17 Good Men: NRO bench
With due respect to azad adlia
Media’s position on NRO before the court proceeding
NRO was always a controversial law because it was discriminatory law; many political pundits and columnist lead the campaign against it under the leadership of Javed Chaudhry (Kal Tak); who use to end his television program with his brilliant closing notes like good attorney in court with either a Haddith, or telling a tale of some saint and use them to taunt Asif Ali Zardari for taking benefits from NRO and poor people in jails can’t take benefit from that. Although he is a very biased anchor but still we can’t ignore that NRO was biased law.
Pending petitions in the courts
There were two kinds of petitions in the court regarding NRO; some were filled before anyone took the advantage from it and the reason the tell to file a petition against is ; NRO is against human right and spirit of the constitution. And the other who felt being victimized because it caters only one class, like co-accused with Rehman Malik filed a petition to have same relief as politician are enjoying under NRO.
CJ remarks prior to court proceeding
“Aab Qatal kai mulzim bhi NRO mang rahay hai “
Court proceeding
Shockingly poor petitioner like Iqbal who was co-accused with Rehman Malik was never called in the court to explain his plea, the judges never called any of the beneficiaries to explain their position.
The proceeding started with one of the judge from the bench asked government to provide list of those who took the relief after the life time of NRO ordinance was over. It was obvious only Asif Ali Zardari took the benefit after feburary 2008 after the NRO ordinance life time was over.
Respected bench called NAB to bring the record of only one of the beneficiary cases and that was Asif Ali Zardari , even the though the petitioner were challenging the NRO on human rights grounds and other petition calling it catering only one class .
Judgment
The court not only declared NRO null and void it also touched other issue and most shocking are some of the later statements in the judgment because that are given in the light of those clauses which were added by General Zia to constitutionalize character eligibility for an individual to hold a public office .and bigger mystery is that its not a short judgment as media is calling it and final judgment has yet to come.
Consequences
Reactionary media started a campaign against member of the ruling party & ministers who took the benefit from the NRO because supreme doubts their character to hold a public office which resulted in a national embarrassment when defence minister was stop on the Islamabad airport because his name was added in ECL after the court judgment. Later it was discovered he never took the NRO as NAB chief later send him a apology for a mistake.
My Plea
- If NRO is discriminatory law then what about the court proceeding wasn’t it biased?
- If Supreme Court can open a close transaction like NRO why don’t they open PCO, it is also against the spirit of constitution?
- If respected Judges had taken some time to analyze the list of NRO beneficiaries, we could have avoided tragic episode of defence minister’s humiliation on the airport, it is now discovered that his name was wrongly included in the list of NRO beneficiaries as he was cleared by NAB even before NRO came to existence.
Excellent article, Humza.
Sometimes it seems that Pakistani media is more interested in branding and selling the ‘hot cake’ instead of being socially responsible. (The main purpose of anchors seems to be able to increase their rating and bring more advertising revenue to their bosses.)
For example, Talat Hussain did a wonderful program on 18 December 2009 (Live with Talat) presenting some questions which are creeping in ppp supporters’ minds in the aftermath of the anti-NRO decision of the Supreme Court.
A must watch by the way : )
http://www.friendskorner.com/forum/f154/video-live-talat-18th-december-2009-a-155710/
In other words, they will keep creating villains and keep crying fouls once the villain is brought down.
For example, the title of “Mard-e-Hur” for Asif Zardari by nobody else but Majeed Nizami.
Life could not be funnier than that…
The so called historic judgement of “The Darbar e UzmaPakistan” the real urdu of “The Supreme Court of Pakistan” of 16 December marks the division of Pakistan in 1971. It has declared a law discriminatory but in the process the darbar has committed the same sin of discrimination. When it shouts that all are equal in the eyes of law then why did they got the detailed record of only one person i.e Asif Zardari. They did not take any notice of the the revelation of Brig. Imtiaz about distribution of public money to THe Beneficiaries of NRO of 8th amendment 0f 1985 in which billions of Rupees made of corruption were burried. The case of distribution of money by the ISI walas was not at all a sacred act but it was a crime against the constitution of Pakistan which requires free and impartial elections free of state manipulations. The distributers as well as receivers of public money have committed High Treason through intigues and blocking the true mandate of the People of Pakistan to emerge.
The new judgement is a continuity of the intigues the establishment always did against the people
”if SC can open a close transaction like NRO,why dont they open pco”,this one line says it all.judes who erred in the past seek understanding on the plea that they subsequently suffered and have made amends.should others also not be given the same opportunity to turn over a new leaf.
Will these 17 Good Men act against the perpetrators of crimes for their disqualification having been convicted in British Court.
The London High Court, on March 19, 1999, orders Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, his brother Abbas Sharif and father Mian Mohammad Sharif to jointly pay a sum of $32.5 million to Al Towfeek Company for Funds Ltd., the investment Company from which they had taken a loan for Hudabiya Paper Mills Ltd. The Queen’s Division Bench of the London High Court passed the ex-parte order , as the defendants had not defended themselves in the court. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the case The court on Sept 7, 1998 had issued writ of summons to the defendants and given 23 days after the service of writ to return the loan as claimed by the plaintiff company or give their intention to contest the case.
Al Towfeek Investment Funds Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman islands, which provides banking facilities and finance for industrial development in Pakistan, had entered into a lease agreement with Hudabiya Paper Mills Ltd, one of the companies owned by Sharif family, on February 15, 1995 under which the plaintiff leased certain machinery to Hudabiya Mills for the manufacture of paper and paper board for six months. At the time of the lease contract, Mian Mohammad Shahbaz Sharif, his father Mian Mohammad Sharif and his brother Abbas Sharif, had given written guarantees to pay to Al Towfeek Investment all loans taken up to $10 million by Hudabiya Paper Mills together with all profits, charges and other related expenses. While the actual loan was $12 million, almost $20 million was accrued as interest.
When the Sharif’s company failed to return the loan, Al Towfeek served notices to the guarantors namely Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, his brother Abbas Sharif and father Mohammad Sharif to repay the loan but they failed to honor their guarantees and make payment to the plaintiff. Finally, the investment company went to the London high Court to recover the loan from the Sharif family. Shahbaz Sharif, during a visit to London had tried to make an out of court settlement but did not succeed.
source Dawn 14.4.99
The acquittal of “Sharif Bros” by Six judges of The Darbar e Uzma after Eight Years of NO appeal based on their contention that they
1. were out of the country and
2. they did not trust the judiciary under dictator Pervaz Musharraf
but tne following is quite relevant
Shahbaz, Kulsoom to move SC
——————————————————————-
Staff Reporter
LAHORE, Sept 27: The Lahore High Court (LHC) dismissed all the six
petitions of PML-N leaders Shahbaz Sharif and Kulsoom Nawaz for
inclusion of their names in the final lists of candidates,
upholding the election tribunal’s decision disqualifying them from
elections.
The full bench of LHC comprising Justice Javed Butar, Justice Ejaz
Chaudhry and Justice Jamshed Ali observed that they had examined
the written orders of the election tribunal disqualifying the
petitioners. There was nothing on record to show that the detailed
judgment had been issued after the expiry of tribunal’s life-span.
A detailed judgment would be issued later.
After pronouncement of the short order, the counsel for the
petitioners, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, said he would challenge the verdict
in the Supreme Court as soon as he got a copy of the detailed
judgment.
The petitioners had nominated the returning officers for NA-119,
NA-122, PP-141 and PP-142, all candidates from these four
constituencies of Lahore, the election tribunal and the Election
Commission of Pakistan (ECP) as respondents.
The petitioners submitted that orders of the returning officers
concerned clearing both Mr Shahbaz and Ms Kulsoom for elections,
were restored when the election tribunal failed to sign its
disqualification order within its life span. It was pleaded that
the nomination papers and the authority letters appended with those
papers had been signed by the petitioners. Lastly, Mr Shahbaz had
refuted the tribunal’s declaration that he was a wilful defaulter.
When the full bench delivered the verbal order, Deputy Attorney
General (DAG) Khwaja Saeeduz Zafar had completed his arguments. He
submitted that it would be presumed that the tribunal’s verdict had
been written and signed the day it was announced verbally. The
delay in signing the judgment was a procedural anomaly, which could
not hurt a judgment’s validity, he added.
The state argued that under the Representation of People’s Act
(ROPA) 1976, a candidate was supposed to say under oath that
whatever he had disclosed in nomination papers was true. However,
it was contended, an affidavit signed by one Dr Makhdoomi had been
appended with the papers of Mr Shahbaz, saying that the latter had
signed the nomination papers himself in front of the former who, in
fact, was sitting in Pakistan.
It was argued that this affidavit had been prepared in Pakistan
whereas Mr Shahbaz had not visited Pakistan since his departure to
Saudi Arabia. The state contended that the petitioner’s wrong
statement of facts had put his credibility in doubt and defeated
the purpose of ROPA, which was aimed at bringing honest candidates
to the fore.
The DAG said the signatures of both the petitioners on nomination
papers differed markedly from those on affidavits. He acknowledged
that there could be a slight difference in signatures of a person
depending on his state of mind and sitting posture, which, however,
could not cause such a marked difference as there was in this case.
He contended that the finding of election tribunal that signatures
of the two petitioners appeared to have been forged was not open to
judicial review. It was argued that the affidavit produced by Hamza
Shahbaz before the tribunal saying that signatures on the
nomination papers were of his father did not have any legal value
since it had not been attested by any authority.
The DAG submitted that Mr Shahbaz would be considered a wilful
defaulter as long as the amount owed by him was not paid off. The
bench asked as to how could Mr Shahbaz be regarded as a wilful
defaulter when he and Nawaz Sharif had handed over the assets of
Ittefaq Brothers and Ittefaq Foundries Private Limited to the
company judge concerned. The DAG replied that the matter of loan
recovery was not yet over, as no final orders had been issued in
this regard. Mr Shahbaz would be considered a wilful defaulter till
the announcement of company judge’s final orders.
The state in its concluding arguments submitted that the delivery
of ballot papers to the officials concerned had been started, and
these petitions could not be allowed at this stage. The bench was
requested to reject the petitions on grounds that the polls could
not postponed for allowing the petitions, as such a permission
would be against national interests.
To a bench query, Punjab Advocate-General Maqbool Ellahi Malik
submitted that mere arrangements for retirement of liabilities did
not relieve a respondent of default. Not a single penny had been
given to the plaintiff bank in this case so far, he added. He
further said the election tribunal’s finding that Mr Shahbaz was a
wilful defaulter had obtained finality and could not be challenged.
In a short reply to state arguments, petitioners’ counsel submitted
that under the law, an election tribunal was bound to deliver the
verdict in an open court and within its life-span. He said
variations in the signatures of Mr Shahbaz and Ms Kulsoom did not
amount to forgery.
Don’t be so upset because of the “historical decision” by the Supreme Court, headed by the CJ, BB had promised to reinstate.
Simple solutions are there for every problem, such as naming “Dr” Babar Awan as Law Minister also.
My suggestion is to replace the current SC full bench by the following PPP jiyalas, and rename it to Benazeer Supreme Court of Benazeer Pakisan”:
1. “Dr.” Babar Awan – CJ of the Benazeer Supreme Court of Pakistan. He will be “The Crusader” CJ of Benazeer Pakistan
2. Dr. A. Rehman Malik. Can be Called “The Facilitator Judge of BSCBP”
3. Farooq Naik,
4. Salman Farooqi
5. Jehangir Badr
6.Raja Pervez Ashraf
7.Choudhry Ahmed Mukhtar
8.Dr. Zulfiqar Mirza
9.Agha Siraj Durrani
10.Syed Naveed Qamar
11. Pir Mazharul Haq.
12. Faryal Talpur.
13. Sadiq Umrani.
14. Syed Mehdi Shah, “Fateh of Gilgit Judge”
15. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, “Chanakiya Judge of BSCBP
16. Mir Ejaz Jakhrani, “The Most Ignorant Judge”
17. Abdul Qayum Jatoi. Can be called ” Corruption Justifier Judge ”
Best of luck
Khilji
some people are so heavy headed that they don’t differentiate between right and wrong. The PPP jiyalas base their opinion on logic. Mr. Khilji has taken the cat out of the PPP haters bag. The secret of the decisions in their favour is that the judges mostly come from HOUSE of ITTEFAQ