Ali Ahmed Kurd’s description of the likes of Iftikhar Chaudhry & Khawaja Sharif
Analysis by Abdul Nishapuri – from another thread:
In Hamid Mir’s talkshow, Capital Talk, on 22 December 2009, Ali Ahmad Kurd expressed three key reservations about the current Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of Pakistan:
1. CJP and other judges of the Supreme Court are populist. They read daily newspapers, watch TV talk-shows and then shape their decisions / verdicts consistent with the ‘popular demand or expectations’.
2. CJP and other judges of the SC are rushing the current lopsided process of justice (aimed against one specific person, i.e. President Zardari), and in the rushed process, justice is likely to be crushed.
3. Kurd noted that it was being forecast by certain circles (e.g. Dr Shahid Masood and Shaheen Sehbai) that the Supreme Court will announce an important decision (against PPP) in December 2009, something which actually happened. Why this coincidence? (Why did the agents of establishment against democracy happen to know exact dates?)
Asma Jahangir too, in the same program of Capital Talk, expressed her reservations about the inclusion of Article 62 etc, related to Islamic provision of Ameen etc for the eligibility to be a member of parliament, in the Supreme Court’s judgement. She termed the judgement as poorly reasoned, politically biased, resembling a tribal jirgah style judgement instead of a due process of justice.
Judges deciding cases on media lines: Kurd
Daily Times Monitor
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 (Dawn Report)
The judgment appeared to be based on newspaper headlines and talk shows of private TV channels: Ali Ahmed Kurd.
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.
very valid arguments by both kurd and asma .such criticism of SC judgement based on law and fact cant be ignored. judiciary must follow the due process of law before coming to any judgement
Here is another perspective on “the implications of partial justice”, by Mahir Ali, in Dawn:
But supposing parliament had ratified the ordinance, how would that have affected the legal decision on its validity? Following Chaudhry’s second restoration, one of his biggest supporters expressed the hope that ‘in the larger interest of justice’ the chief justice ‘himself would not hear the case against the NRO.’
In that instance, too, Aitzaz Ahsan’s well-intentioned advice went unheeded. And it is unfortunate but true that segments of last week’s short order are open to interpretation as indications of a personal agenda.
Judicial activism will lose its lustre unless it can also be seen, broadly if not universally, as judicious activism. Ideally, rather than an occasional blast from the past, accountability ought to be a perpetual process whereby everyone — be they in power or out of it, and in uniform or out it — is answerable for culpable wrongdoing.
There have, inevitably, been calls from among PPP ranks for corruption cases against PML-N leaders to also be revived. Beyond the tit-for-tat politicking, the demand isn’t altogether unreasonable, given that both parties competed arduously for power and pelf during the superficially civilian interregnum of the 1990s.
Yet the khaki party that has been in power the longest seldom faces demands for accountability, although its conduct in any number of spheres has rarely been above reproach. That’s unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Kamal Azfar, meanwhile, wasn’t exactly wrong in pointing to the GHQ and the CIA as sources of the biggest threats to democracy in Pakistan. But he would have come across as considerably more credible had he also shortlisted a third culprit in this context: our self-serving politicians.
Should the higher priority of justice not be the protection of the innocent rather than the punishment of the guilty? I think of this because Mr Roedad Khan’s petition against the NRO, even though not defended by anyone, was given the importance of a blazing full court hearing, complete with legal luminaries assisting as amicus curie. Mr Roedad Khan’s complaint was that the NRO both violated his fundamental rights to equality as a citizen (because it was discriminatory), and violated the UN Convention against Corruption (to which Pakistan is a signatory).
I only wish Mr Roedad Khan’s deep concern for fundamental rights and UN conventions would, for example, run to the plight of the Ahmadiyya community and our Hudood Laws. Would it be worth asking him publicly on the relative public importance of the two cases? For the NRO only conferred dubious benefits upon some; the latter laws do actual harm to millions.
By the way, why stop here with these NRO cases? There are all those dubious loan write-off cases that surely need to be looked into on the same principle (starting from 1971? Or, even, 1947?). And, are we not forgetting something else? What about ‘accountability’ of the armed forces and the judiciary? Shouldn’t what is sauce for the goose be also sauce for the gander?
If, by the above, you conclude I am less than thrilled to bits by what is going on, you will not be far wrong. Everyone righteously protests they have no desire to subvert ‘the democratic system’, even as their actions are likely to make a significant contribution precisely to that end. But then they cannot be blamed for that — should that happen — can they? That dubious distinction, in our book, is always reserved for ‘the other’. We always have to do what we have to do.
Asadullah Ghalib’s khari khari batain:
Saleem Safi’s advice to supporters and opponents of the NRO:
Nadeem F. Paracha’s article in Dawn on the Mir show.
CJ advises eunuchs be appointed for loans recovery Updated at: 1430 PST, Wednesday, December 23, 2009 ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) advised the government to ponder over the appointment of the eunuchs for the recovery from loan defaulters, Geo News reported Wednesday. http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=94264
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who was earlier appointed as amicus curiae by the court in the case and later made a party for being the chairman of a private entity being a beneficiary of loan write-off, also appeared before the court. SBP list submitted in court includes Nawaz period Wednesday, December 23, 2009 SC gives last chance to loan defaulters If anyone says court has crossed its limits, we are ready to take the blame in nation’s best interest: CJ By Sohail Khan http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26237
’عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود کچھ نہیں بدلا‘
Monday, 7 September, 2009, 12:58 GMT 17:58 PST
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد
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
كیا لوٹا ہوا پیسا واپس لانا پاكستان سے غداری ہے شرم كرو اس گند كو لكھ كیا تم چین كی نید سو سكو گے شرم كرو پاكستانی ایسی بات نہیں لكھتا جو مرضی لكھ لو مگر یاد ركھو اللہ تعالی كی لاٹھی بے آواز ہے جب پڑے گی تو معلوم ہوگا انشااللہ میر الفاظ یاد ركھنا یہ لاٹھی كیسے پڑے كی یہ اللہ تعالی ہی جانتا ہے جیو سپریم كورٹ جیو پاكستان
CJ summons talk-show recordings on NRO Thursday, December 24, 2009 By Dilshad Azeem
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has directed the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to provide the whole record of TV talk shows on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in the aftermath of December 16, 2009 apex court verdict.
The Supreme Court has formally conveyed to Pemra to present recordings of talk shows of all TV channels in its jurisdiction as well as other relevant programmes wherein the Dec 16 decision on the NRO and related aspects were brought under discussion.
The letter written by Supreme Court Registrar Dr Faqir Hussain mentioned the words of the NRO and discussions, particularly when the Supreme Court made its judgment public. Pemra is expected to compile the whole record within a day or two and present before the Supreme Court all programmes in which verdict on the NRO and its pros and cons had been discussed.
However, neither a deadline has been given nor clippings of newspapers have been sought by the Supreme Court in its official letter dispatched to Pemra on Wednesday. Pemra Chairman Mushtaq Malik confirmed to The News to have received such an official communication from the Supreme Court.
“No not at all,” was his response when asked as to whether the court specified some private TV channels. “The programmes of all TV channels are mentioned in the directives,” he said. “The court orders will be followed in letter and spirit while presenting the recordings mentioned in the communication,” the Pemra chief maintained.
Answering a query, the Pemra chairman said no reason has been mentioned in the letter about talk shows recordings except that these are on the NRO and after December 16 court decision.
“We have started our work and will try to submit before the court the required matters within the shortest possible time,” Mushtaq Malik said when insisted. However, when this correspondent contacted a few political figures, including those from the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, they were of the view that the court might want to trace whether or not the contempt of court was committed in these programmes. They said the court may plan to issue some directives for TV channels on the NRO, as it had earlier stopped the electronic media from airing comments on it.
Agenda of General Zia-ul-Haq revived by the Supreme Court of Pakistan? Here is I.A. Rehman’s perspective:
The NRO was such an easy target that a single shot (Articles 4, 8 and 25 of the constitution) was enough to demolish it. A fusillade from heavy cannons (Articles 62 (f), 63 (i and p), 89, 175, and 227) has created problems.
The clauses of Articles 62 and 63 cited now constitute part of Ziaul Haq’s arbitrary amendments. They have never been debated by a representative assembly and have been consistently denounced by democratic opinion. It has often been said that the legislatures have not touched them. But this argument should be examined in the context of the circumstances in which the post-Zia assemblies have been elected and the conditions under which the democratic regimes have been allowed to function. Invoking Ziaul Haq’s interpolations in the 1973 constitution, whose revival in its original form is the battle cry of all democratic parties, is like quoting a PCO judge’s ruling before today’s independent judiciary.
Further, reference has again been made to the ‘salient features of the constitution, i.e., independence of the judiciary, federalism, parliamentary form of government blended with Islamic provisions’ and ‘no change in the basic features of the constitution is possible through amendment’. The argument was last heard in May 2000 when 12 judges of the Supreme Court had not only upheld the Pervez Musharraf coup of October 1999 but also allowed him the power to amend the constitution.
Now, the debate over certain parts of a national constitution being outside parliament’s authority to amend them has been going on in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh for over 40 years (Indian Supreme Court verdicts of 1967, 1973 and 1975; Pakistan Supreme Court verdicts of 1963, 1997 and 2000). Professor Conrad, the German scholar who has done much to promote this principle, has succinctly put it thus: ‘Any amending body organised within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.’
An essential question is: are courts the sole forum for determining the basic or fundamental or salient features of a constitution? In many countries (including Canada, Germany and India) the provisions that cannot be routinely amended by parliament are identified in the constitution itself. This is an issue that calls for a thorough debate.
In any case the issue before the Supreme Court was not an amendment to the constitution that would have attracted the basic features theory. The issue before it was an ordinary presidential ordinance. And for laws and ordinances that conflict with the constitution clear remedies are available.
By invoking Article 227 in the present case the Supreme Court seems to have put Islamic injunctions in command of the whole constitution. Quite a few lawyers argue that this amounts to overruling the court’s judgments in the Hakim Khan (1992) and Kaneez Fatima (1993) cases.
The position as far as a lay writer can understand is this: the power to strike down a law for being repugnant to Islamic injunctions lies with the Federal Shariat Court and no other court. Article 227 only allows the Council of Islamic Ideology to recommend changes in laws on the ground of repugnancy to Islam. The article does not empower any forum to strike down any law. When 17 judges of the highest court invest Article 227 with the power to nullify a law it could amount to constitution-making. It is necessary to dispel the fears that the courts could start striking down any law they consider violative of Islamic injunctions.
Besides, the matter is not one of law alone, it is essentially political. The ‘salient features of the constitution’ theory has no answer for conflicts between these features — between a parliamentary form of government and Islamic injunctions, for instance. And what will happen to the independence of the judiciary if one accepts the view propounded by many Islamic scholars that in an Islamic order the ameer is the head of all state organs — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary?
One cannot forget the case started by Mr Kaikaus, a former Supreme Court judge, in a Shariat appellate bench but which was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court on a technical ground. He appealed to the bench but withdrew his plea because he did not think the judges on it were Muslims! Mr Kaikaus had branded the parliamentary form of government, the system of elections, and the existence of political parties as un-Islamic! Fears of many such cases coming up are not groundless. The people of Pakistan have every right to ask whether Ziaul Haq’s agenda has been revived.
Basil Nabi Malik writes in The News:
The judgment in itself only stated three things: (1) that the NRO is void ab initio; (2) that requests would be sent to reopen those foreign cases which were withdrawn illegally without the consent of the previous government; and (3) that in order to ensure that the NRO cases are efficiently and effectively prosecuted, the SC will monitor such proceedings. The pro-PPP camp is saying that the reopening of the cases is a clear indication of victimisation by the courts and the courts are playing into the hands of the establishment. This is said despite the fact that the NRO judgment itself does not talk about any particular individual and makes it clear that all NRO cases would be reopened.
The same camp also questions why cases against the Sharif brothers are not being reopened, or why one of the main architects of the NRO, i.e. Musharraf, was not even mentioned in the short order. These points may well have been valid had it not been the PPP that was in government, and hence in a position to prosecute a case or reopen any other if it so chose. Also, it was the PPP that had given the same a resounding guard of honour before facilitating his departure from the country.
On the other hand, the pro-establishment lobby is trying to portray President Zardari as an unforgivable corrupt person who cannot be trusted. And his attempts to forge friendly relations with India, a working relationship with the US and his government’s shadowy relationship with Blackwater are all factors which have convinced this lobby that Zardari must be ‘sacrificed’ for the greater good of the system. And this despite the fact that the PPP-led government has probably achieved more in its short tenure of one and a half years or so than our military dictators have been able to do in their eight to ten years of totalitarian rule. In this short period of time, the government has evolved a remarkable consensus on a new NFC formula based on factors other than population, it has given Gilgit-Baltistan a proper name and actual fiscal and legislative powers and has also taken a giant leap towards giving it an identity within the federation of Pakistan. And the list goes on with the Balochistan package, the restoration of the government’s writ in Swat and the initial successes in South Waziristan.
The judiciary must be careful. There are players in the system who would love to paint the picture of a biased judiciary to suit their ends, whereas there are others who would love it to do their dirty work.
Farrukh Khan Pitafi writes in Daily Times:
I watch the television and I am told that the NRO was the blackest law in the country’s history. I beg to differ. It does not become a black law only because those who brought to us the 8th Amendment and the Hudood Ordinance say so. While it could be dubbed a discriminatory law, it had its strengths too. By establishing a cut off date for the amnesty it would have ensured that the incumbents did not indulge in any corruption in the future using the excuse of political victimisation. But that, dear readers, is in the past and we should address only the issue at hand, that is our future.
I have opined in the past that the Taliban apologists have used this debate to their advantage. If I was waiting for a sign I was not disappointed. After the verdict, the immunity of the president was challenged in the Lahore High Court by none other than Khalid Khawaja. If you expect me to say something further about the man who confesses to be Osama bin Laden’s pilot, then I am sorry to disappoint you. But you can always look him up on the internet. The incident of a known Taliban apologist in Khalid Khawaja seeking the president’s dismissal is something of a giveaway. As I had said earlier, they would like to drag down the government of every secular political party – and I include the PML-N in the list of secular ones too – and install a pro-Taliban regime in Islamabad. There is no need for me to explain how such an eventuality would mean only doom for the country’s moderate population. I wish everyone could understand what is at stake. Hence, instead of subjecting the country to one constitutional crisis after another it would be wise to wait till the war on terror is finished. If the democratic system takes root and the courts do function independently, I am sure the elections would decide who was corrupt and who was not. The system needs to function and attain stability.
Similarly, all institutions should define their boundaries and function within them. This is important because it is only through democracy that the people can change their future. I had said in the above-mentioned column that I am ready to die in the struggle for the independence of judiciary leading to a full democratic Pakistan. Just imagine how willing I must be as a citizen to protect the future of democracy in this country.
Some experts say that proceedings could be launched in high courts to de-seat Zardari by challenging his election as president, as the NRO cover he enjoyed at the time of election had now been set aside.
“The SC order says the NRO contradicts some specific clauses of articles 62 and 63 which deal with qualification and disqualification … it apparently indicates that electoral issues [related to Zardari] may be raised,” legal expert Abid Hassan Manto told Daily Times.
Challenge election: He said that in light of the SC judgement, any citizen could question the election of president through a “quo warranto petition” seeking his post-poll disqualification stating that the protection Zardari enjoyed at the time of his election under the NRO had been set aside and all convictions, if any, stood revived.
Also, proof of conviction is compulsory to de-seat someone through an election petition, according to experts. Experts cite the example of former MNA Raja Afzal from Jehlum – who was disqualified by the election commission on an election petition filed by his opponent, but the SC later turned down that decision, saying the petitioner had failed to provide proof of Afzal’s conviction in any of the charges he had framed. Experts are, therefore, of the view that the election of any public officeholder cannot be nullified without giving proof that the person is a convict.
In chapter one of the constitution, Article 41(6) apparently rescues the head of state – even if he/she is a convict – from disqualification once elected. This article states, “The validity of the election of the president shall not be called into question by or before any court of any authority.”
Validity: Senior lawyer Waseem Sajjad said although terms related to the law were always very complicated, the clause seemed to provide protection to the president, and once elected, the validity of such an election could not be challenged. “It seems that the authors of our constitution – keeping in view the sanctity of the office of head of state – provided him/her immunity under Article 248 … once he/she has been elected,” he said.
Justice (r) Fakharuddin G Ibrahim said the president’s election could be questioned in light of the SC decision, but it would be wise to look ahead and let the system continue.
How dictator Musharraf used his colleagues against Justice Iftikhar Friday, December 25, 2009 By Usman Manzoor
ISLAMABAD: The detailed judgment in the case of the restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan on July 20, 2007 reveals that not only Pervez Musharraf but the then Director General ISI and the DG Military Intelligence (MI) had also insisted that the chief justice resign during his illegal detention at the Army House Rawalpindi on March 9, 2007.
The judgment, penned by Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, says: “The petitioner CJP went on to depose that ‘the respondent (the president) insisted that the deponent (the CJP) should resign’. He added that his refusal to oblige, ‘ignited the fury of the respondent (the president); he (the president) stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS, and the prime minister of Pakistan, saying that others would show evidence to the deponent’ (about the allegations of misconduct against the CJP).”
“As per the CJP, his meeting with the president lasted for about thirty minutes meaning thereby that the president and the prime minister would have left by about 12.15/12.30 pm and the CJP was then left behind in the company only of the DG MI, the DG ISI allegedly to be shown the evidence in support of the above-noticed accusations.
The CJP alleged that no evidence at all was shown to him and “in fact, no official except DG ISI had some documents with him but he also did not show anything to the deponent” (the CJP). He added that they only accused him of having secured a seat for his son in Bolan Medical College while he was serving as a judge of Balochistan High Court. “The CJP further alleged that the DG MI and the DG ISI kept insisting that he should resign from his office while he continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and were being levelled only for a collateral purpose and that he would not resign at any cost and would rather face the said false charges.”
The judgment states, “While the CJP was still at the President’s Camp Office in Rawalpindi during the said crucial ‘FIVE HOURS’ and when according to the CJP he was being detained there against his wishes after 12 noon and when according to the respondents he was sitting there, in the company of the intelligence chiefs examining the reference and the material available in support thereof, a notification dated March 9, 2007, was issued by the Government of Pakistan in the Law, Justice and Human Rights Division mentioning therein that since the President of Pakistan had been pleased to make a reference called a ‘DIRECTION’ by Article 209(5) of the Constitution) to the SJC against the CJP, therefore, the President had restrained Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry from acting as the Chief Justice of Pakistan or even as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”
The honourable judges of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the case had nothing to do with army as an institution but acts of a person who happened to be chief of army staff. The judgment regarding the statement of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that ‘it was a matter between army and judiciary’ states, “This, in our opinion, was a naive attempt to create a wedge between two important and indispensable arms of the State and to put them on a war-path. What was in question before us was an act of the President and it was just an accident or a coincidence that the said President also happened to be the Chief of Army Staff. The matter had obviously nothing to do with the Army as an institution. Needless to add that the Army was an invaluable organ and instrument of the State and was as precious to us all as any other institution of our homeland. We, therefore, take this opportunity to express our disapproval and displeasure about the said statement.”
Political analysts and observers who had watched the situation at the time, however, told The News that the involvement of junior military officers was minimal and on the specific orders of General Pervez Musharraf who had his own personal vested interest to protect.
They said whatever happened at the time was planned and ordered by General Musharraf and no other army or intelligence officer could be blamed for it. “It was Musharraf and Musharraf alone who must be held responsible for the treatment he meted out to the judiciary and the judges have also noted this in their judgment when they said the army had nothing to do with it as an institution,” an analyst said.
It should be noted that both the ISI and the MI were directly under control of the then COAS, General Musharraf, although the ISI is supposed to be under the prime minister.
A retired general who was closed to General Pervez Musharraf when contacted said that Musharraf tried to show the door to the chief justice because he wanted extension in his tenure that was expiring, election results of his own desire and government of his own choice. He considered the chief justice as the only person who could create hurdles in the achievement of his objectives. He said Musharraf’s stakes were very high and he wanted to achieve his objectives at all costs.
Musharraf, he said, used his senior colleagues, to press the chief justice to quit. He said the then DG MI General Nadeem Ijaz, who was relative of Musharraf, crossed all limits in dealing with the opponents of the former dictator. The DG MI was the strong man of Musharraf. He said Musharraf took aggressive steps against judiciary on the advice of the DG MI, who was in fact responsible for spoiling Musharraf’s all matters related to judiciary. The DG IB went too far in bid to protect the interests of his boss (Musharraf).
He said under Musharraf’s pressure the DG MI Ijaz, DG IB Ejaz Shah, the then secretary interior and some others also submitted affidavits in the Supreme Court against the chief justice. He reminded that the DG ISI did not submit an affidavit. It was believed that Musharraf asked the DG ISI to submit his affidavit but the latter said sorry to the former. Musharraf, he said, was reportedly offended by the DG ISI. He said despite Musharraf’s intensive efforts, the then DG ISI Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani kept a reasonable distance from this issue in grace.
He said Gen Kayani was popular as a simple soldier. He did not show any interest in Musharraf’s machinations and that was why he did not submit any affidavit.
Observers are pleasantly surprised that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry wrote the names of military generals including the former DG ISI Gen Kayani, who is present army chief, and the full court also mentioned them in their judgement without showing any fear. They said the chief justice and all the members of the full court deserve praise and esteem for showing rare courage.
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday also mentioned the reasons for delay in writing the detailed judgment. The judgment says, “And before I put my pen down, I wish to offer a personal explanation which I owe in connection with this judgment. As is known, the short judgment in the matter was announced on July 20, 2007 and these reasons in support of the said judgment are being recorded after almost 2-1/2 years. This rather extraordinary delay, which was on account of equally extraordinary circumstances, warrants clarification and elucidation.”
He mentioned that after vacations he was a part of a bench hearing the eligibility case of Pervez Musharraf but, when the said matter had almost reached the final stages, martial law (called emergency) was imposed in the country by General Musharraf on November 3, 2007 in his capacity as the Chief of Army Staff. Thirteen out of seventeen Judges were removed from office and some including the Chief Justice were put under house arrest which detention continued till March, 2008. “Thereafter, I was of course a free man but being a ‘REMOVED’ Judge, had no access to the Supreme Court and consequently the entire record of this case, including all the notes, were out of my reach. I, along with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and some other learned brothers, got restored to office in March, 2009 and it is thereafter that I got down to collecting the lost, the forgotten and the scattered threads and this is what I have been able to produce now.”
LIES OF ANSAR ABBASI IN VIEW OF NEWS ABOVE:
Army to stay away Thursday, July 23, 2009 Kayani treated Iftikhar with respect when Musharraf and aides misbehaved with him By Ansar Abbasi
MURREE: The Pakistan Army would stay distant and neutral from the Supreme Court’s proceedings against the ex-army chief and condemned dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s trial on account of his Nov 3, 2007 unconstitutional action.
While many wonder if the Pakistan Army would defend Musharraf despite what he did to Pakistan, its institutions and to the constitution as a 14-member bench of the apex court is currently adjudicating the former dictator’s Nov 3 actions, the military under General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani intends to stay neutral. It is not interested to drag itself into unnecessary controversy by siding with a man, who is no more associated with the Army and is sought by the country’s superior judiciary for his unconstitutional actions.
The Supreme Court Wednesday summoned Musharraf to appear before the 14-member bench or get himself represented through his counsel to defend his actions of Nov 3 and later. Although the military spokesman when contacted by a member of The News Investigative Reporting Wing did not offer his comment on the question if Pakistan Army would defend its former chief in the apex court, a senior army source simply ruled out any such possibility. “What army has to do with this,” said the source, adding that the Supreme Court has taken up a political case that has nothing to do with the army.
“We have nothing to do with it,” the source said when precisely asked about the Nov 3rd unconstitutional actions of the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, the military source added, is no more in army. “You know better that he is retired now and have no link with army,” the source said, adding that dragging Pakistan Army into this would be uncalled for.
In an interesting twist of fate Musharraf, who had perpetuated his dictatorial rule by misusing his powers as chief of army staff and even at the cost of the reputation of the institution of Pakistan Army, is all alone and is now trying to settle down in London as he fears facing music if comes back to Pakistan.
Musharraf is becoming such a lesson for others that even Washington to whom he had sold his soul and served even at the cost of damaging Pakistan, has been abandoned by his real master. US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke Wednesday said President Pervez Musharraf is now history and that the US will not come to defend him.
The reputation of Pakistan Army was at its worse when Musharraf handed over the military command to the incumbent Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who took no time to get the army out of politics and repeatedly proved military’s neutrality from political and government matters. Kayani, the man who enjoys utmost respect both within the army and outside for his professionalism, kept army out of any electoral manipulation early last year though Musharraf was keen to rig the elections to get his choice parties elected all over Pakistan.
After Musharraf’s departure and the emergence of President Asif Ali Zardari as the major opponent to the restoration of the deposed judges, again it was the incumbent army chief who played his positive role and have had a series of interactions with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to settle the issue to the best interest of the people, the country and the judiciary.
This is also in public knowledge that even during the days when Musharraf was an all powerful dictator, he had also refused to give an affidavit against the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry following his controversial suspension on March 9, 2007. Perhaps not many know that Musharraf and some of his other Generals misbehaved with the chief justice on March 9 in order to coerce him into tendering resignation, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the then ISI chief, was decent and polite with the chief justice. While others were rude towards the CJ, it was Gen Kayani, who had even offered a cup of coffee to Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
CJ says chiefs of MI, ISI asked him to quit: Affidavit on March 9 camp office event By Iftikhar A. Khan May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428
ISLAMABAD, May 29: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on Tuesday narrated for the first time his version of the events of of May 9 at the President’s camp office in Rawalpindi.
He said in an affidavit that top intelligence officials had constantly pressured him into resigning, and after keeping him confined at the office for over five hours, he was allowed to leave in a flagless car.
“I was informed that I have been restrained from acting as the chief justice.”
The `non-functional’ chief justice informed the full-bench hearing identical petitions against the presidential reference that since the action of March 9, he had remained a victim of intrusive and not-so-intrusive intelligence and police operation.
Justice Iftikhar said his entire house had been bugged, all his activities were being monitored, and `everything and everyone’ in and around his residence was being watched through a listening post set up at the nearby Sindh House.
He did not say in the affidavit if he had been summoned to the Army House by President General Pervez Musharraf or whether he had made a request to meet the president.
“When I reached the Army House, President Musharraf, wearing military uniform, told him he had received a complaint against him from a judge of the Peshawar High Court..
“I replied that it was not based on facts as my case was decided by a two-member bench and that attempts are being made to maliciously involve the other member of the Bench as well.” After this, the president said there were a few more complaints as well, directing his staff to call the ‘other persons’.
The ‘other persons’ entered the room immediately. They were: Prime Minster Shaukat Aziz, the Directors General
of Military Intelligence (MI), Director General of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Director General Intelligence Bureau (IB), Chief of Staff (COS) and another official. All officials (except the IB chief and the COS) were in uniform.
He said Gen Musharraf started reading notes from bits of paper. There was no single consolidated document containing charges against him. Most of the allegations had been taken from the contents of a ‘notorious letter’ written by Mr Naeem Bukhari.
The Chief Justice said he dismissed the accusations as being baseless, having been engineered to defame him and the judiciary.
He said President Musharraf insisted on his resignation. The president also said that if he agreed to resign, he would ‘accommodate’ him.
In case of refusal, Gen Musharraf warned him, he would have to face a reference. “I replied: `I will not resign and would face any reference since I am innocent; I have not violated any code of conduct or any law, rule or regulation. I believe that I am the guardian of law. I strongly believe in God.”
He said the reply angered the president. He left the room in haste along with his military secretary, COS and the prime minister, saying that others would show evidence to him.
“The meeting lasted about 30 minutes. The chiefs of the MI, ISI and IB stayed back, but they too did not show him me a single piece of evidence.”
In fact, Justice iftikhar said, no official, except the ISI chief, had any document with him.
The officials, however, alleged that Justice Iftikhar had used his influence
to get his son admitted in Bolan Medical College, Quetta, when he was serving as a judge of the Balochistan High Court. The ISI and MI heads persisted in their demand for resignation, the CJ said. “I refused, saying that the demand has a collateral purpose.”
“I was kept there absolutely against my will till 5pm. I was stopped there on one pretext or the other and at one stage was told the president will once again see me. “After 5pm, the MI chief told me `This is a bad day. Now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained from working as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of Pakistan’.”
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry further said when he came out of the room, he was stunned to find that the national flag and the insignia of office were no longer there on his car.
“My staff officer later informed me Justice Javed Iqbal has taken oath as Acting Chief Justice and it has been shown on TV. My driver said he had been instructed not to drive the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.”
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry said while on the way home, he asked the driver to take him to the Supreme Court, but an army official stopped his car near the Sports Complex from proceeding further.
In the meantime, an SP, Tariq Masood Yasin, appeared. “He (SP Tariq) ordered the driver to come out of the car so that he (SP) could drive. He also asked his gunman to come out of the car.
“I intervened, telling the SP `okay, I will not go to the Supreme Court, but my chauffeur will drive the car and my gunman will escort me home. Only then, did the SP allow the chauffeur to take the steering.”
Justice Iftikhar said he reached home at 5.45pm and was shocked to see
policemen and agency officials in mufti all over the place. My phones had already been disconnected, cellphones, TV, cables and DSL had been jammed or disconnected. He said he and his family were completely cut off for several days from the outside world.
He said by 9pm, all official vehicles in his use, including a Mercedes, had been taken away by means of a lifter. One of the vehicles was returned to him later in the night, but without the key.
The next day (March 10), the chief justice recalled, he received a `notice’ from the Supreme Judicial Council informing him hereby he came to know that a Reference (No.43/2007) had been filed by the President before the Council. There was also a copy of the Order passed by the Council restraining him to function as a Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of Pakistan. He said the copy of the Reference had also been appended with the Notice without any annexure or supporting documents for his perusal.
Justice Chaudhry said it was also surprising for him to note that the aforesaid reference came up for hearing on March 9, 2007 after 6 pm in indecent haste. Two members of the Council as was evident from news published in an urdu daily on March 10, 2007, had been flown to Islamabad in special flights, from Lahore and Karachi simply to participate in a meeting of the Council. In fact, no meeting had been called by the Secretary of the Council namely Mr Faqir Hussain. No one had issued either agenda for the meeting or notice thereof.
He said the Council, rather than merely scrutinizing the material, if at all and serving notice on him (without prejudice to his rights and interests as averred in the titled petition), went ahead and passed an order very detrimental to his interests as well as the interests of the institution. He said he was restrained to perform his functions as a Judge of the Supreme Court Judge and or Chief Justice of Pakistan.
He said that he had been detained along with his family members including his infant child of seven years from the evening of March 9, 2007 till March 13. He had to walk till the other end of the road when the police officer confronted him and manhandled him as has now been established by a judicial enquiry.He said the Supreme Court staff attached to him was reportedly missing and had been kept at an unknown place. An attempt was being made to fabricate the evidence through them by coercive means against him. Even other employees working at his residence were taken and made to appear before some agency officials. They were released after 2/3 days. He said the grocery man was not allowed to go to Šcollect grocery; he was made to wait till an agency official accompanied him to the market and back.
He said his chamber was sealed and certain files laying therein were removed and some of them had been handed over to the ISI under the supervision of the newly appointed Registrar.He said such an act was contrary to all norms and practices of judiciary and being the CJP, he was entitled to occupy his chamber along with his staff.
He said on account of deployment of heavy contingents, no one was allowed to meet him freely, in as much as his colleagues were not allowed access to meet him. Even a retired judge of the Apex Court Mr Justice (R) Munir A Sheikh was not allowed to meet him. He said he was not all alone to suffer this agony. Even his children were not allowed to go to school, college and university. He said he and his family members were deprived of basic amenities of life, including medicines and doctors, etc.He said even when ordered by the Council, he was deprived of the assistance of his counsel to seek legal assistance regarding legal and factual issues involved in the reference.
He said he and his family have been made to go through a lot of mental, physical and emotional agony, torture and embarrassment and words could never be enough to properly and adequately express that.
He said all these tactics were used to put pressurise him to resign from the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. But after March 13, 2007 when he succeeded in establishing at least some contact with his lawyers team during a brief appearance before the Council and after March 16, 2007, the on going pressure to ‘resign the office’ was released to some extent.
He said he believed that his entire house has been bugged and at the Sindh House which is located right opposite the residence of the deponent, the officials of the agencies other than police have established a place therein to keep an eye on those who come and visit him.
He said his children were so scared that they could not go to school or university. “As a result, one of my daughters failed to appear in her exams (1st year, Federal Board) whereas my other daughter who is a student of Bahria university is not being allowed to take her examination (1st semester) due to lack of attendance in internal studies. My younger son is also not in a position to attend his school because of circumstances through which I am passing”.
Though the affidavit did not say the Chief Justice was summoned to the Army House, the lead counsel for the Chief Justice Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan who concluded his arguments on maintainability of the petition challenging the reference against CJ, before a 13 member bench of the Court headed by Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday said he had evidence that the Chief ŠJustice was summoned to the Army House. He said he will prove that the respondent side was telling lies before the Court.He said President General Pervez Musharraf must be impleaded as an essential party in the case.Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokar asked how can a referring authority be made a party in the case. Aitzaz Ahsan replied that he should acted like a post office as a referring authority, but he summoned the Chief Justice, pressurized him to resign and punished him for the refusal by filing a reference against him before the Supreme Judicial Council with malafide intention.
He said there were precedences of President being made a party in Farooq Leghari, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Aftab Khan Sherpao cases. “This is a case of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the President must be impleeded as a party”, he submitted.
He said under Islamic jurisprudence also, the rulers were answerable to the courts. He cited various judgments passed by superior courts in Pakistan as well as India to build his argument that the immunity to the President under Article 248 against judicial proceedings would not apply in this case and it was open for judicial review by the Court.
NRO: How “Conveniently” Pakistani Media Taliban Forget [Particularly The News]
read and laugh OR LAMENT.
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. 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. 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 Washington wants, 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.” Last tango in Washington — II Wednesday, October 28, 2009 Anjum Niaz
Pakistanís 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. If Musharraf falls… Friday, November 16, 2007 US making contingency plans
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. 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
Every posting from you is a challenge to the false gods of justice in Paksitan. Like a true scholar you come up with evidence. No wonder the likes of you will never find a place on a channel like Geo/ARY/Aaj, but pseudo-journalists like Hamid Mir, Kashif Abbas, and Talat Hussain will continue to “guide” and “lead” the nation through chaos.
Dear Mr Omar,
Thanks for the compliment. Now watch a very rare video of Talat Hussain [AAJ TV Host] which was recorded in 1999 after Pakistan Army occupied Pakistan by imposing a Martial Law and sacking the elected government of Mr Nawaz Sharif by committing the Treason. Talat Hussain was justifying the Martial Law of Musharraf and implicating Nawaz Sharif in a fake Plane Hijacking Case which was Hijacked by Musharraf and his PSO Brigadier Nadeem Taj [no Lt General and former DG of ISI]. Do watch and upload Talat’s Comment in favour of Military takeover on this blog.
People Views on Musharaf.(Saviour Of Pakistan)
The establishment strikes back By Yousuf Nazar Saturday, 26 Dec, 2009
The Supreme Court’s verdict on the NRO and the way it has been decided to enforce it leaves no doubt in my mind that the establishment is once again out to get the PPP and bring back its favourite civilians to power.
Familiar forces are once again trying to seize the initiative they lost after a decade-long military rule which gave us the ‘war on terror’ and has brought us to a state where Pakistan is bracketed with Afghanistan and is considered one of the hottest spots in the world that can explode anytime.
Never mind the blunders of the masters of ‘strategic lack of depth’ and architects of the policies that have turned Pakistan into a client state of America with few friends; they seem to have decided to strike back again.
Now faced with the question of how to justify this attempt to take back power, they seem to have decided to divert the public’s attention to an easy target and a handy dog to whip; the government of Asif Zardari. It is even speculated that the very reason why the establishment facilitated the entry of Zardari into the corridors of power was because he was considered so vulnerable that getting rid of him would be a piece of cake.
When I wrote about this almost 14 months ago, some PPP stalwarts and senior media pundits dismissed the idea saying the United States was firmly behind him forgetting a basic tenet of Washington’s policy: the US is always with the Pakistan military.
The humiliation of Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar may have come as a shock to some but it was hardly a surprise as it was a demonstration of who really runs the country, a warning to Mr Zardari and an ominous sign of things to come.
If withdrawal of cases on charges of plundering of the national wealth are acts that are void ab initio then so is the deal between Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf that, in effect, washed away all the former’s crimes in exchange for exile, confiscation of property and the Sharif brothers’ promise to stay out of politics for five years according to Nawaz Sharif’s own public admission — and 10 years per the documents released subsequently and according to the Musharraf government’s account of the events.
Let’s see how far the court goes to pursue the loan write-off cases, with the amount totalling billions and allegedly involving the Ittefaq Group, the Chaudhry brothers and many retired generals, regardless of technicalities. Wasn’t that the plunder of national wealth? Or is there one standard for the politicians from Sindh and Balochistan and another for those from the land of the five rivers?
I can already hear screams of ‘provincialism’ and anticipate charges of fanning ethnic discontent but it is just not a coincidence and is an indisputable fact that the judiciary’s every decision has so far favoured Nawaz Sharif and has gone against the PPP.
This is a continuation of the pattern witnessed during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s trial by the Lahore High Court in 1978, the rejection of his appeal by a split 4-3 verdict of the Supreme Court, Nasim Hasan Shah’s restoration of Nawaz Sharif’s government dismissed by Ghulam Ishaq Khan, and more recently the failure of the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice of the ‘deal’ between Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif that effectively whitened all the latter’s wealth.
I have no love for Mr Zardari and think it is a tragedy that he heads a party that was founded by a political giant like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, but personal dislike for Mr Zardari should not blind us to the sinister and dangerous game that is being played by the establishment.
For better or worse, we have a parliament and it is parliament that should be sovereign. But it is the judiciary that seems to be sovereign, with no accountability whatsoever.
It is now too obvious that the judges got rid of Musharraf when he became a liability to the establishment. Now they could be part of a hidden agenda because an overt exercise of powers by the establishment does not fit in with the current internal and external environment.
One has to be politically quite naive or a paid journalist (it does not matter by which agency, IB or the ISI) to eulogise all this as the triumph of justice or some rubbish like that. Why doesn’t the Supreme Court order the ministry of information and broadcasting to publish the names of all those media persons who have been the beneficiaries of secret funds during the past 20 years? Why does only the PPP (not that it is innocent) have to face ‘accountability’?
Why is that only Benazir Bhutto had to explain where the funds for Surrey Palace came from and the Sharif brothers can continue to enjoy their escapades to London and stay in their luxury apartments in Park Lane, one of the most exclusive and expensive neighbourhoods in London, and certainly more expensive than Surrey?
It is time to wake up and face the ugly reality. In Pakistan, the judiciary has been used as an instrument of the establishment. Could it be that this time the modus operandi has become rather sophisticated compared to the cruder methods employed in the past?
Situation is heading toward Judiciary Executive Clash – Kurd, he further said that no single person should be targeted and other cases of corruption should also be given proper attention.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010, Rabi-us-Sani 20, 1431 A.H Updated at: 1620
Just one single question though. Have you made writing this blog as your career or do you do this within your extra time? Merely curious..
broadcast says: – August 13, 2010 at 1:49 pm Just one single question though. Have you made writing this blog as your career or do you do this within your extra time? Merely
Zardari has allotted me Oil and Gas Fields in Badin and also mentioned my name as one of the beneficiary of Zardari assets:)
If you wanted ME to answer the questions, here is the answer: I manage the Surrey Palace on Zardari’s behalf.
I am unable to believe the number of high quality content that exists on this website. The website is quite eye catching and drags the reader directly in, the content are usually excellent quality and are quite professionally written. I’ve witnessed too many of these web sites where it appears like they pay an 6 yr old to perform the writing – Not this place. Your web blog is definitely the very best which i have witnessed in a long while.
I am sure this piece of writing has touched all the internet
visitors, its really really good paragraph on building up new weblog.
Also visit my web site; hermes birkin
Bougainvillea A Colorful Blooming Plant
There’s certainly a great deal to know about this subject.
I really like all the points you have made.
my site: michael kors bag
Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors, for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings, You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword….wait there’s even more Now what if i told you there was a simple WordPress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That’s right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin