ تھینکس ٹو میڈیا۔ انہوں نے بر وقت یہ خبر دی ہے اور ہمیں کیوں میڈیا والے خراب کریں گے ہمیں آپ کریں گے۔‘ ان الفاظ کے بعد چیف جسٹس اپنے ساتھی ججوں کے ہمراہ پیر کی صبح تک سماعت ملتوی کر کے اٹھ گئے۔
بعد میں تین درجن کے قریب وکلا نے ٹی وی کیمروں کے سامنے عمارت کے صدر دروازے پر کھڑے ہوکر چیف جسٹس اور عدلیہ کے حق میں اور حکومت کے خلاف نعرہ بازی بھی کی۔
SC clarification Monday, September 20, 2010 Shawwal 10, 1431 A.H. http://www.thenews.com.pk/20-09-2010/Top-Story/712.htm
ISLAMABAD: Terming the headline —’CJs express concern over judges security; threats from admin’ — of a news report, regarding the security related meeting, that appeared in The News on Sunday as misleading, the Supreme Court office, in its press release issued here, has clarified the same as under: “It is clarified that the above-mentioned caption is misleading in so far as it gives the impression that the judges of the Superior Courts have direct clear threats from administrative officials, which is not the true reflection of the issue discussed in the above mentioned meeting nor the press release issued in this regard refers to any such threats. In fact, the meeting discussed the security related situation in view of the purported information ‘emanating from administrative authorities’ in relation to the alleged plot to target the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Lahore High Court as mentioned in the report of the Special Branch of the Government of Punjab.
“Unfortunately, your above-mentioned captions portray the totally different message as if the Hon’ble judges of Superior Courts are being threatened by the administrative officials, which is not the case. It is expected that an appropriate clarification may please be published prominently, preferably at the same spot on the front pages of the two newspapers in order to set the record straight.”
MUHAMMAD SALEH ZAAFIR, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT OF JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS/GEO TV & CONTEMPT OF COURT
ISLAMABAD: The 13-member full court of the Supreme Court on Tuesday accepted the unconditional apology of a newsman for filing a report pertaining to the alleged preparation of references against four senior judges of the said bench.
Following is the text of the order issued by the 13-member full court of the Supreme Court after unconditional apology by journalist Muhammad Saleh Zaafir:
“Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, editor special reporting of daily Jang and The News, has entered appearance on our call in connection with the news items appearing in the Rawalpindi edition of the daily ‘Jang’ and daily ‘The News’ on 11th June, 2007, regarding some references being made against four senior hon’ble judges of this Court who, presumably also happen to be the members of this bench. The said news item appeared to be open to further serious exception because such a news item had been published, more than boldly, on the front pages of the said two newspapers on the day when the bench was expected to announce its decision on the maintainability of the petition filed in this court questioning the presidential reference against the chief justice of Pakistan. It may be added that certain insinuation have been made in the said news items pointing towards some alleged misconduct committed by the four un-named senior judges of this Court.
2. Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.
3. He tendered verbal unconditional apologies in open Court and also placed on record his statement to the above noted effect, in writing.
4. The regrets offered by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, reporter/editor, appear to be sincere and the remorse expressed by him appears to be genuine. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to proceed with the matter any further except warning him to be careful in future.
5. On our call, Muhammad Afzal Butt, president of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Union of Journalists, also entered appearance for assistance.
6. The reporting of the proceedings which have taken place in Court in connection with the matter in question shall be made only to the extent that the apology tendered by the said Muhammad Saleh Zaafir shall be published in full and so would be published this order passed thereon. The daily ‘Jang’ and daily ‘The News’, which have published the news items in question, shall publish the apology and this order, prominently, on their front pages. Muhammad Saleh Zaafir undertakes to do the same and has been ordered accordingly.”
Meanwhile, the following is the text of unconditional apology tendered by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
“I, Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, do hereby tender an unconditional apology to the hon’ble court in relation to the contents of the story that appeared in daily The News/daily Jang on June 11, 2007.
“I have been directed by the hon’ble court to submit any proof in relations to the contents of the said items. I would humbly submit that I have no proof whatsoever in relation to the matter discussed in the said story.
“I keep this hon’ble court in the highest esteem and respect. I can never ever think of bringing about a bad name to the hon’ble court or to any learned judge of the hon’able court. I would submit that I can never think of committing contempt of this hon’ble court.
“I undertake to be careful in future and am ashamed for the publication of the story. I would humbly seek pardon in relation to the grievous lapse. “I pray to the hon’ble court that no further action may kindly be proceeded in relation to the matter. I would entreat that my unconditional apology may graciously be accepted.” REFERENCES: SC warns newsman, accepts apology Wednesday, June 13, 2007 http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=8458 Reporter apologises to SC for ‘baseless report’ Wednesday, June 13, 2007 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20076\13\story_13-6-2007_pg7_3
I think people are now getting fed up of Geo. Lets see how many times they do hara kiri
DEMOCRACY KAY DUSHMAN
pujaray hain ya paisay kay !mir skeelurehman and company Tax choor hain 19 arab rupees kay Aamreyat parast hain! ya sab choro ka tola ha ameer honay k lye zahar phela rahay hain society mai blackmailer kahen k ! shaheen sehbai tu confirm pagal ha ,Dr shahid masood media ke alif say waqif nahe jahil ha ,ansar abbassi psycho ha zardari say jaltay hain kamran khan Agenies ka banda ha zahrela ha aur ya sab shakeelurehman kay kahnay pay buk buk kar rahay hain ,Dr shahid masood A ry chla gya mager peet nahe bhra uska ya sab qumi mujrim hain zat ke laray lartay hain media pay.
FOLLOWERS OF GOEBBELS GEO AND CO
The journalists responsible for creating and maintaing the chaos since democracy restored shall be held accountable and be punished not only against the crimes they commited to misguide and sperading disinformation, rather the tortutr which they have inflicted on the poeple of pakistan.
There shall be a code determining that who will conduct analysis on professional issues like law, judiaciary. commerce ,economics, finance etc. Who is Abbas Ansaari to comment on all of the subjects who knows nothing except spreading suspense and subjective apprehensions and medicore mentality and confusing the people.
Ali Ahmed Kurd is absolutely right in saying that
یہ داغ داغ اجالا یہ شب گزیدہ سحر
وہ انتظار تھا جسکا یہ وہ سحر تو نہیں
CJ IMC will have to come out of his mistaken thinking that there is “no difference” between a democratic government and a dictatorship. His focus is misplaced, he needs to remember that the movement of restoration of judiciary was against the mad dictator 21st century and primary objective of that movement was to kick out the dictatorship and bring a democratic set up in Pakistan.
In the hindsight it is obvious that CJ IMC was supported by the current Don in order to throw former Don (the mad dictator). CJ IMC despite posing as a hero in the movement of restoration of judiciary did not come with clean hands as it seems that he was just a pawn in the great game of mafia.
However CJ IMC does deserve respect for being the symbol of freedom during those great days of one of the greatest struggle against the most tyrant dictator of this century. He however does not realize that he could have retained this respect in the history , if he had refused to be pawn of the establishment after the restoration of democracy.
But as they say
یہ رتبہ بلند ملا جسکو مل گیا
Listen to Asma Jahangir
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2010/10/101015_judges_asma.shtml
One thing I feel is that CJ IMC has a heavy burden of gratitude from Khalil Ur Rahman Ramday, it is true that Ramday passed the July 20th verdict , however it was in no way any favor from him to IMC. At the moment to me it looks like IMC is finding it hard to pay back to Ramday even though he has given him extension. My assessment is that CJ IMC is a very impressionable person and his decisions/actions are influenced by the people near him. Since during the movement of restoration of judiciary people like Kurd, AA and Athar accompanied him his (CJ’s) actions were more honorable and correct. He never gave any political statement , he always acted in a dignified manner. And even he went to Zardari for condolences. But that’s only speculation.
Most import that thing is that Judges should realize that they are performing in a democratic setup and they must keep this distinction that it is the choice of people of Pakistan to elect the government even if it is disliked by them (judges) or anyone.
totally agree with you Imtiaz. These anchors most of them on CIA payroll should be held accountable for their crimes against the nation. The worshippers of money and soul sellers have no place in a prestigious and responsible profession of journalism.
One question that should be asked and is being ignored “who aired the news” and CJ “orders” government to find out about the news, but what does Law says about “Burden of Proof” and since the Judiciary has become suddenly fond of Islam so lets have a look,
““The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and the taking of oath is upon the defendant.” (Al-Bayhaqi)”
Guilty by Suspicion is against the Spirit of Islamic Law because when you raise finger then it’s the responsibility of those who allege to produce witness. Benefit of doubt is always given to those who is under trial.
الْبَيِّنَةُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِى وَالْيَمِينُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ
The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the one who is accused (Tirmidhi)
Therefore the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone, unless they perpetrate a crime which Shari’ah considers to be a crime, and the perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge in a judiciary court, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.
Has anyone noticed that now that Ali Ahmed Kurd, Athar Minallah and Justice Tariq Mehmood are introduced as “Sabiq Rehnuma, Wukala Tehreek”. Though it may not mean much but subliminally, the media is trying to tell you that the Lawyer’s Movement is still on, these people are not associated with it any more.
Just now it has been announced in a press release by the SC that on Monday only the matter of the judges restoration order being reversed will be heard. All other cases will not be heard. They have also summoned the News Editors of Geo, ARY and Express. Let’s see where these guys run away to.
The Supreme Court must also summon Akram Sheikh who said in Capital Talk that the order to cancel the restoration was already drafted and the PM was about to sign it (http://www.awaztoday.com/playvideo.asp?pageId=11173)
“QUOTE”
The Bar Council’s words were also noted and spread out to the judicial minds of the world through the website of ‘The Daily Mail’ on 6th May 2005 by quoting saying that:
’…. By the continuing of Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad for three more years, he (Gen Musharraf) can count on a pliable chief justice to manage a verdict favourable to him in case he dissolves the National Assembly (NA) under his discretionary power to get rid of a hostile or recalcitrant parliament. Thus the judiciary has been reduced to the level of being a protector of a military ruler who is bent upon “contaminating” the Constitution to perpetuate his rule’.
The judiciary is acting under the dictates of the military ruler in defiance of the constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court’s own previous judgment. Ironically, the chief justice administered oath of office to the president under the Constitution before the NA had met and the election to the senate had taken place.
This was done despite the existence of his own judgment in a reference case, in which the chief justice had maintained that the consequences of the referendum would be settled by the parliament”.
The Daily Mail also appreciated the Pakistan Bar Council’s observations and concerns that:
‘ …… the judiciary has miserably failed to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution and the oath of office that members of the judiciary make at the time of induction as judges. The judiciary has thus reduced itself to the position to bring protector, preserver and defender of the unconstitutional acts and orders of the military regime.
The power of the chief justice to form benches has been misused throughout the history of Pakistan. It has been abused to the maximum during the past three years.
It appears that the government needs the services of only five judges, that is chief justice of Supreme Court and four high courts judges to obtain a favourable verdict. General Musharraf has ensured that he has five chief justices predisposed towards him and that they would and have actually managed verdicts favourable to him in all three years. The chief justice of Pakistan alone can manage all the verdicts desired by the military rulers. Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz has blatantly established how the power to constitute benches can be abused. This power should be curtailed and formation of benches should be regulated in such a way that a committee of judges consisting of chief justice and two or three senior-most judges held responsible for constitution of benches.’
It was apparent that the then Pakistan Bar Council had full grip on the legal and constitutional matters which needed immediate attention. All the subjects were mentioned to attract the attention of judiciary and parliamentarians for a better Pakistan. The subjects included:
Proclamation of Emergency October 1999,
Oath of Office (Judges) Order 1999,
President Succession Order 2001,
Legal Framework (Amendment) Order 2001,
Extracts from the judgments in Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s case,
Extracts from the judgment in Qazi Hussain Ahmad’s case,
Letters addressed to Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Pakistan,Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq, a Supreme Court judge, and Justice M Ashraf Leghari, judge of the Sindh High Court, requesting them to lay down robes in view of their having attained the age of superannuating under the 1973 Constitution.
Army role in politics,
Implementation of the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission report,
Suo-moto powers of the CJ when he was retiring,
Elevation of a junior judge to the Supreme Court,
Against the appointment of Mr Irshad Hassan Khan as the Chief Election Commissioner
Supreme Court Bar Association president Hamid Khan said the entire lawyer’s fraternity had worked very hard to gather data for the White Paper. “We are ready to face the consequences of publishing this paper,” he was sure for his future.
Pakistan’s opposition parties had been vociferously demanding then that Gen Musharraf shed much of the sweeping powers he had assumed by amending the constitution a year before under the Legal Framework Order. Gen Musharraf, however, refused to listen in this respect and opted to ruin the country as per plans framed out by him and his military colleagues.
But despite all the exercises by the Bar Council in August 2002, Legal Framework Order, issued by the military rulers, extended the age of retirement of the superior judiciary.
10th October 2002: Article 179 of the Constitution was amended through the Legal Framework Order (LFO) under which the retirement age of SC Judges was enhanced from 65 to 68 years. Due to reasons best known to Gen Musharraf or his military or legal advisors, the amendment was not enforced on the same date. The new seniority list of the 37 Lahore High Court judges was issued on 2nd January 2003, confirming enforcement of amendment to Article 195 of the Constitution governing the retirement age of High Court judges.
Following enforcement of the amendment, Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, who was to attain the age of retirement on 8th March 2003, under the previous law was to retire in 2006. Two other SC judges – Justice Munir A. Sheikh and Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq – were scheduled to retire on 1st July and 5th January 2006 respectively.
Urging the legislature to abrogate this amendment, the Supreme Court Bar Association President, Hamid Khan, had raised his voice that the government had enforced it to prolong the tenure of judges whose oath was administered under the PCO. The Bar Association had held that enforcement of the amendment was a clear violation of the Constitution since the Supreme Court, while deciding the Zafar Ali Shah case in May 2000, had observed that the then chief executive could not make any amendment regarding affairs of judiciary.
23rd November 2002: Gen Musharraf administered oath of office to Faisal Saleh Hayat, Aftab Ahmed Sherpao and Nilofar Bakhtiar. All the three were allegedly involved in corruption cases prepared by the ‘Accountability Bureau’ while the later two politicians were formally convicted by Accountability Courts.
“UNQUOTE”
TEXT OF REFERENCE AGAINST CJ – BEFORE THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COUNCIL, PAKISTAN [READ PAGE 10] http://ipripak.org/factfiles/ff89.pdf
Hamid Khan [Senior Lawyer] nowadays spit fire against the government [Saturday, October 16, 2010, Zi Qad 07, 1431 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/oct2010-daily/16-10-2010/u49575.htm A.H] whereas the same Hamid Khan on Judiciary:
PBC disputes verdicts given after Oct ’99 By Zeeshan Siddiqui June 29, 2003 Sunday Rabi-us-Sani 28,1424 http://www.dawn.com/2003/06/29/nat15.htm
LAHORE, June 28: The Pakistan Bar Council on Saturday made public the draft of its white paper, dissenting with the superior courts’ verdicts given in the post-October 1999 period, specially in connection with the government’s actions regarding the Legal Framework Order, president’s uniform, judicial appointments, presidential referendum and general elections.
The 83-page document, which was prepared by PBC member Mohammad Yaqoob Leghari and Supreme Court Bar Association’s president Hamid Khan, was referred by the legal fraternity as the first-ever white paper to be published on the judiciary’s role in the country’s history. Initially, some 1,500 copies of the white paper have been printed by the PBC.
The PBC’s white paper refused to accept chief justice of Pakistan Sheikh Riaz Ahmad and four other judges — Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq of the Supreme Court, Justice Raja Mohammad Sabir of the Lahore High Court, Justice Mohammad Ashraf Leghari of the Sindh High Court and Justice Abdur Rauf Khan of the Peshawar High Court — as serving judges for having availed the three-year extension granted under the LFO.
The judicial appointments made after October 1999 had been flayed in the paper which alleged that a junior judge of the LHC was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court in violation of the SC judgment of March 20, 1996. “Five judges of the accountability courts were appointed as LHC judges during 2002 and the seniority of these new incumbents was totally ignored by the authorities concerned while making such appointments,” the white paper claimed.
The appointment of Justice Irshad Hassan Khan (retired) as Chief Election Commissioner has also been criticised besides being termed an “attempt by the military regime to safeguard its interests during last year’s presidential referendum and general elections”.
The CJ administered oath of president to Gen Musharraf before October 2002 general elections which was an extra-constitutional step, the draft white paper stated.
The document further alleged that former military regime wanted the district and sessions judges (DSJ) of questionable repute to be appointed as the district returning officers for the last general elections. It was claimed in the document that majority of the DSJs and other judicial officers reinstated or transferred during the pre-poll period were those sidelined by former chief justice of the LHC Falak Sher on corruption charges.
The LFO was mentioned as being “an effort to subvert the 1973 Constitution by a military ruler under the dubious authority conferred on him by the SC which itself did not have such powers”.
The paper said the inclusion of provisions relating to president’s powers to dissolve the assemblies, simultaneous holding of both offices of the army chief and president by one person, three-year extension in the superannuation age of judges of superior courts and the constitution of the National Security Council (NSC) in the LFO was aimed at enslaving the Constitution and people’s will.
The SCBA president Hamid Khan claimed on Saturday that the entire lawyers community had worked very hard to gather the facts incorporated in the white paper and nothing personal had been said regarding the superior courts judges.
“We are ready to face the consequences of publishing this paper though we believe we have released the entire information for common citizen’s knowledge without exaggeration,” he responded when asked whether the certain contents of the white paper were contemptuous.
Hamid Khan [Senior Lawyer] nowadays spit fire against the government [Saturday, October 16, 2010, Zi Qad 07, 1431 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/oct2010-daily/16-10-2010/u49575.htm A.H] whereas the same Hamid Khan
Lahore lawyers on the warpath By Shehar Bano Khan
June 29, 2003 http://dawn.com.pk/weekly/dmag/archive/030629/dmag7.htm
0THE opposition’s protests against the LFO and General Musharraf occupying two official seats fell flatly on the establishment’s ears. It was nothing more than cacophony to the General. He had seen it all before and was not prepared to accommodate political hysteria over his khakis or a piece of document grafted ill-assortedly over something as inconsequential as a constitution. But, the general took stock of the situation when the same tune was strummed by the lawyers.
A significant section of the lawyers’ community is challenging the legality of the LFO (Legal Framework Order) and the provision of three years relaxation in the retirement period extended to the judges of the superior courts. The integral part of the lawyers’ campaign revolves around rejecting General Musharraf as the president of this country. Coming from the interpreters of law that should have made the general take notice of them. And he did.
Like his previously planned orchestrations, he sent out his pawnbrokers to get an invitation to address the Lahore Bar Association. At the invitation of the Lahore Bar Association’s president, Mansoorur Rehman Khan Afridi, on June 8, President Musharraf came to a local hotel in Lahore to address a handpicked crowd of 2,500 lawyers out of the 35,000 registered in Punjab.
The Lahore High Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court Bar Association, nearly all the bar councils and the recently formed Joint Action Committee of lawyers decided to boycott the reception. In a resolution passed earlier, the JAC had already made an announcement stating that no government official, including the president, the prime minister, governors and the chief ministers, would be invited to a bar gathering till the issue of the LFO was resolved by the parliament. But the LBA president, Mansoorur Afridi, was not willing to get mired. Despite a heavily united front and dismissing any consequential action against him, the luncheon was hosted as planned.
The podium savvy president talked about everything: his uniform, stating categorically that he would continue to wear it ‘whether anyone liked it or not’ till democracy strengthened. Whenever that might be was left to the imagination. Not that the 2,500 lawyers were interested in his legitimacy, they had been brought-bought to sit in their black coats to listen and not ponder over what he had to say.
The invitation had been specifically manoeuvred to confirm General Musharraf’s acceptance at every forum. Not the one to miss an opportunity, he went on the much trodden track of listing the whys and whereofs of his various decisions. His right to amend the constitution, granted to him by the Supreme Court, was again brought up. He balanced his amendments to the constitution against Nawaz Sharif’s 13th, 14th, and 15th and proceeded to discuss the necessity of the National Security Council. Short of canonising the president, his audience played its part well. There was applause when required and chants when prompted.
The Punjab minister for law and local government, Raja Basharat, could not contain his overloaded enthusiasm. He called the president’s reception ‘historic’, praising all those who had helped to make the occasion part of history. Coming from the government’s history books, around 25 district bar associations, out of a total of 34 in the province, presidents of three Punjab high court bars and the vice president of the Lahore High Court bar had attended the function.
He, of course, decided not to mention the thousands of other lawyers who had boycotted, including Hamid Khan, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. But the government’s desperation to win support was too apparent to be missed by skeptics. They claimed that this official campaign to win over lawyers was handed over to Raja Basharat, the provincial advisor, Rana Ejaz Ahmed Khan and senator Dr Khalid Ranjha. They were spotted at various bar councils and associations trying to convince lawyers to attend the luncheon. In a press conference the LHCBA president, Hafiz Ansari alleged that Mansoorur Rehman Afridi had extended the invitation without seeking the approval of the LBA’s executive body. His assertion was that over 300 people of intelligence were asked to pose as lawyers because most of the invitees were judicial officers.
A series of protests started against the LBA president, calling him a ‘traitor’ and demanding to revoke his presidency. The Punjab Bar Council suspended Mr Afridi as president of the Lahore Bar Association. His own association, the LBA, passed a vote of no-confidence against him, appointing the senior vice president as the president.
What ensued during these meetings clearly showed not all lawyers were fighting for the same cause. Though a majority of these lawyers were against Afridi, some of them found it pertinent to politicise the whole thing. Names of Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari were heard above the LFO, their followers demanding their return and release. During a meeting of the LHCBA’s general body meeting, scenes of abuse and scuffles were seen between the anti and the pro-government lawyers.
Jumping into the fray, the government had to put its own stamp of disapproval on the entire affair. The Supreme Court’s help was sought, which was too modest to comply anyway, forbidding lawyers from holding a traditional convention in the SCBA office in Islamabad. Through a letter sent to the president of the SCBA, the registrar of the Supreme Court Mr M A Farooqi, informed that he had been directed to state that ‘agencies responsible for security arrangements, in and around the SC building, had been directed to ensure that lawyers coming to the convention should not be permitted to attend it’.
The government had opened up another unnecessary front. But the real victim was the judiciary, making its impartiality highly suspect and, sadly, reducing its worth to an arbitrary extension of the establishment.
There’s no division
The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Hamid Khan, does not want to upstage Mansoorur Rehman Afridi even to infamy for the most obvious reason. “He’s a nobody to me. Besides the lawyers movement is not about a person, it’s about principles and morals. I must make one thing very clear here, that breach of principles by one person does not mean a division exists among lawyers. There’s no division,” claims the president of the SCBA. And yet he could not deny the invitation to the president and the events that followed had seriously marred the lawyers reputation. “It’s not just the lawyers, people can be bought in every profession. There are 34 districts in the Punjab, the government could only manage to buy the president of one of them. Everybody knows about Khalid Ranjha, Rana Ejaz and a few other lawyers who have sold out to the government to keep their appointments.”
He blamed the government for crossing all parameters to stay in power, keeping up the traditions of the past for flagrantly using the judiciary. “This time the government has not shown any subtlety and has blatantly attempted to buy lawyers because, obviously, our movement is threatening its validity. That’s why the luncheon was held at a hotel whereas lawyers functions are always held on the premises of the bar associations.”
Hamid Khan disclosed that representatives of the lawyers were not invited; only those on the government payroll with the intelligence clearance were given the invitations. “Hafiz Abdul Rehman, president of the LHBCA caught a district judge distributing cards to the civil and sessions judges, and to the district and deputy district attorneys. The LBA president (i.e. Mr Afridi) is known to be available to the highest bidder. He was paid Rs5 million to organize the lunch,” reveals Hamid Khan.
There are five sections of the LFO which are objectionable to the lawyers: the president’s position in holding two offices, discretionary powers of the president to dissolve the national and provincial assemblies, the National Security Council, the extension in the retirement age of judges by a military ruler and restriction on the legislative powers of the parliament by the LFO. “I am grossly disappointed in the judiciary which has become the tool of the rulers. The Pakistan Bar Council, the main regulatory body of Pakistan, is going to launch a white paper on the judiciary. The main focus will be the role of judiciary post-October 1999 and the way the military has manipulated it, making it a junior partner in ruling Pakistan.” Coming from one of the most senior lawyers of the country, the allegation sounds too serious to be cast aside. It is also worth noting that if a lawyer has lost faith in the judiciary, where should an average person go for justice?
I remain the head
Reviled and characterized as someone who has sabotaged the lawyers’ cause by violating the principles of solidarity, Mansoorur Rehman Khan Afridi should be rightfully concerned about his future as a lawyer. Far from showing any signs of apprehension, he refuses to accept his suspension as president of the Lahore Bar Association. “My name was not mentioned in the notice sent by the secretary Lahore High Court Bar Association. It has only revoked the membership of Arif Chaudhry, not mine. I am still the president of the LBA,” states Mr Mansoorur Rehman Afridi.
In his opinion the issue of inviting the president has no legal status. “If we have accepted last year’s general elections, why should we not give President Musharraf the respect he deserves?” Putting it all down to politicisation organized by Jamaat-I-Islami’s Hafiz Ansari, Mr Afridi regrets the lawyers’ division at a time when the country is in a politically tenuous position.
“Instead of strengthening the institutions, we are squabbling over non-issues like inviting President Musharraf to lunch. The LFO is an interim arrangement, and should be dealt with by the parliament. I have never said that I approve of the LFO or support the president’s political decisions. But those are separate matters which have to be decided within a legislative framework,” insists Mr Afridi.
He denied charges of government manipulation to divide the lawyers. “The rift is played up and exaggerated by those people who are not pleased with my presidency. They know that in a short time I have achieved the legal community. I have made changes to the courts’ buildings for the litigants benefit and have also asked the government to help me in refurbishing them. What’s wrong in that request?” inquiries Mr Afridi.
The controversial luncheon cost President Musharraf Rs150 million to be made available as relief for lawyers. Mr Mansoorur Rehman Afridi is content to congratulate himself on the president’s generous donation, believing that the real problem lies not in the invitation but his opponents’ fears of being shown as under-achievers. “With the help of this grant if I achieve half of what they have been promising to the lawyers, you can imagine what will happen to their credibility. They know they’ll lose the next election as well.” It is heartening to know that while the rest of his colleagues are drumming support against the LFO, he is already planning his next bar association victory. Does he realize the infamous lunch has cost him just that?
Constitution revived after 41 months by Rafaqat Ali
DAWN WIRE SERVICE 15 March 2003 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2003/mar152003.html
Hamid Khan, president of Supreme Court Bar Association, however said, no individual has the authority to amend the Constitution, and not even if the Supreme Court said so. He said that the court was not empowered to legislate itself and how could it vest such a power to any Individual, which was not available to itself. The Constitution has been restored unamended as it stood on Oct 12, 1999 and for making the LFO as a part of the Constitution, resort to Article 239 is must, he said. “At the most the LFO status is no better than a proposal for amendment in the Constitution.” It is prerogative of the parliament to amend the Constitution under the mechanism provided in articles 238 and 239. About the proclamation of emergency issued on Oct 14, he said it ceases to exist after the revival of the Constitution.
Last night this Fraud “Ather Minallah” was sitting with Ansar Abbasi on GEO 🙂 Athar Minallah’s response to Ansar Abbasi & Gang 16 June 2010 http://criticalppp.com/archives/13117 On Athar Minallah and the betrayal of the unsung heroes – by Fawad Manzoor 17 June 2010 http://criticalppp.com/archives/13187
ZERO was accepted “as a guest on GEO”
Past Heroes, Now Zeroes
http://fkpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/past-heroes-now-zeroes/
Past Heros, Now Zeros – II
http://fkpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/past-heros-now-zeros-ii/
Hypocrite and Time Server to the core:
Geo ‘Jawabdeh’ host Iftikhar Ahmed resigns in protest Monday, November 17, 2008 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\11\17\story_17-11-2008_pg7_34
LAHORE: Iftikhar Ahmed, the host of Geo TV show ‘Jawabdeh’, resigned on Sunday after the channel administration refused to air an interview with former Pakistan Television managing director Shahid Masood. The interview was recorded last week and was being advertised in the group’s The News and Jang newspapers. On Sunday, the Geo TV administration seized the original recording and declined to run it. Iftikhar Ahmed told Aaj Kal he was being pressured to censor parts of the interview but he did not compromise on principles and resigned. aaj kal report
RESIGNED FOR THIS [Kindly Upload]
Hidden Truth of Jawab Deh [1/4]
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5pJ8CZFbOU
Hidden Truth of Jawab Deh [2/4]
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZr0b_e5dmI
Hidden Truth of Jawab Deh [3/4]
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MXaOTlqbXw
Hidden Truth of Jawab Deh [4/4]
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIPT-KveS_s
AND LATER “Iftikhar Ahmed” REJOINED AGAIN:) Bunch of Jokers.
For the dignity of the judiciary
The happenings of Thursday and Friday at the Supreme Court (SC) did not add to the august image of the court. The entire court was summoned late on Thursday night and then a full court hearing was held post-haste on Friday. It was unsightly to see newspaper reports and analysts of all hues on television channels commenting on the conduct of judges in reacting to media reports and issuing a stern warning to the government that any move at unsettling the restored judiciary was tantamount to high treason. During Friday’s hearing, the attorney general was asked to respond to news reports on behalf of the government and insistence was made on a written statement from the prime minister what intentions his government harboured with regard to the judiciary. The court said that it was in possession of evidence to validate the media reports and that the media acted in the country’s interest by blowing the whistle. Unfortunately, subsequent news analyses conveyed an impression that the apex court is now backing the media in order to justify its own overreaction to unverified media reports. It would serve the ends of justice and rebut these conjectures if the august court made that evidence public.
Despite betraying some element of insecurity, the SC judges have staunch supporters among the lawyers’ community, political parties and an influential section of the media. On Friday, hundreds of lawyers brought out a rally on Constitutional Avenue to express their support for the judiciary. On the other hand, PML-N leader Mian Shahbaz Sharif felt obliged to issue a statement in favour of the judiciary. One thus gets a picture of a partisan web of support.
Federal Law Minister Babar Awan’s measured response on behalf of the government to this episode in a press conference in Islamabad should have clarified the situation for many. He highlighted the blatant lack of media ethics and the dignified and guarded manner in which state institutions are expected to behave. He assured that the democratic government of the PPP respected the constitution and all state institutions.
While lawyers in general agitated against the government, one of the leading lights of the lawyers’ movement, Ali Ahmad Kurd, has taken a diametrically opposite position to the dominant view among the rank and file of the lawyers. He said that calling an emergency session on the basis of media reports was inappropriate because judges the world over kept themselves aloof from such reports, let alone acted on them. The conjectures in the media regarding the contemplated action by the government have yet to be substantiated in the face of denials by the prime minister, information and law ministers, and reacting to such speculative hypotheses runs the risk of making the court controversial.
The appropriate response should have been to make inquiries whether the news was genuine and to contact the highest authorities. The prime minister, the chief executive of the country, stating in unambiguous and clear terms that there was no such action on the table should have been enough to satisfy the judges. The prime minister is now scheduled to address the country today (Sunday). The entire argument on whether the withdrawal of the executive order was legally valid or not was thus beside the point. The court, through its own hasty actions and by its friends among the lawyers, PML-N and the media, is not necessarily being served well. With utmost respect, their lordships must take note.
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\17\story_17-10-2010_pg3_1
How this “Interview” was possible under House Arrest and Incommunicado too as per the news below: Inftikhar Chouhdry Interviews CNN during Emergency http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYQ0AFuiJgY&eurl=
I wonder how an Incommunicado CJ was issuing statement often published in The New York Times/Washington Post “during his days in Bastille” – [I still fail to understand that when CJ was sacked in March 2007, he and the press said the CJ is under house arrest and held incommunicado whereas the very next day Air Marshal [R] Asgher Khan “successfully” met him As per Daily Dawn dated March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428
“ISLAMABAD, March 11: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has demanded that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should hold open proceedings on the reference against him sent by President Gen Pervez Musharraf. This was stated by seasoned politician Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan after a meeting with Justice Chaudhry here on Sunday. The demand made by the suspended chief justice indicates that he is not ready to resign and is determined to contest the allegations levelled against him. – But one day earlier the CJ was held incommunicado – “There is no other way to describe the situation as no one is being allowed to meet him,” he said after police officials stopped him and other lawyers from going inside the chief justice’s residence. REFERENCES: Justice Iftikhar seeks open SJC proceedings: Asghar By Iftikhar A. Khan March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428 http://www.dawn.com/2007/03/12/top1.htm CJ held incommunicado; lawyers slam ‘arrest’ By Nasir Iqbal http://www.dawn.com/2007/03/11/top1.htm
Hi there, I discovered your website by way of Google while looking for a related topic, your website got here up, it seems to be good. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
One more of your respective wonderful blogposts, keep up the excellent says…