Jang Group & Shaheen Sehbai VS Saudi Arabia.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/jang-group-shaheen-sehbai-vs-saudi.html

WASHINGTON, October 17: Dear Readers, this is the final piece on the South Asia Tribune, as this site is now being closed for good. I understand that it may come as a rude shock to many and may create despair and depression for all those who had started to look up to SAT as a beacon of courage and resistance, but this decision has been based on many factors, which I will explain briefly. SAT would be on line for the rest of this month, till the end of October. On November 1, 2005 it will disappear from the Internet. All those who may be interested in keeping a record of any SAT article or report can save it any time before that date. REFERENCE: The Final Word from theSouth Asia Tribune By Shaheen Sehbai WASHINGTON DC, Oct 17, 2005 ISSN: 1684-2057 http://www.satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/200510/P1_sat.htm

Mr Shaheen Sehbai (former correspondent of Daily Dawn; former editor of The News; ex Director News of ARY ONE TV Channel; former director of GEO News Network; and presently Group Editor the News), escaped from Pakistan to save himself from the so-called wrath of the establishment headed by General Musharraf, after the controversy surrounding his story about the murder of Daniel Pearl. It was apparently simply to obtain the Green Card for himself, and his family in the United States. Mr Sehbai then started to run a web based news service, i.e., South Asia Tribune, funded through dubious sources, but he suddenly reappeared and closed his website. During his self-imposed exile in the USA, he used to raise hue and cry against the military establishment that he and his family members’ life was in danger, but the so-called danger suddenly vanished after the whole family getting the Green Cards. He then returned to Pakistan and that too under the same Musharraf regime, and joined ARY TV channel, then GEO, and then the News, where he is presently working.

Now as to how Jang Group/The News International plays with the National Interest of Pakistan.

“QUOTE”

By Shaheen Sehbai in Washington and Rauf Klasra in Islamabad Vol-2, Jul 27-Aug 02, 2002 ISSN:1684-0275 http://www.satribune.com Vol-2, Jul 27- Aug 02, 2002 ISSN:1684-0275 satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/index.htm

http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/saudi_mainstory.htm

It can only be called mind boggling. Something very mysterious and fishy was going on between the Saudi Royal family and General Musharraf’s government prior to September 11 WTC attacks. Or, as the Pakistan Ambassador to the Royal Kingdom hinted, someone was trying to use the name of the Saudi royals to promote some hidden agenda in Pakistan under the garb of huge investments. Documents in Pakistani Government files show that on Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz’s invitation, a Saudi prince had offered to invest close to $10 billion in Pakistan, an offer which was unprecedented in Pakistani and Saudi history. The money would have come over a few years but $300 million were immediately made available and the Saudis were very eager to get things off the ground, as if in a great rush.

The offer was so serious General Musharraf himself wrote a letter to the Saudi prince, inviting him to Islamabad. The prince wrote back accepting the invitation and first sent his representatives to do the ground work. The Saudis wanted to invest in four key sectors: Renew a whole new city project near capital Islamabad (a project launched by the Benazir Bhutto government but later abandoned); take over country’s second largest and lucrative Habib Bank of Pakistan; build an oil refinery in Port city of Karachi; and build or buy a five star hotel. The projections of investment were $4 billion in the city project, $2 billion for the oil refinery, $2-3billion for Habib Bank and $100 million for the five-star hotel.

This mysterious story began with secret negotiations between the two sides sometime in beginning of 2000 resulted in General Pervez Musharraf dispatching a letter on Nov 6, 2002 to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, said to be Chairman of the little known International Islamic Development Trust (IIDT) and International Infrastructure Development Company (IIDC). (Click to view the image).

The prince had accepted to be Chairman of the company on April 9, 2000 vide a signed letter (Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/saudiacceptance.jpg

The highly pleased prince responded with his own letter to General Musharraf dated Nov 30, 2000 in which he disclosed that a team of IIDC/IIDT was already “in serious negotiations” with Pakistani officials as he was writing the reply. (Click to view the image). http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/turkiletter.jpg

General Musharraf was asked to give an audience to the prince’s man, IIDT President one Mr Saeed Akhtar, who, he wrote, “can brief you in person (about) the avenues we are seeking for cooperation and investment.” It is not clear whether General Musharraf received Saeed Akhtar but in two letters sent to the Board of Investment, Government of Pakistan, on Dec 14 and Dec 20, 2000, IIDT and its subsidiary SUNWAYCO, gave details of the proposed investments. Ambassador Asad Durrani says SUNWAYCO was not a Saudi-backed company and no royal family member was involved. He also disputes that Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz had anything to do with these offers but he says Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz has been investing in Pakistan. The documents in Pakistan Government files, however, mention Prince Sultan Bin Turki and his signatures, genuine or forged, are there on at least three documents. It is not clear whether General Musharraf received Saeed Akhtar but in two letters sent to the Board of Investment, Government of Pakistan, on Dec 14 and Dec 20, 2000, IIDT and its subsidiary SUNWAYCO, gave details of the proposed investments. Ambassador Asad Durrani says SUNWAYCO was not a Saudi-backed company and no royal family member was involved. He also disputes that Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz had anything to do with these offers but he says Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz has been investing in Pakistan. The documents in Pakistan Government files, however, mention Prince Sultan Bin Turki and his signatures, genuine or forged, are there on at least three documents. The first detailed SUNWAYCO offer was made in a letter dated Dec 20, 2000 and said in part: “We take this opportunity to introduce our group as investors from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries including overseas Pakistanis, headed by His Royal Highness Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, under the name of International Islamic Development Trust (IIDT) incorporated under the laws of Bahamas with the base capital of US$ 3.8 billion.” (Click to view the image

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway1.jpg

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway2.jpg

ULR: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway3.jpg

“The Trust activities include diverse economic fields but mainly it helps and assists in the social and infrastructure development sectors and human development particularly in the Muslim developing countries,” the letter said, disclosing that “IIDT has already budgeted for an initial investment of $1 billion in Pakistan during the next 12 months with a firm commitment for further investments in different mega projects in years to come. We have already approached the concerned authorities..” it said, giving details of the four sectors and the expected investment totaling over $9 billion. IIDT has already approved an initial financing of $200 million and $100 million as a soft term loan for the Islamabad New City Project. The money is available for immediate dispersal, the letter said.

The Board of Investment responded to the offer on Jan 2, 2001 saying the proposals were being sent to different ministries for consultations and when their views are available, the BOI will revert to you.(Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/boiletter.jpg

A copy of the proposals was faxed to the Pakistan Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Lt. General (Retd) Asad Durrani, a former head of Pakistan’s infamous Inter-Services intelligence agency, the ISI. That is when the trouble for the Saudis began.

On Jan 15, 2001, Gen Asad Durrani sent a letter to the Board of Investment writing, inter alia, that the Prince’s company was fake and “cannot be entrusted responsibility for huge projects for which it has shown interest.”

The Durrani letter was a bomb shell for many and only he knows why he kicked out proposals for billions of dollars of investment, dismissing the company as fake. The written reason Durrani gave for his judgment was that “the company is not known in business circles of Saudi Arabia, the phone numbers given do not belong to it, and faxes sent to the prince have remained unanswered.” (Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/rejectionletter.jpg

Later talking to the SA Tribune on phone from Riyadh on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, Gen. Durrani confirmed that he had blocked the offer as it looked suspicious with apparently no connection to the Saudi Royal Family. He said two Pakistanis met him in connection with the proposed investments but he found them to be suspicious and could not believe they were able to invest billions of dollars in Pakistan. “Straightaway, whenever someone comes and gives you such a project, you should get suspicious…If I were to go and make these claim that I want to invest 12billion dollars, people will throw me out of the room, I suppose,” General Durrani said. (Click to hear Interview). On Jan 20, 2001 the Board of Investment issued a letter saying in view of Gen. Durrani’s comments, the Saudi investments “chapter should be closed.”

The Saudis were enraged, so say the least, and felt embarrassed and insulted. But in Pakistani files a letter of Prince Sultan is available which appears to be another desperate attempt to revive the project. This letter is addressed strangely enough to the then Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau, Lt. General Maqbool, now Governor of Punjab province, with copies to Gen. Musharraf’s office and Board of Investment. In this letter dated March 7, 2001, the Prince wrote that the IIDT had already started work on the oil refinery while the purchase of Habib Bank was under negotiations. (Click to view the image) URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/genmaqbool.jpg

The letter emphasized that IIDT was ready for final negotiations and urged the NAB Chairman to complete these negotiations “under your personal auspices” at the earliest. Why was an accountability bureau chief being asked to take over the investment portfolio is not only mysterious but unexplained.

Nothing happened on the Pakistani side, though.

On May 21, 2001 SUNWAYCO, the lead company for the Islamabad city project, rejected as “fake” by Ambassador Asad Durrani, sent a five-page letter to the Chairman, Board of Investment, with copies to Finance, Interior and Housing Ministers, General Musharraf’s Chief of Staff, now late Gen Ghulam Ahmed, Chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and other officials.

This letter accused General Durrani of sabotaging their proposals and gave some more details of what had been going on behind the scenes. ( Click to view the image pg:1 pg:2 pg:3 pg:4 pg:5 ). It for the first and last time mentioned the name of Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, saying he had already visited Pakistan along with a representative of IIDT/IIDC.

http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest1.jpg

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest2.jpg

ULR: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest3.jpg

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest4.jpg

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest5.jpg

It also revealed that:

The IIDT was invited to invest in Pakistan by Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz. IIDT had approved an initial $1 billion and another $1.5 billion for investment. Concerned Pak Government authorities have been seriously negotiating with representatives of IIDT/IIDC and various delegations have exchanged visits. A representative of IIDT, Mr Al Riyatti was included in the delegation of Saudi Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz. Describing SUNWAYCO as a fake company was a malicious statement and it is libel under international law for a compensation exceeding billions of dollars. The immediate inflow of $300 million in these projects has been stopped. A formal apology to Prince Sultan was demanded from the Government of Pakistan. But the letter still kept the doors open and suggested some remedies including a visit of the Board of Investment Chairman to Saudi Arabia and eliminating the role of the Pak Ambassador in Saudi Arabia in any future dealings which, it proposed, should be done through the Saudi Embassy in Islamabad and directly with the office of Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, whose telephone numbers and contacts were given.

An application was also filed with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on May 21, 2001 to incorporate SUNWAYCO in Pakistan.

The Islamabad address of the Saudi company in Sector F-10 was said to be a huge office until around May of 2001. A visit to that office this week by our correspondent Rauf Klasra showed there was nothing there any more. “I went there in the afternoon on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, and found the house (office) closed. Neighbours told me that a big office was opened a couple of years ago but had been closed for more than a year. There was no sign board, no name plate, or anything indicating any Saudi presence in that house. Repeated ringing of door bell to confirm whether someone was inside produced no response,” he reported. “Everybody appears to have evaporated into thin air.”

All this has raised a number of questions, which remain unanswered. Among them:

Why did the former ISI Chief Gen Durrani summarily dismiss the offer as fake. Did he have some special background of the company or the people behind it? He says the looks of the executives of the company, who were Pakistanis and not Saudis, were suspicious. Can a government make judgments about investment proposals sent in writing on mere looks of some people?

Who really is Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz? There is no detail available on any Saudi site. He is said to be a close relation of the long time Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz. Does it mean it was some kind of a Saudi intelligence scheme to pump in money into Pakistan and take control of strategic assets like a major bank, a whole city where any number of people could stay and take shelter, a five-star hotel to keep VIPs, a front business like an oil refinery? The Ambassador says Prince Sultan Bin Turki was not involved. Then why have all the government files letters signed by him and correspondence in his name.

Why did General Pervez Musharraf write a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, if he was not the person involved. Why not send a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Nasir, who did visit Pakistan later? Who misled Musharraf and what game was going on? The Ambassador says the other Prince, Sultan Bin Nasir, was interested in investments, but his name does not figure on any file or in the proposals made by IIDT/IIDC or SUNWAYCO. Was he then in the picture or was he trying to hide his name for fear of exposure or some other reason?

Was something going on between General Musharraf and the Saudis to create a huge joint infrastructure that could be used later for any other purpose? Why were the Saudis, or people using their name and identities, so keen to pump in money and then suddenly disappeared? Was it all connected to terrorism or terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan and in the US?

Following is the transcript of the interview of Lt. General (Retd) Asad Durrani, Pakistan Ambassador to Saudi Arabia with Shaheen Sehbai, Editor, South Asia Tribune, on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 about suspicious Saudi investment plans in Pakistan. The interview was in English, but was mixed with Urdu language in some places:

SS: Last year, some time around March/April, the Government of Pakistan decided, and that was on the basis of one of your comments, that this (Saudi) company was not genuine. The Government closed the whole project and they said this matter is closed..

AD: Yes, there was one company which did not belong to any of the princes. About that, I had said look we cannot find out anything about that company here.

SS: Sunwayco..

AD: Apparently that company had their headquarters in Switzerland..

SS: Probably in Monaco…

AD: That’s the only thing that I remember, the rest, Prince Sultan Bin Nasir and others, they are very genuine people.

SS: Have there been any investments in the last one year or two by these people in Pakistan?

AD: I think there have been plenty of investments in the last year and a half. If you are interested, you can always send your contact number and fax and one will dig out all the details.

SS: (Did these investments include) any of these big projects they were talking about like buying the Habib Bank or setting up a Islamabad (New city).

AD: No, on that, I don’t think anything final has been done, I think these negotiations take a long time, I suppose.

SS: What is the position of Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Turki, is he fairly high in the royal family?

AD: Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, and this name has no “Turki” anywhere.

SS: But the papers that we have show Prince “Turki” is also there.

AD: I would suggest to you not to depend on the papers, because it confuses the source, it confuses the name, it confuses the project. But, you know, we have to live with this environment, I suppose. Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, that means he is the direct descendant of King Abdul Aziz.

SS: One of your letters was about a company named Sunwayco…

AD: Oh, yes yes, that is the one we were told that is based in Geneva and we found out they had some representatives here but they were “airy fairy.”

SS: And that was the company. Probably they were trying to make those proposals in Pakistan. Later, they wrote a protest letter too to the Government of Pakistan…

AD: That’s correct, when you talk of Sunwayco, that is correct. Sunwayco, Switzerland, as far as I know, there was no prince involved in it. The two gentlemen, who were here, were also not Saudis who came to see me.

SS: They were Pakistanis probably, the letters had Pakistani names like Sohail Akhtar and..

AD: He never came to us, their Pakistani representative never came to us.

SS: Why have they been using the name of the prince, because his name is (everywhere).

AD: I suppose, I don’t know why they did that exactly, you can probably ask them but I was not told the name of the prince.

SS: President General Musharraf also wrote a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz regarding cooperation and then he replied back. Things were going back and forth.

AD: I really would not know about that.

SS: But basically what the story is saying…

AD: When you refer to Sultan Bin Turki’s name, then I get confused and I don’t know what case you are talking about. I am not aware of that..

SS: But the whole case, they say, is because, you wrote a letter, you wrote about Sunwayco, that’s very clear in your letter.

AD: I definitely wrote about Sunwayco that we have no information about this company. Here in Saudia, we have no information and we could not trace out this company. You better ask Switzerland where this company is based. After that, these two gentlemen did come to me and told me that were the (Sunwayco) representatives, how could you state that we don’t exist. So, those two gentlemen came but I was not convinced. To me it was something not interesting really.

SS: They were asking for fairly huge projects, if you total their proposed investment, it was something close to 8-9 billion dollars.

AD: Straightaway, whenever someone comes and gives you such a project, you should get suspicious.

SS: Something was suspicious because 8-9 billion dollars, like 4 billions dollars for a city near Islamabad, 3-4 billion dollars in Habib Bank, another 2 billion in an oil refinery, that was huge money. It has never been done before.

AD: If I were to go and make these claim that I want to invest 12 billion dollars, people will throw me out of the room, I suppose.

“UNQUOTE”

“QUOTE”

The Saudis Respond to Bugging Story: Pakistanis Still Mum Special SAT Report Issue No 65, Nov 2-8, 2003 ISSN:1684-2057 satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/nov2_8_03/P1_saudi.htm

ISLAMABAD: Saudi Arabia has finally reacted to the South Asia Tribune report that the suites of Crown Prince Abdullah were bugged in Islamabad and that the Saudis had detected the bugging. But the Saudi response, coming almost a week after the report was published by SA Tribune and then by several international newspapers, raises more questions than it answers. The Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad, Ali Awadh Asseri, when contacted by an Islamabad newspaper “The News” described the report as “irresponsible”. “Such irresponsible reporting has its own motives and objectives,” the ambassador told “The News” while commenting on the report.

But then he immediately went into the diplomatic mode and said: “Let me assure you that nothing in the whole world can affect traditional historical ties between Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” The implication either was that the bugging could not affect the historical ties or may be its reporting did not. The ambassador was quoted as saying: “This irresponsible report did not reflect the historical trust existing among the two countries and the two nations. The love and affection demonstrated by the Government of Pakistan during Crown prince visit showed what the visit meant to them.” “What we saw in Pakistan during the visit—the genuine love was unprecedented,” Ambassador Asseri said.

This was the total comment of the Saudi Ambassador but “The News” also quoted an un-named Saudi source, who said the report was “an attempt only aimed at the derangement of the historical relations between the Kingdom of SA and the brotherly country of Pakistan.” “The current relations between the two countries are based on a stable principle and transparency in dealing with every matter between the two countries which does not need from either side to resort to such acts that are mentioned by those who are prejudiced,” un-named source was quoted as saying.

“The Kingdom of SA while stressing the falsehood of this story reaffirms that it does not pay any attention to this matter and that its trust in its brotherly Pakistan is bigger than any attempt from someone to harm it or influence it,” the un-named source said. Though the Saudi response came a week after the story was published, interestingly there has been absolutely no reaction from the Pakistani officials. Highly placed sources in the Pakistani police, however, again confirmed to the SA Tribune that the incident did take place and the Saudis were very angry about it all. But the sources said the Pakistani officials were not issuing any official statement as they did not want to convey to the Saudis what may be perceived as “public lies or misstatements” about something the Saudis knew well was true. Amusingly the statement of the Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad was published only in Islamabad and the same correspondent who filed the story and who also reports for the English language newspaper, The Saudi Gazette, published in Jeddah, did not either file the story to his Saudi newspaper, or they did not use it.

“UNQUOTE”

Martial Law, NRO, NAB & Across The Board Accountability.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/11/martial-law-nro-nab-across-board.html

General Pervez Musharraf & Co. [now Retired] after imposing Martial Law in Pakistan on 12 Oct 1999 by violating article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, in his address to the nation had said:

“QUOTE”

ISLAMABAD, Oct 17: Chief executive Gen Pervez Musharraf has announced the setting up of National Security Council (NSC) which will guide cabinet ministers in running the affairs of the country. In his address to the nation on radio and television on Sunday night, Gen Musharraf set a seven-point agenda to revive the economy and work for national integration. He also said that there was no martial law in Pakistan.” The Constitution has temporarily been held in abeyance to save the country”, he said. The chief executive said he was happy to tell the nation that Rafiq Tarar had consented to continue as the president of the country. Giving the details, Gen Musharraf said he would head the six-member National Security Council, whose members would be the chief of naval staff, the chief of air staff, a specialist each in legal, finance, foreign policy and national affairs. A ‘think tank’ of experts would be formed as an adjunct to the NSC to provide institutionalised advice and input. The seven-point agenda would be: rebuilding of national confidence and morale; strengthening of the federation, removal of interprovincial disharmony and restoration of national cohesion; revival of economy and restoration of investor’s confidence; ensuring law and order and dispensing speedy justice; depoliticization of state institutions; devolution of power to the grossroots level; and ensuring swift and across- the-board accountability. REFERENCE: Musharraf addresses nation: Security Council to run state affairs By Ihtasham ul Haque 23 October 1999 Issue:05/43 DAWN WIRE SERVICE http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/23oct99.html

“UNQUOTE”

Lets see as to how General Musharraf and his Illegal and Rampant Military Regime conducted the Across the Board Accountability and that too after violating article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan i.e. by Imposing Martial Law and sacking an Elected Government of Mr Nawaz Sharif. REFERENCES: MORE DETAILS ON DRACONIAN NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU: Human Rights Developments http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k1/asia/pakistan.html Special Corruption Courts in Asia http://www.u4.no/helpdesk/helpdesk/queries/query19.cfm Pakistan Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 2002 March 31, 2003 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18314.htm

The National Accountability Bureau is Pakistan’s apex anti-corruption organization. It is charged with the responsibility of elimination of corruption through a holistic approach of awareness, prevention and enforcement. It operates under the National Accountability Ordinance-1999, with its headquarter at Islamabad. REFERENCE: http://www.nab.gov.pk/

IN an interview, Lt-Gen Hafiz is said to have termed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) a ‘professional’ organization run by qualified people. What sort of professional organization is he talking about? The Merriam – Webster dictionary defines the word professional as “characterized or conforming to the ethical standard of a profession.” The Bureau was constituted with the aim of bringing the corrupt to justice and free society from the menace of graft. Lt-Gen Syed Amjad was appointed its first chairman with Farooq Adam as prosecutor-general. Several high profile politicians and bureaucrats were arrested in the beginning and lodged haphazardly at different police stations without any record on paper as NAB was itself groping for ways and means to legalize these arrests.

One can recall the statement of Farooq Adam in the apex court that NAB had ‘dumped and forgotten’ former chairman of the HBFC, Siddiqul Farooq. Can that organization be termed professional whose PG (seniormost prosecuting officer) issues such a feckless statement in front of Supreme Court judges? NAB prepared dozens of corruption cases against the Sharif family and it was claimed with full confidence that this organization would bring all members of the Sharif family to justice. But the military government wanted them to leave the country. A ‘deal’ (still a mystery) was struck and they were flown overnight out of the country. This was in complete negation of the NAB Ordinance but this professional organization remained a silent spectator to the episode. In a series of other events, some of the top-notch politicians under NAB custody were released on one pretext or another with the promise to switch loyalties to the government. And now the investigations initiated by NAB against the former chairman of Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lt-Gen Javed Nasir, are dragging on. After all that has happened, is it right to call NAB a professional organization run by qualified people?

NAB Officials spend over Rs. 24. 7 million on foreign tours Friday February 03, 2006 (0035 PST) ISLAMABAD: Atleast 47 National Accountability Bureau (NAB) officials including two former chairmen spent more than an estimated Rs. 24. 7 million on foreign trips, as details in this connection presented in the parliament. Online learnt Thursday through well placed sources of Senate Secretariat, according to which two former chairmen of NAB, Lt Gen (Retd) Amjad Hussain and Lt. Gen (Retd) Munir Hafiz toured about 20 countries. Gen Amjad spent estimated Rs four hundred thousand while touring UK and USA, whereas Gen Munir toured an outrageous 18 foreign destinations spending about 60,00,000 from exchequer’s kitty.

Most of these tours have been claimed to be undertaken in connection with pending investigations about corruption charges against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, whereas NAB officials also underwent training in foreign institutions against corruption handling. Further activities include seminars, attended by NAB officials in such diverse destinations as, Dubai, Malaysia, London, Geneva, Singapore, Hong Kong, USA, Saudi Arabia, Paris, Nairobi, Manila, Jakarta, Mexico, Korea, China, Australia, etc. According to the detailed reports provided by the Prime Minister house to the Parliament, the former deputy secretary of NAB, Maj Gen Shujaat Zamir, spent Rs 2, 49000, Deputy chairman NAB Hassan. M. Afzal spent about Rs. 2,73,000 on his Geneva trip, Attorney General Pakistan Makhdoom Ali Khan spent an estimated Rs. 2,75,000 on his Geneva trip, former prosecutor General Farooq Adam Khan spent, Rs 2,75,000, D.G NAB Talat Mahmood Ghumman spent 12,00,000 on his trip to London, Sydney, Zurich, Switzerland, D.G NAB Maj. Gen Ijaz Ahmad Bakhshi spent about Rs 1,61,000 on his USA trip, DG Rear Admiral Saeed Ahmad Sargana spent Rs 2,56,000 on his Mexican tour, COS Brig. Tayab Waheed concurred an expenditure of Rs, 400,000 on his tours to Singapore, Hong Kong, Vienna, Austria, and Kuala Lumpur. Among other more, group captain Naseer Ashraf spent 2,66,000 on his trips to Moscow, Dubai, and London, member financial crimes Najam -Ul- Hassan Saqib spent 14,00,000 on his itinerary of Zurich, Geneva, London and Australia. Ms Nadia Sheikh, who is a legal consultant, spent more than 2,00,000 on her Korean trip, and additional director Tanvir Akhtar and Farman Ullah spent more than 600,000 on their Hong Kong trip. Besides these, other officials also spent astronomical amounts from official sources, ranging from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 300,000 on their foreign trips. REFERENCE: NAB Officials spend over Rs. 24. 7 million on foreign tours Friday February 03, 2006 (0035 PST) http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?133078

In October 1999, right after Pervez Musharraf’s coup d’état, General Syed Mohammad Amjad of Corps II (Multan) was appointed as first chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB). General Amjad was said to be close friend of General Mahmood Ahmed, Musharraf’s right-hand man in those days. General Amjad and General Mahmood were classmates and shared accommodation throughout their school and college life in Lawarance College, Murree. On April 4, 2002, for the first time in the history of Pakistan Army, a serving general and Corps Commander of Multan, General Syed Mohammad Amjad, was posted as chairman of the Fauji Foundation, the premier military business organization. In 2003, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Amir Jamat-e-Islami, alleged that General Syed Mohammad Amjad has been allotted an expensive piece of land measuring two kanals in Lahore Cantt, at a throwaway price. REFERENCE: Illustrious career of General (retd.) Syed Mohammad Amjad March 14th, 2008 by Kashif Aziz http://www.chowrangi.com/illustrious-career-of-general-retd-syed-mohammad-amjad.html

According to Qazis’ claim, the Military Land and Cantonment Headquarters, Lahore, allotted a 2-kanal plot (No.2-A) to General Amjad on August 31, 2003 through allotment letter No.11-1484RD-Ihr-88, under survey No.92/2-A. The plot, situated on Sarwa Road, Lahore Cantt, was leased out to the worthy General for 99 years, against an annual lease fee of 50 rupees only. The plot was worth 90 lakhs and General Amjad has already sold one kanal for 45 lakhs. When Qazi first leveled these allegations, there were vociferous denials from various important government officials. However, the same government officials later admitted that the plots had been allotted in accordance with existing rules. An Army spokesman conceded that General Amjad and other soldiers who fulfil the merit and service oriented criteria are eligible for some benefits on payment of the cost of the land. “Lieutenant General Syed Mohammad Amjad has also been assessed by the same criteria.” In June 2005 a complaint was filed in NAB against Syed Mohammad Amjad, Chairman Fauji Foundation, for corruption in sales of Khoski Sugar Mill. It was stated that General Amjad has sold Khoski Sugar Mill, property of Fauji Foundation, to a favorite for an amount much less than the highest bid and this information was confirmed by the Defence Ministry in the National Assembly. The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Tanvir Hussain, admitted in the Assembly that the “sugar mill had been sold at Rs. 300 million, against the highest bid of Rs. 387 million.” The Senate’s Defence Committee summoned the Fauji Foundation management to appear and explain why this corruption had been done. But instead of coming clean on the issue, General Amjad and the other top Generals sitting in the GHQ have decided to challenge the jurisdiction of the Parliament to look into the affairs of Army-run businesses. The Senate Standing Committee on Defence and Defence Production on June 4 received a communication from the Defence Ministry stating that the Committee had no jurisdiction to appear for or against Fauji Foundation at any forum. A press release said the office of the Chairman, Standing Committee on Defence, received a communication from the Defence Minister intimating that after having a detailed briefing from the ministry’s officials it was apparent that “Fauji Foundation is a private sector organization.“ REFERENCE: Illustrious career of General (retd.) Syed Mohammad Amjad March 14th, 2008 by Kashif Aziz http://www.chowrangi.com/illustrious-career-of-general-retd-syed-mohammad-amjad.html

On March 21, 2007, the Board of Directors of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) appointed General (retd.) Syed Mohammad Amjad as the new Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board with effect from April 5, 2007. General (retd.) Amjad replaced Frank Scherschmidt, who was previously serving the post ever since the privatization of KESC. In June 2007, Maheen A. Rashdi wrote that Syed Mohammad Amjad, CEO KESC, draws a salary of Rs. 1.1 million besides perks amounting to Rs. 0.3 million. His appointment was made outside proper procedure on the recommendation of the Board of Directors and he has no credentials to prove that he possesses technical know-how of running such a sensitive outfit. REFERENCE: Growing debts of KESC By Maheen A. Rashdi June 10, 2007 Sunday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 24, 1428 http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/10/fea.htm#2 REFERENCE: Illustrious career of General (retd.) Syed Mohammad Amjad March 14th, 2008 by Kashif Aziz http://www.chowrangi.com/illustrious-career-of-general-retd-syed-mohammad-amjad.html

Mr. Abbasi Praising General Musharraf’s Martial Law Regime’s “Alleged Reforms” when Ansar Abbasi used to be a Correspondent in Daily Dawn, he never mentioned even a single time that Impsoing Martial Law is Treason and Violation of Article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan.

As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

“QUOTE”

PART I

6. (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason.

“UNQUOTE”

Definition of Accomplice: An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.

During 1999 Mr. Ansar Abbasi was Praising General Musharraf Martial Law regime’s “Alleged Reforms” when Ansar Abbasi used to be a Correspondent in Daily Dawn, he never mentioned even a single time that Impsoing Martial Law is Treason and Violation of Article 6 of 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. Read the news reports which Ansar Abbasi filed in the Daily Dawn in 1999. Not a single time Ansar adress Musharraf as CMLA but Ansar was very respectful towards “Alleged Chief Executive” Musharraf. You may not find a single personal observation by Ansar Abbasi on Constitutional Tampering by Military Regime. Musharraf was given mandate by the Judiciary to tamper with the Constitution. Everybody knows who was part of that Supreme Court Bench. REFERENCES: Special courts to try cases of accountability Ansar Abbasi 06 November 1999 Issue : 05/45 [Courtesy Daily Dawn Wire Service] http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/06nov99.html Musharraf approves pre-1973 authority for FPSC by Ansar Abbasi Week Ending : 29 January 2000 Issue : 06/05 [Courtesy Daily Dawn Wire Service] http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/29jan00.html Sharifs lose 80pc of assets, says Qureshi by Ansar Abbasi Week Ending : 16 December 2000 Issue : 06/48 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/dec1600.html Beneficiaries of NRO cannot get bail: NAB By Ansar Abbasi Friday, November 13, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25545 Finally, dreaded NRO list is out and official By Ansar Abbasi Friday, November 20, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25672

When NRO erupted on the face of Mr Zardari, another meeting between the Army Chief and the PM was essential on Monday night so that the right message was conveyed. And it was. Then we saw the surrender. The Zardari era, the argument goes, consists of broken promises, colossal mistakes in assessing the mood of the people, taking decisions with arrogance, taking on the establishment and institutions which were needed to survive, taking gigantic U-turns when under pressure and smiling about them, claiming unabashedly as if it was a considered policy (like the restoration of judges, sacking and restoration of the Punjab government of PML-N, surrender on the Kerry Lugar Bill and eventually running away from the NRO). REFRENCES: Has a countdown begun in Islamabad? By Shaheen Sehbai Saturday, November 07, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=207257 The contours of a changed, unwritten script Situationer By Shaheen Sehbai Wednesday, November 04, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25365

Mr. Shaheen Sehbai [Group Editor The News International] talks about NRO and Accountability in his editorials and stories which he has been filing since months but forgetting what he used to say about National Accountability Bureau in his web based magazine South Asia Tribune [Shaheen Sehbai Founded this magazine after he escaped from Pakistan in 2002 to seek political asylum in USA]. Mr. Shaheen had advised all the readers before closing down his website to save the material.

“QUOTE”

WASHINGTON, October 17: Dear Readers, this is the final piece on the South Asia Tribune, as this site is now being closed for good. I understand that it may come as a rude shock to many and may create despair and depression for all those who had started to look up to SAT as a beacon of courage and resistance, but this decision has been based on many factors, which I will explain briefly. SAT would be on line for the rest of this month, till the end of October. On November 1, 2005 it will disappear from the Internet. All those who may be interested in keeping a record of any SAT article or report can save it any time before that date. REFRENCE: The Final Word from theSouth Asia Tribune By Shaheen Sehbai WASHINGTON DC, Oct 17, 2005 ISSN: 1684-2057 http://www.satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/200510/P1_sat.htm

“UNQUOTE”

“QUOTE”

Book Confirms Musharraf’s First Multi-Million Dollar Telephone Scandal Special SAT Report WASHINGTON DC, Sept 8, 2004 ISSN: 1684-2057 http://www.satribune.com http://www.satribune.com/archives/sept04/P1_habook2.htm

WASHINGTON, Sept 8: Musharraf Government’s first multi-million dollar scandal of awarding a lucrative cell phone contract to a Canadian company in early 2000, ignoring the ever reliable Chinese friends, became the main reason for a split between Musharraf and his honorable and honest colleague, General Syed M. Amjad, who quit as Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau in less than a year.

“This was an open-and-shut case as all the evidence was there, but when (Gen) Amjad wanted to move in and scuttle the contract, he was refrained from doing so. The only man who had the power to do this was Musharraf himself,” reveals a new book on Pakistan due to be released worldwide on Sept 11.

The scandal was first reported by the South Asia Tribune in its issue No 47 on June 22, 2003 and full documentary evidence was also published, including a letter issued by the office of the then Chief Executive General Musharraf ordering that the contract be given to the company he favored and General Amjad objected to. Click to Read the original SAT story with documents [How Extra Millions were Paid on Musharraf’s Orders By Aijaz Mahar Issue No 47, June 22-28, 2003 ISSN:1684-2057 satribune.com http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/P1_nokia.htm (RED THE TEXT BELOW]

The latest confirmation comes in the book written by Hassan Abbas, a former police officer and currently Research fellow at the Harvard Law School and a PhD. candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. The book is titled Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism: Allah, The Army, And America’s War On Terror, published by M.E. Sharpe. The author, who was also associated with NAB for some time and saw all these inner contradictions of Musharraf’s accountability bureau, has thrown a new light on how Musharraf started the accountability process to give credibility to his illegal regime but soon became a victim of its own ambitions. Abbas observes that NAB had an ominous start to begin with. In its first two weeks of operations, it cracked open a multimillion-dollar case of fraud and corruption. Nortel, a Canadian telecommunications company, had unfairly been handed a fat contract to build a mobile telephone network in Pakistan. After General Amjad’s departure and appointment of a new Chairman, the NAB was dead for all practical purposes, Abbas says. A noble experiment had ended because those who had initiated it did not have the moral stamina to carry it through.

Following are excerpts of his book’s chapter on NAB: “The first decisive step that Musharraf took (after taking over in October 1999) was on the domestic front – accountability of the corrupt. With every change of government since the revival of democracy in 1985, the cry for accountability had become louder and louder, but as the problem was so widespread and the ramparts of vested interest so invincible, no government dared go beyond a judicious mixture of flimsy steps and lip service toward meeting this demand. By the time Musharraf found himself catapulted to the helm, he had no option but to bow to the overwhelming sentiment of the people. Thus before the month of October 1999 was exhausted, he announced the formation of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), with Lieutenant General Syed Mohammad Amjad as its first chairman. And by a strange irony, it was fated that the “Attock conspiracy” officers who had paid a heavy price for attempting to conduct accountability twenty-five years before would have a fair representation on the Bureau. Within two days of the formation of the NAB, the services of Saeed Akhtar Malik and Farouk Adam Khan of the Attock court martial fame were requisitioned.

General Amjad was the ideal and unanimous choice of the senior ranks of the army to be the NAB chairman. He was an officer of extraordinary diligence and exemplary character, his name was a byword for integrity. Ayaz Amir, a leading Pakistani journalist, while treating Musharraf’s choice of certain cabinet members to scathing criticism, had this to say about Amjad: “Chief [Musharraf] has redeemed himself by picking Lieutenant General Amjad – and if anyone can make NAB work, it is Amjad, and if he falters or fails, or even if the pace of his offensive slackens, General Musharraf can say good-bye to the public goodwill.” In the event, Musharraf’s credibility and commitment were to be defined by the performance of the NAB, the words of the journalist were to be prophetic. From the survey of the NAB team, one could only draw optimism. Farouk Adam had a courtly manner, an impressive personality, and a unique ability to smile through the tedium of a sixteen-hour workday.

Saeed A. Malik had much idealism and passion and also a flair for winning the esteem of those working under him. He had written a freelance column for a decade in a leading English-language newspaper of the times (The Muslim), invariably exposing the corrupt practices of the ruling elite. The initial labors of the NAB were dedicated to drawing up the NAB Ordinance to provide a legal framework for this new organization. The central principle that dictated the ordinance was the shifting of the onus of proof to the accused, that is, that if the accused person could not reconcile his wealth, earnings, expenses, and taxes that he had paid, he must be deemed guilty of corruption. The framers of this ordinance were very conscious that this Draconian law would be applied to a maximum of only four hundred of the most corrupt in the land, and the principle that would determine the qualification of these “selected few” would be that of either an association with a great crime or having a big name adorned perhaps by a theft not that big. Without such a law, the NAB would essentially have been a nonstarter because of the virtual nonexistence of investigative and prosecutorial resources. Had this ordinance been judiciously used to attain the purpose it was designed for, things would be much different today.

To implement this agenda, Amjad was given full authority to select the “targets,” though he regularly consulted the ISI and a few legal experts while making vital decisions in this regard. Amjad had a free hand to hold across-the-board and evenhanded accountability from which no one was exempt, except the judiciary and serving armed forces officials. On November 17, 1999, the NAB moved in for its first crop of arrests. Many of those arrested were big names. There was great euphoria among the people because many individuals who had always considered themselves beyond the reach of law were now behind bars. Yet most of the arrests were made on the charges of loan default, perhaps the easiest charge to prove, but one that the NAB could be horrendously wrong about because it was very difficult to tell an honest from a willful default.

With the first blood having been drawn, the public appetite was whetted and they bayed for more. Their clamor could have been ignored, but not that of the government, whose credibility and performance had nothing but the achievements of the NAB to show for itself. The ordinary public was under the impression that the ISI and other intelligence agencies had collected enough data on corrupt elements when they were “monitoring” the civilian governments during the 1990s, but when a few ISI files were handed over to NAB officials, these were mostly speculative and devoid of any sound material necessary to prove a case in a court of law.

To quicken up things, General Amjad hurriedly developed a core team to run the organization comprising bankers, economists, lawyers, and a few from the intelligence and police backgrounds. It was a combination never tried before, the only handicap being a shortage of time to organize and deliver. Around that time, a letter from Musharraf’s office to the NAB (dated December 11, 1999) adequately reflects the anxiety of the government and its dependence on the NAB to shore up its credibility: “It has been reported with a great concern that corrupt politicians are becoming bold and the press is gradually becoming sympathetic to them. This trend must be stopped and reversed. Following steps are suggested: 1. Move fast on all issues, 2. Expose the corrupt people very expeditiously, 3. Scoop on corruption on a daily basis.

Consequently, more people were arrested based on their filthy reputations, but proof of their corruption was lacking. The NAB could have gained a lot of credibility in its initial days by prosecuting the ones who were already in custody, but the special accountability courts were not in place yet as selection of judges and establishing a new chain of courts and developing a whole new infrastructure was taking time. What the military hierarchy did not realize was that there is a huge difference between deploying a military unit to a new location and in establishing a law enforcement institution that has to act within the parameters of law. To overcome this shortage, dozens of retired ISI officials were inducted who perhaps knew the art of interrogation well, but had very little legal and investigative experience, which was the core requirement in this case.

There was a reason behind the compulsion that the new inductees had to be former ISI officials – the ISI was providing the funds for this NAB expansion and they opted to benefit their comrades in the process. As if these problems were not enough to hamper the NAB work, all of the arrested persons were kept in different cities under the custody of respective military commands where the local military officials and intelligence operatives started investigating/interrogating the accused on their own. Every single institution was trying to spy on NAB, making the task further complicated. This was symbolic of the general state of affairs in Pakistan. Amjad and Farouk Adam, the two public faces of the NAB, were now under immense pressure from the public, the press, and the government. As they addressed the press, it seemed to the military hierarchy that they were hogging the limelight, and they became victims of gratuitous envy. Shaukat Aziz, the finance minister, who had Musharraf’s ear, was for blanket protection to businessmen despite the fact that some of the latter, in cahoots with the bankers, were the biggest crooks. Amjad, on the other hand, was heading toward making an example of those industrialists and businessmen who had established their business empires through corrupt practices. This was a risky business as big money was involved.

One of Amjad’s problems was the subtle increase of government interference with his functioning. As it was, NAB had an ominous start to begin with. In its first two weeks of operations, it cracked open a multimillion-dollar case of fraud and corruption. Nortel, a Canadian telecommunications company, had unfairly been handed a fat contract to build a mobile telephone network in Pakistan. This was an open-and-shut case as all the evidence was there, but when Amjad wanted to move in and scuttle the contract, he was refrained from doing so. The only man who had the power to do this was Musharraf himself. As the NAB moved along, two questions were frequently asked of Amjad, that is, whether there were any holy cows, and if the army generals involved in corruption would also be arrested. The government position was that only serving army officers and the judiciary were exempt from the NAB because both institutions had effective in-house correction systems, but technically, retired armed forces officials were not a part of this category.

When a journalist publicly asked Amjad about press reports maintaining that corrupt military officials alone had deposited $1billion in foreign banks from kickbacks from weapons purchases, he shot back by saying: “We have not been sitting on our butts as regards defense deals.” Yet it was daily becoming clearer that all the big names among the retired generals were beyond the province of the NAB. The names of Generals Aslam Beg, Hamid Gul, Zahid Ali Akbar, Talat Masood, Saeed Qadir, Farrukh Khan, and Air Marshals Anwar Shamim and Abbas Khattak were discussed more than once, but nothing came of these discussions. Amjad was absolutely dedicated to having them probed, but was restrained from doing so. The reputation of Amjad, however, remained unimpaired. By releasing Khawaja Asif and Mr. Nawaz Tiwana, a leading politician and a bureaucrat, respectively, from detention and personally apologizing to them for wrongful arrest by the NAB, Amjad had set a new precedent in Pakistan by accepting that the mighty are often fallible. This only enhanced his stature, and the envy of his peers. In another high-profile case, a leading politician from the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) known for his corrupt practices threatened NAB officials during his interrogation by saying that he was a CIA agent, and that political instability would be created in the country if he were not released immediately. Amjad responded by making things harsher for him and by appointing more investigators to probe his case. The politician was ultimately convicted.

One of the brightest experiences of the NAB was the performance of its Central Investigation Team (CIT). General Amjad had allowed Saeed Malik to handpick a team of officers to give the NAB a limited in-house investigative capability. A former commander of army’s SSG, Brigadier Mohammad Nazir, an officer of unimpeachable integrity, was selected to head the CIT. The performance of the 12-member CIT team was outstanding on many counts. For instance, in a mere five months a three-man cell of the CIT (Lieutenant Colonel Riazuddin, Nadir Imtiaz Khan, and Major Taimur Shah) recovered or saved for the government of Pakistan Rs 3 billion (around US$500 million). But unfortunately, the most outstanding member of the team Lieutenant Colonel Obaidullah, a former ISI official, tragically died of a massive heart attack shortly after being wrongly accused of “mishandling” a case by a very senior NAB official. The saddest commentary on Musharraf’s much-vaunted commitment to the cause of accountability is that each member of this team of rare officers was hounded out of the NAB soon after Amjad’s departure from the institution. Their only handicap was that not one of them was prone to entertaining any adverse dictates. And so ended a heroic chapter of the war against crime by a handful of officers in a corrupt environment.

Reportedly, Amjad had asked to be relieved of his duties more than once. He was not one to take government partiality lying down. He left the NAB at the end of September 2000. NAB’s change of command, in the words of Mohammad Malick’s commentary in Dawn, was “a clear sign of NAB’s tailored, if not changed, priorities.” No one then knew who the real “tailor” might be, but there was an acknowledgment that “Amjad remained a very fair accountability chief.” But Tariq Ali in his book The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihadis, and Modernity, was much more perceptive when he observed that Amjad was ready to push through, but “Musharraf balked at the scale of the enterprise.” The new chairman was General Khalid Maqbool, whose reputation was no match for Amjad’s. The NAB was dead for all practical purposes. A noble experiment had ended because those who had initiated it did not have the moral stamina to carry it through. But it would not be they who would pay the price for this failure. This would be paid once more by those who have always paid it, the people of Pakistan.

Musharraf had made a clear choice — he would compromise with those politicians who were ready to side with him. He had given in to the building pressure from various sectors that wanted the regime to behave “normally” and not as a revolutionary one. This was the dilemma Musharraf faced — the masses were looking for a Messiah in him, whereas the political and military elite wanted the status quo to continue. Musharraf was still swinging in between.

I cannot help recalling one of the conversations between Saeed A. Malik and (late) General Ghulam Ahmed (Musharraf’s Chief of Staff) – Malik was strongly asserting that everything was “do-able” provided the Musharraf government had the will to do it, and General GA stunned the audience when he said: “But, sir, first they [Musharraf, General Mahmood, and General Aziz] will have to get out of the cage of Kargil, otherwise all their efforts will be reactive.” And he was not being disloyal. He was merely delivering an analytical conclusion, and his tone and tenor were entirely reflective of this. No one in Musharraf’s government could have mustered the courage to say this.”

“UNQUOTE”

“QUOTE”

Generals Defy, Degrade Parliament to Protect a Corrupt Colleague By M T Butt WASHINGTON DC, June 8, 2005 ISSN: 1684-2057 http://www.satribune.com http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1144830448&page_url=//www.satribune.com/archives/200506/P1_butt.htm&page_last_updated=6/8/2005+11:40:11+AM&firstName=Syed&lastName=Amjad

[NOTE THE ORIGINAL LINK IS DEAD. THEREFORE THE CACHE LINK]

ISLAMABAD, June 8: Deeply engrossed in private businesses, Army Generals have officially refused to recognize the jurisdiction of Pakistan’s Parliament and a landmark battle has begun to determine who would have the upper hand. “Under any democracy and constitutional rule, this would never be an issue, but Pakistan Army is bent upon breaking every rule and demolish or disfigure every institution to protect the Army’s personal, political and corporate interests,” a senior politician said in Islamabad. One of Musharraf’s top Generals, accused of corruption in Army’s biggest corporate entity, the Fauji Foundation, has turned his Rs300 million case of favoritism into this test case by challenging the authority of the Senate to look into his affairs.

“This case would determine whether elected representatives will ever be able to peek into the back stage money-making secrets of the Army,” an expert said. The case involves Lt. General (Retd) Mohammed Amjad, (Top, Left) once the head of Musharraf’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB). As NAB Chief General Amjad, and his successors, have been continuously using NAB, illegally and unconstitutionally, to investigate every private sector company or businessman the Generals want to target for their own personal, political or financial reasons.

After General Amjad left NAB he was appointed head of the Fauji Foundation which is, for all practical purposes, an extension of the Pakistan Army, as many sitting armed forces high ups are on its Board called the Committee of Administration. The Committee of Administration of Fauji Foundation comprises Army’s Chief of the General Staff, Quarter Master-General, Chief of Logistics Staff, Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff (Training & Personnel) and Deputy Chief of Air Staff (Administration). According to Fauji Foundation, the Committee handles the administrative and management affairs of the Foundation. The case against Gen. Amjad is that he sold one of the sugar mills of Fauji Foundation to a favorite for an amount much less than the highest bid and this information was confirmed by the Defence Ministry in the National Assembly. So it was official. The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Tanvir Hussain, admitted in the Assembly that the “sugar mill had been sold at Rs300 million, against the highest bid of Rs387 million.”

There was an immediate uproar both inside and outside the Parliament. The Senate’s Defence Committee summoned the Fauji Foundation management to appear and explain why this corruption had been done. A spokesman of Senate said a meeting of the Defence Committee to discuss the working of the Fauji Foundation and the sale of Khoski Sugar Mills in particular was requisitioned by three Opposition members namely Senators Rukhsana Zuberi, Farhatullah Babar and Sardar Mahtab Ahmed Khan. Initially the Foundation did not respond but after two weeks rejected the information given to the MPs through quarter-page advertisements in national dailies. The ads titled “Fauji Foundation Rejects” not only dismissed allegations but also claimed that the Khoski Sugar Mill was sold “in the best interest of the Foundation” and in keeping with the “established corporate norms and business practices.” “We have received no government assistance in cash or kind,” the ads announced, and vowed to “jealously guard its reputation for impeccable conduct.” The MPs took the Foundation’s ads, which rejected the official information placed before them a few days before, as an affront and breach of their privilege. Even Government party member and Parliamentary Secretary, Major Tanvir, bemoaned that the Foundation had breached the privilege of Parliament.

PPP Senator Farhatullah Babar, an activist on such issues, wrote in a newspaper column: “One is indeed puzzled by the Foundation’s claim that it had not received government assistance in cash or in kind. Under SRO No 395, issued in March 1972, all the properties of the Post War Services Reconstruction Funds of the former West Pakistan were vested in the Federal Government, which in turn transferred these properties to the Fauji Foundation under the Charitable Endowments Act. With such a kick start from day one, how can the management today claim that it has not received from the government “any assistance in cash or in kind”? But instead of coming clean on the issue, General Amjad and the other top Generals sitting in the GHQ have decided to challenge the jurisdiction of the Parliament to look into the affairs of Army-run businesses. The Senate Standing Committee on Defence and Defence Production on June 4 received a communication from the Defence Ministry stating that the Committee had no jurisdiction to appear for or against Fauji Foundation at any forum.

A press release said the office of the Chairman, Standing Committee on Defence, received a communication from the Defence Minister intimating that after having a detailed briefing from the ministry’s officials it was apparent that “Fauji Foundation is a private sector organization.” The Committee Chairman is an ardent Musharraf and Army loyalist. A hand-picked businessman, former IBM chief and Musharraf’s ex-Information Minister, Nisar Memon is now heading the Senate’s Defence Committee. Instantly he jumped to the General’s side and as Committee Chairman accepted, without a word, the Fauji Foundation’s contention that private businesses were outside the Senate’s purview. Memon accepted the explanation and declared that the meeting requisitioned by the Opposition senators will not be held, cutting his own legs and feet. No one is allowing him to get away with this serious issue and even political allies of the Generals, now providing Musharraf and his men the façade of a democracy, are confused and issuing conflicting statements. “This is how Musharraf undermines the constitution and rule of law as he has his own cronies installed in key places who do not care about any democratic tradition but serve the interests of their Army masters,” a senior politician commented as a chorus of credible political voices rejected Nisar Memon’s decision as totally uncalled for and without authority or legality.

Even the Parliamentary Affairs Minister in the Shaukat Aziz cabinet, a PPP turncoat and often a Musharraf loyalist, Dr Sher Afgan Niazi, did not agree with Nisar Memon. He told newspaper Dawn on June 5 every organization within the limits of Pakistan, whether public or private, can be summoned before the parliament. “No private organization operating within the country has an exemption from being summoned before the parliament. The principle of sovereignty and supremacy of parliament is applicable in the case.” Another leading constitutional expert, Choudhry Aitzaz Ahsan of PPP went a step further. He said: “The Defence Ministry’s refusal to bring the Fauji Foundation under scrutiny in the committee is a sheer disobedience and disrespect to the parliament. Any entity that is “controlled” or “owned” by the government can be summoned by a committee of the parliament, including the Senate and the National Assembly.” Ahsan said Fauji Foundation was like other organizations which operated as private entities but were “controlled” or “owned” by the government. He said if the PTV managing director and PIA Chairman could be summoned before a committee, nothing barred the management of Fauji Foundation from being summoned. He said the presence of the Defence Secretary and other senior serving officials of the armed forces on the committee of administration of Fauji Foundation made it subject to appear before the committee and the parliament.

A former secretary of the National Assembly, Khan Ahmed Goraya, said the National Assembly committees had the powers of the civil court and could summon any person or entity within the precincts of the country. Similar rules were applicable to the Senate committees, he said. The influential Editor of Lahore’s Daily Times, Najam Sethi, weighed in with a strong editorial note on the issue titled: “Fauji Foundation must explain its conduct to the Senate Standing Committee.”

His editorial said: “These are important questions, not only in relation to the issue at hand — namely the dubious sale of the sugar mills — but also vis à vis the larger questions of the military in business and civil-military relations. It is clear to us that the Foundation’s Committee of Administration is loath to appear before a committee of parliamentarians because of military’s traditional disregard of the parliament. Under the rules it is the Standing Committee’s prerogative “to take a decision and express an opinion on the new position taken by the defence ministry”. And as Senator Babar has contended, “The Rules have no provision for the Chairman of the Committee [in this case, Senator Memon] to give a personal verdict and cancel a requisitioned meeting.” ”General Pervez Musharraf continues to talk about a new Pakistan built around respect for institutions. We expect that the process of institutionalization will subsume the military and not bestow on it the status of a holy cow. At the end of the day, Parliament is the highest body in the realm and its members have every right — within prescribed law — to oversee the functioning of various departments, including the military,” the newspaper said.

“It is also important to determine, once and for all, the sex of entities run by, and under, the military. Are they in the private sector or in the public domain?” Given all these arguments, the attempt by the Generals to bulldoze and over-run the Parliament are blatant, mean and self-serving. They want immunity from accountability for their misdeeds in all Government-run, funded and controlled organizations which they have grabbed. The next step would be to demand that all lands, properties and houses owned by the Generals would be exempt from any law, tax or regulation. This can go on and on. Because if the Generals claim that they are running a private business, which cannot be questioned by the Parliament, then the question that needs an immediate answer is why and how are these officers allowed to run a private business as Government Service rules prohibit any employee to run his own business. And why is tax-payers money being pumped into their private business. The Economic Survey of Pakistan 2004-05, released by the Ministry of Finance on June 4, reveals that the Government had explicit contingent liability of Rs1.02 billion on account of Fauji Fertilizer Company Jordan. The government’s guarantee of for FFC increased from Rs0.70 billion in 2002-03 to Rs1.02 billion in 2004-05, revealed the Survey, an authentic official document released every year before the budget. According to the company profile, FFC Jordan is a Joint Venture of Fauji Foundation and Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited. The Chairman of Fauji Foundation, Lt Gen (retd) Syed Muhammad Amjad, is shown as the chairman of the FFC in its recent annual report. This battle between the Generals and the Parliament is another manifestation of the crumbling state of affairs in General Musharraf’s Pakistan.

“UNQUOTE”

“QUOTE”

Documents Disclose Details of a Dirty Deal

How Extra Millions were Paid on Musharraf’s Orders By Aijaz Mahar Issue No 47, June 22-28, 2003 ISSN:1684-2057 satribune.com http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/P1_nokia.htm

ISLAMABAD: Documentary evidence is now available to show that General Pervez Musharraf’s Chief of Staff intervened and ordered grant of an over $50 million cellular phone contract to a Canadian firm against a much better offer of a friendly Chinese company. Thus the military government not only caused a loss of $5.8 million to the national exchequer but also annoyed Pakistan’s most trust-worthy and strategic friend, China, for unexplained and unknown reasons, to the extent that the Chinese company, and then the Ambassador, had to write a letter to General Musharraf, but in vain. “Certain unknown resource is favoring a Canadian company called Nortel and is pushing Pakistan Telecommunications Mobile Ltd (PTML) to sign this contract with Nortel…. We are sincerely looking that decision should be done on merit basis and favoritism should be stopped immediately,” the Chinese company letter to General Musharraf dated January 29, 2000 said. Click to view letter Page1 Page2

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/NokiaMush1.jpg

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/NokiaMush2.jpg

The deal signed on March 2, 2000, was thrust upon PTML–- a subsidiary of state-owned Pakistan Telecommunications Company Limited (PTCL) Authority — by the Chief of the Staff to General Pervez Musharraf in violation of rules, documents reveal. A memo by the Chief of Staff Office clearly stated that contract should be awarded to one company and “there is no reason to reopen the case”. The company was Nortel which had been allowed to lower its bid while others, including the Chinese company, were denied the same favor. Click to see Memo

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/Nokia_COS1.jpg

Documents available with SA Tribune, spread over 105 pages, indicate foulplay in dishing out the deal to the Canadian cellular company, Nortel, by allowing it to revise its bid downwards while refusing the same facility to other bidders, including China. Initially five bidders — Alcatel, Ericsson, Nokia, Nortel and Siemens – participated in the bid for providing network, billing, customer care, voice mail, and transmission etc. to PTML for its cellular company U-fone. The cost of duties and taxes, worked at $8.0 to 9.0 million, was to be borne by the PTML. Aclatel offered to complete the job in $71.672 million, Ericsson $78.092 million, Nokia 72.911 million, Nortel 67.622 and Siemens $100.86 million. After receiving the bids, the PTML appointed a Finland-based consultant company Omnitele to examine the technical data as well as evaluate the offers provided by the bidders. In its report submitted to the PTML, Omnitele rated Nokia at the top followed by Ericsson, Nortel, and Siemens respectively but did not recommend Alcatel for this job. Omnitel also backed the financial package offered by Nokia, which had assured 85 percent of financing from China Construction Bank at five per cent per annum with loan maturity period of eight years and a further grace period of at least two years. “Nokia’s implementation proposal is realistic and well-suited for implementing the GSM turn-key project,” the consultant company’s report said describing Nokia’s solution as technically the most favorable among the five bidders. Click to View Omnitele Report

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/Nokia_Omnitel.jpg

The consultant company said that although Nortel could offer comprehensive selection of services and features to implements in their GSM networks, “However, their main strength is in the fixed communication network”. Omintele also pointed out that despite repeated requests Nortel failed to provide detailed description of the Comguard system, nor offered any digital cross-connect equipments, estimation fore the category-3 site preparation costs, any tool for network element planning and cost optimization neither provided any price information for measurement instruments. However, this report was not circulated among the members of the Board of PTML causing anxiety among them. “It is rather unfortunate that the evaluation report of the consultants and the tender evaluation report was not provided to the members of the Board,” wrote an agitated Board member Malik Muhammad Saeed Khan in a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Board. He claimed that his letter also reflected the views of Mr Abdullah Yusuf, Secretary Planning/ Member PTML Board. Click to View Saeed Khan letter

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/Nokia_Memberdissent.jpg

While Nokia had offered to set up 184 GSM Base Stations, Nortel offered to set up only 150. The equalization difference was worked out to be around $ 7million, as claimed by Nokia in a letter written to the PTML Board. Nokia claimed that only this difference made its bid lowest in price amongst all. Despite these facts, the government asked Nortel to lower its bid, which agreed to come down to $50.7 million (excluding duties). Nokia on the other hand offered to further lower its bid by $10 million bringing it down to $44.9 million (excluding duties) but its offer was ignored on orders of Musharraf’s Chief of Staff. Nokia had also written earlier to Lt. Gen Amjad, Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), who carried out investigations to unearth the irregularities and concluded that the process had been done irregularly and Nokia should have been the lowest, technically compliant and superior solution than Nortel. In response to NAB’s conclusive report, the Chief Executive Secretariat first directed the PTML Board to reopen negotiations with Nokia, in addition to Nortel but later reversed its own directive by saying that NAB had reported nothing irregular in the evaluation process. The Chinese were so annoyed, their ambassador in Islamabad, Mr Lu Shulin, personally wrote a letter to General Pervez Musharraf on February 20, 2000, saying the Chinese government was very much interested in the project to help Pakistan. He sought Musharraf’s intervention but the deal had probably been finalized and it could no longer be reversed. The Ambassador’s intervention remained fruitless. Click to View Ambassador’s letter Page1

http://www.satribune.com/archives/jun22_28_03/Nokia_Ambassador-MushLetter.jpg

The PTML Board members also objected to giving the project to Nortel and said that after Nokia’s offer to lower its bid, it was cheaper by $2 million than that of Nortel. “If that be the case, the tender evaluation committee will need to go into depth of this offer as well and bring up the facts before the PTML Board before a considered decision is taken,” the letter written by a Board member to his Chairman said. The “active participation” of the Chief Executive’s office in this “shady deal” has raised many questions. The main question which remained unanswered is why this undue favor was given to one company, even to the extent that a friend like China was ignored. Did the project serve the national interest or someone’s self interest?

“UNQUOTE”

A GLIMPSE OF “ACROSS THE BOARD ACCOUNTABILITY”

Book shines light on Pakistan military’s ‘£10bn empire’ Declan Walsh in Islamabad The Guardian, Thursday 31 May 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/31/books.pakistan

· Business interests range from cement to cornflakes

· Little transparency into officer-led conglomerates

The Pakistani military’s private business empire could be worth as much as £10bn, according to a ground-breaking study. Retired and serving officers run secretive industrial conglomerates, manufacture everything from cement to cornflakes, and own 12m acres [4.8m hectares] of public land, says Dr Ayesha Siddiqa, author of Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy. The book tackles a previously taboo subject – the range and depth of the military’s business interests – considered a major factor in the ambitions of the generals who have ruled Pakistan for more than half of its 60-year history. “It feeds directly into the military’s political power; it’s an expression of their personal and organisation strength,” said Ms Siddiqa, a former director of research at the Pakistan navy.

Five giant conglomerates, known as “welfare foundations”, run thousands of businesses, ranging from street corner petrol pumps to sprawling industrial plants. The main street of any Pakistani town bears testament to their economic power, with military-owned bakeries, banks, insurance companies and universities, usually fronted by civilian employees. Ms Siddiqa estimates that the military controls one-third of all heavy manufacturing and up to 7% of private assets.

Profits are supposed to be pumped back into schools, hospitals and other welfare facilities – the military claims it has 9 million beneficiaries – but there is little transparency. “There is little evidence that pensioners are benefiting from these welfare facilities,” she said.

Of the 96 businesses run by the four largest foundations, only nine file public accounts. The generals spurn demands by parliament to account for public monies they spend.

The military’s penetration into society has accelerated under President Pervez Musharraf, who has also parachuted 1,200 officers into key positions in public organisations such as universities and training colleges. The military boasts that it can run such organisations better than incompetent and corrupt civilians.

In a 2004 speech to open a new industry owned by the Fauji (“Soldier”) Foundation, General Musharraf boasted of “exceptional” military-owned banks, cement and fertiliser plants. “Why is anyone jealous if the retired military officers or the civilians with them are doing a good job contributing to the economy?” he said.

But Ms Siddiqa says the military businesses thrive, thanks to invisible state subsidies in the form of free land, the use of military assets, and loans to bail them out when they run into trouble. “There are gross inefficiencies and the military is mired in crony capitalism. The primary purpose of a trained military is war fighting. They are not designed for the corporate sector.”

Her £10bn estimate of military wealth is a “rough figure”, she says, split between £6bn in land and private military assets.

“Military Inc.” comes at a sensitive time for Gen Musharraf, who is struggling to rebuild his popularity after the botched dismissal of the chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, in March. The move sparked nationwide demonstrations that have snowballed into a powerful protest movement. The furore has offered an insight into the raw power wielded by the generals. This week, Justice Chaudhry told the supreme court how military intelligence chiefs spent hours trying to pressure him to quit on March 9, before placing him under effective house arrest.

Ms Siddiqa fears her book, which names names and pours cold water on boastful claims, may step on some powerful toes. “Over the past three years a lot of my friends have advised me not to publish this book. They think I have suicidal tendencies.”

But Talat Hussain, a retired general and political analyst, said Ms Siddiqa was a “courageous” researcher. “This area has always been considered a sacred cow in our society,” he said.

The book will be launched in Islamabad today. The main military spokesman, Major General Waheed Arshad, said he had not yet obtained a copy. “Let me read it and then I’ll get back to you,” he said.

Backstory

The 650,000-strong military has been at the heart of power since Pakistan was carved from northern India in 1947. Generals seized power in 1958 and have ruled intermittently since. The main intelligence service, the ISI, has consistently meddled in politics. Three-quarters of all army recruits come from Punjab, reflecting a similar imbalance in the country’s power structures. The army’s reputation for professionalism stretches back to colonial days, but has been eroded by business-related corruption allegations and three wars with India, including the loss of its eastern half, with the independence of Bangladesh in 1971.

Cover Story The New Land Barons? By Ayesha Siddiqa Abdul Karim waited in the heat outside the Supreme Court for his case to be heard. Sitting miles away from his village in Bahawalpur, the poor peasant was contesting his right over three kanals (0.375 acres) of land that had already been awarded to him through an administrative decision. He had tilled the land for years and he was deemed to be the rightful owner.

However, the land was subsequently transferred to Brigadier (Retd.) Muhammad Bashir, through another administrative order. The transfer of land to the army brigadier was part of the 33,866 acres of land given to the Army GHQ in 1993 in Bahawalpur by the provincial government. The Punjab government had transferred the land without checking its title. Out of the total land given to the army, the said brigadier got 396 kanals (49.5 acres) of land, out of which about three kanals belonged to Abdul Karim.

Brigadier Bashir contested Karim’s ownership in the High Court, but the court upheld Karim’s title. Not satisfied with the court’s decision, Bashir filed an appeal with the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court of Pakistan also upheld Abdul Karim’s ownership.

In its eagerness to favour military authorities, the district government representatives had given Abdul Karim’s land to the army. Moreover, the local administration sided with the brigadier to disprove the respondent’s claim over the stated land.

The Supreme Court admonished the district collector for acting capriciously and for arbitrarily transferring land that was marked as land not available for allotment. While upholding Abdul Karim’s right to cultivate the land, the court also reproached the retired brigadier for impinging upon the rights of a poor peasant. In a historic judgment passed in September 2003, the Supreme Court bench warned against greed and forcibly and illegally depriving poor people of their rights.

Amazingly, Abdul Karim received justice not because he had the means to take legal action, but because Brigadier Bashir wanted his land and took the case to court. It’s unlikely that this historic judgment will help many other poor villagers, though, as the only way for them to benefit from this landmark judgement would be to initiate expensive legal proceedings.

The people of the small fishing village of Mubarik were not as fortunate as Abdul Karim. Situated near the Sindh-Balochistan border, their village adjoining the sea was once their territory. For over five years now, they have watched as their land has been slowly pulled away from under their feet. Generations of their families have lived there peacefully as fishermen, but no longer. A few years back, the villagers found that they could no longer move freely on their own land. The Pakistan Navy (PN) ordered the residents of Mubarik village to limit themselves to a small area. But that wasn’t the only restriction. They were also told not to construct houses on the land because the adjoining land fell within the range of the navy’s target-practice range.

The villagers claim that the PN broke a promise and extended its presence beyond a point that was previously assured by the navy to be the limit of their expansion. In fact, the PN has continued to expand its presence despite the fact that there is no provision in the existing rules for a naval cantonment. Meanwhile, the uneducated villagers are unable to contest their rights: they neither know the law, nor have the money to take legal action.

They are not the only ones in this country in the same predicament. Up against elite groups, like the armed forces, poor villagers neither have the means nor the knowledge to defend their own property, the land they inhabit and cultivate. Despite the efforts of some parliamentarians to flag the issue of the military land ownership in the country, there is insufficient information available on the issue. However, one thing is clear: over the years, the armed forces have become major players in Pakistan’s real estate business.

The military, including its serving and retired members, own massive tracts of land in rural as well as urban centres. They believe that the distribution of land amongst military personnel, particularly within the various housing schemes, denotes the defence establishment’s superior capacity at managing resources. However, the mechanics behind the issue are not so simple. Is the allocation of military land nothing more than a tradition inherited from the British to reward defence services personnel? Or should the acquisition of land by the military be viewed in the larger perspective of the power the armed forces wield over the state and its resources?

Since the early 1950s, the military has acquired millions of acres of land throughout the country for distribution to serving and retired armed forces personnel. According to one estimate, the armed forces control about 12 million acres, constituting about 12 per cent of total state land. Out of this, 62 per cent is in the Punjab, 27 per cent in Sindh and 11 per cent in NWFP and Balochistan. About seven million acres of the total is agricultural land and has an estimated worth of Rs700 billion. Interestingly, only about 100,000 acres are directly controlled by the armed forces and its subsidiary companies, the Fauji Foundation, the AWT and the Bahria Foundation, and distributed amongst serving and retired personnel. The remainder was given (at highly subsidised rates) to army personnel as awards to be used for their personal gratification.

Granting agricultural land as a reward to individuals is a tradition inherited from the British. The Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900 ensured the use of canal colony land as a means to reward those serving British interests. According to Imran Ali, professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, in his book, The Punjab Under Imperialism, land was granted to indigenous communities under various schemes, such as offering land grants to raise horses that could then be acquired by the British cavalry. Following the principle of rewarding the ‘faithful,’ the Alienation of Land Act specifically stipulated allocation of 10 per cent of colonised land to the armed forces. This process of land development was incorporated later in another law known as the Colonisation of Land Act, 1912, which was updated by the Pakistan government in 1965. The law had a feudal underpinning and was based on perpetuating various local social classes that would guarantee the interests of the imperial masters. Today, the land distribution policy is still deeply rooted in this colonial logic, with the military monopolising the state’s resources and continuing to offer land in exchange for allegiance to the

Shaheen Sehabi, Jang Group & Definition of National Interest.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/10/shaheen-sehabi-jang-group-definition-of.html

Group Editor of The News International, Mr Shaheen Sehbai [Former Founding Editor/Owner of South Asia Tribune – USA]

There was a time when members of the Pakistani establishment and especially those agencies, used to assume the role of determining what is ‘national interest of Pakistan’, and who is loyal, and who is anti Pakistan, have perhaps done more damage to Pakistan than known enemies of Pakistan. It is unfortunate that every blunder, be it at national level or in foreign affairs, is made in the name of ‘national interest of Pakistan’. People of Pakistan are perplexed as they fail to understand what is ’national interest of Pakistan?

Now this role has been adopted by some of our most “Celebrity Journalists cum Analysts cum Private TV Channel Anchors” even the some of the Senior Most Seasoned Journalist/Editor [Read Shaheen Sehbai, Ansar Abbasi, Dr Shahid Masood, Hamid Mir and Rauf Klasra] have suddenly become so obsessed [right after the announcement of Kerry Lugar Bill] with National Security and National Interest of Pakistan and Futile Ant-Americanism that they forget that what they used to file in web based magazine – South Asia Tribune [based in USA] founded by Shaheen Sehbai [Present Group Editor of The News International Pakistan]. They and some of the most important members of present PPP Government used to contribute in the same web based magazine e.g. Farhatullah Babar, Hussain Haqqani, Wajid Shamsul Hassan and so many others. Shaheen Sehbai never doubted the loyalty of those PPP members when they were contributing for his magazine.

Recently Shaheen Sehbai in several of his so-called “Breaking Stories/News Analysis” in The News International has targetted the present PPP government for compromising on National Security during the Kerry-Lugar Bill Controversy whereas Shaheen Sehbai himself had already damaged the reputation of Pakistan, Pakistan Army and Pakistan National Interest when he was in Self Imposed Exile in USA in his magazine, yes in a country whose legislative bill [Kerry-Lugar Bill] he considers dangerous for Pakistan.

Even in his latest which Shaheen Sehbai has filed in The News International are quite detrimental for Pakistan’s National Security [as per the criteria of Shaheen Sehbai and The News International/GEO TV/DAILY JANG], here are some glimpses;

“QUOTE”

So far the GHQ has kept the Lashkar Tayyaba quiet by not acceding to the US demands of attacking or even touching Muridke, arguing that once this sleeping elephant wakes up, it could turn around and trample our own forces. After all, the LeT was raised and trained by our military establishment to fight the Indians in Kashmir and they are good at it. Turning their guns inwards, with TTP suicide bombers roaming everywhere, would turn Pakistan into a burning inferno, ready to collapse. Unfortunately, or probably in the interest of the system as the other side may argue, the political wings of our military establishment (read agencies), which had almost become redundant and were dormant for some months, have now come back into action with full force. The intense discussions behind closed doors are focusing on finding some way out before the NRO explodes into the political scene and starts rocking the boat. Political wings of agencies are secretly lobbying members of parliament to vote out the law, which may force the president to think about giving up his powers or to resign. REFERENCE: All power players focus on constitutional knock-out – By Shaheen Sehbai, Dated Friday, October 23, 2009 Kerry-Lugar law’s Muridke clause alienates Army from; NRO-hit presidency; Zardari falls back on Nawaz; ready to give up 17th Amendment powers http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=25146

“UNQUOTE”

In another “so-called Breaking Story/News Analysis”, Shaheen Sehbai says;

“QUOTE”

ISLAMABAD: Intense search has begun in political and media circles to find out who is the father of the Pakistan Army and ISI-specific conditions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which ultimately led to the assertive statement issued by the 122nd corps commanders’ meeting on Wednesday. But the search will not be too difficult. Between 1988 and 1999, when civilians ostensibly governed Pakistan, US officials routinely criticised the civilians’ conduct but refrained from commenting on the negative role of the military and the intelligence services despite overwhelming evidence of that role. ISI manipulation of the 1988, 1990, and 1997 elections went unnoticed publicly by the United States while the Pakistan military’s recitation of politicians’ failings was generally accepted without acknowledging the impacts of limits set for the politicians by the military. REFERENCE: Mystery of Kerry-Lugar conditions solved? News Analysis By Shaheen Sehbai Dated Friday, October 09, 2009 http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24919

“UNQUOTE”

Mr Shaheen Sehbai is condemning PPP government particularly President Asif Ali Zardari for compromising on Pakistan National Security whereas Mr Shaheen Sehbai himself and journalists like him used to do the same in worse possible way while sitting in the USA not only that his present employer i.e. The Jang Group of Newspapers and its top management as well.

LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE AS TO HOW SHAHEEN SEHBAI USED TO PLAY WITH PAKISTAN’S NATIONAL INTEREST WHILE SITTING IN USA ENJOYING HIS SEL IMPOSED SELF EXILE AND FILING BUNKUM IN HIS WEB BASED MAGAZINE SOUTH ASIA TRIBUNE!

NOT A SINGLE WORD IS MINE FROM ONWARD.

Group Editor of The News International, Mr Shaheen Sehbai [Former Founding Editor/Owner of South Asia Tribune – USA]

“QUOTE”

Issue No 22, Dec 23-29, 2002 ISSN:1684-2075 satribune.com

The Unreported Terrorism Case against Pakistan’s Media King Special SAT Report http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/P1_terrorismcase.htm Issue No 22, Dec 23-29, 2002 ISSN:1684-2075 satribune.com

LAHORE: A former Chief of ISI has demanded death penalty under anti-terrorism laws for Pakistan’s virtual media “Ted Turner”, and three other senior journalists, in an Anti-Terrorism Court in Lahore, and the charge against them is carrying out “terrorist acts with their pen”, according to court documents.

In this historic but bizarre case of its kind, the ex-ISI Chief, a Lieutenant General of the Pakistan Army, has submitted a signed petition which in itself is a document revealing some of the most well guarded national secrets, which should never have been revealed, and could get the General hanged for committing sedition if taken up by a fair and judicious court. See other Story.

The most intriguing part of this story is that this Anti Terrorism Court of General Pervez Musharraf not only started hearing the case, it even completed testimony of five prosecution witnesses without even sending a notice to the defendants. Later when the Judge decided that he had jurisdiction to hear the case, he summoned the defendants, who raised immediate objections. He then started hearing their arguments. The latest hearing of the case was held on December 19, with earlier hearings held on Dec 3 and 14, 2002.

The complainant in this case is Lt. General (Retired) Javed Nasir, who headed the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) from March 1992 until May 1993 and the case has been filed against owner of the Jang/News Group of Newspapers and GEO TV, Mir Shakil ur Rehman, Mr. Salim Bokhari Editor of ‘The News’ Lahore, Mr. Usman Yousaf Chairman Editorial Committee ‘Jang’ Lahore and Mr. M.A.K. Lodhi Editor Investigations of ‘The News’ Lahore, who is also a senior employee of the official news agency Associated Press of Pakistan (APP).

The case has been filed under Section 6 (a)(b)(c), 8 & 11 of the Anti Terrorist Act, 1997. Maximum punishment for most of the crimes under this Act is death and Gen. Javed Nasir has demanded in his written petition that the “severest possible punishment” be given to “these terrorists (who) in the garb of journalists have delivered the most lethal blow to the unity and survival of the country.”

“By attacking his reputation the Army and the ISI have been jointly targeted. Left as the last stable institution, if destabilized can lead to an extreme chaos and confusion and eventually to a civil war,” he notes in his petition.

Click here to View Petition Page 1 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case05.jpg

Page 2 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case06.jpg

Page 3 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case07.jpg

Page 4 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case08.jpg

Page 5 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case09.jpg

Page 6 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case10.jpg

Page 7 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case11.jpg

Page 8 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case12.jpg

Page 9 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case13.jpg

Page 10 http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case14.jpg

The basis for General Nasir’s complaint is a report published by ‘The News’ on August 24, 2002 which alleged that the General, as Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board, embezzled Rs. 3 billion and had fled the country. The report filed by Editor Investigations, M.A.K. Lodhi, claimed the writer had documents to prove its contents.

Click to see Original Story (Warning: Large file) http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/Originalstory.jpg

“The complainant learnt about it (the report) through a telephone call which was followed by thousands of telephone calls from all over Pakistan and the world including England and USA,” General Nasir said in his petition.

The General, who is an active member of the Tableeghi Jamaat, an organization of Islamic preachers, said the news item had “terrorized the entire Jamaat, the membership of which runs into millions, and the masses would have led to sectarian strife had it not been for the complainant’s interview on the TV the same night.”

“The entire report manifests a highly arrogant attitude of a few terrorists garbed as journalists indulging in yellow journalism…they are an incurable cancer of the society which must be removed to save the rest of the nation through major surgical operation in the form of the severest possible punishment,” he demanded.

Mir Shakil ur Rehman appeared before the Anti-Terrorism Court-III Judge Manzoor Hussain in Lahore on Dec 19. Editor Salim Bokhari appeared before him in an earlier hearing.

“The entire journalistic community in Pakistan is terrorized, so much so that the newspapers of Mir Shakil ur Rehman himself, the largest circulated Urdu and English language newspapers and GEO TV, a recently launched satellite channel, have not reported anything about this huge case as yet,” journalists in Lahore told the South Asia Tribune.

The original report against the General, carried by ‘The News’ was denied the same day but the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) of General Musharraf confirmed in a letter to the Editor of ‘The News’ on Nov 15, 2002 that “various complaints against Lt. Gen ® Javed Nasir, Ex-Chairman ETPB, are under consideration in NAB.”

Click Here for NAB Letter http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/msr_case01.jpg

This confirmed that not everything reported by the newspaper was wrong but what has shocked the journalists is the manner in which the complaint of the ex-ISI chief was filed and accepted by an Anti-Terrorism Court which started one-sided hearings. Journalists argued that it could at best be a case of defamation and be tried under ordinary law in a civil court.

The ATC, instead of throwing out the case, started hearing arguments and decided that it was within its jurisdiction to hear a libel case, thus setting a new legal precedent and turning the so-called Press freedom pronounced so often by General Musharraf, on its head.

In a short judgment given on Dec 3, 2002, the ATC Judge announced that it was within his jurisdiction to hear such a case. “After considering the material placed on record as aforementioned and reading the above provisions of law, I summon all the four persons arrayed as respondents in the complaint for 14.12.2002. A copy of the complaint, as also that of the evidence referred to above, shall be sent to all of them,” Judge Manzoor Hussain said. Click to View Judgment

The anti-terrorism law was passed in August 1997 by the Nawaz Sharif Government. It gave police wide-ranging powers to arrest suspects and established special anti-terrorism courts. Amnesty International at the time pointed out the manifold ways in which the law violated human rights particularly the right to a fair trial. In … the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that the Anti-terrorism law as a whole was not unconstitutional but that 12 key sections of the law were unconstitutional and needed to be amended. Several months later this was done by an Amendment Act.

Dozens of people were tried and convicted by these special courts which still fail to provide a fair trial. Most of the death sentences in Pakistan are imposed by anti- terrorist courts. In November 1998, summary military courts were set up to try, within three days, civilians suspected of specified serious offences. Several people were tried and convicted by these special courts; several were sentenced to death and two men were executed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared these courts unconstitutional and ordered them disbanded.

General Musharraf enacted the new anti-terrorist law, which replaced the old one of 1997. It came into force on 31 January 2002. The new ordinance provided for new courts which included one senior military officer nominated by the government besides two civilian judicial officers constituting a three-member bench headed by a civilian judge. The courts were to sit in cantonments or jail premises to ensure the security of accused, witnesses and the judiciary. A senior officer said, “these are not military courts in the true sense, but these courts will comprise civil judges and military officers to speedily dispose of cases of all those involved in terrorism”.

Amnesty International condemning the law said it gave the police a new licence to violate human rights. It authorizes the police and army to fire on anyone “committing, or believed to be about to commit, a ‘terrorist’ offence”. It also provides them with powers to arrest suspects and to search premises without a warrant. Placing the interpretation on what is justifiable use of lethal force entirely in the hands of law enforcement personnel is, in the Pakistan context, an incitement to the security forces to commit unlawful killings.

Trial by special tribunals including military staff contravenes Principle 5 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, endorsed by the General Assembly in 1985. It states: “Everyone has the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts of judicial tribunals.”

“UNQUOTE”

Another masterpiece against Pakistan Army by Shaheen Sehbai is as under:

“QUOTE”

Group Editor of The News International, Mr Shaheen Sehbai [Former Founding Editor/Owner of South Asia Tribune – USA]

Ex-ISI Chief Reveals Secret Missile Shipments to Bosnia defying UN Embargo Special SAT Report http://www.satribune.com/archives/dec23_29_02/P1_bosniastory.htm Issue No 22, Dec 23-29, 2002 ISSN:1684-2075 satribune.com

LAHORE: Pakistan defied the United Nations ban on supply of arms to the Bosnian Muslims and sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles were air lifted by the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, to help Bosnians fight the Serbs, an ex-ISI Chief has officially admitted in a written petition submitted before a court in Lahore.

The document was submitted by Lt. General (Retd) Javed Nasir, who was head of the ISI from March 1992 to May 1993, in a case he filed against the owner and editors of the largest newspaper and TV group of Pakistan, in an anti Terrorism Court. The court started hearings of the case earlier this month.

The document refers to the career of the ex-ISI Chief, recounting his achievements and his credentials as a leading Islamic international figure, who, he alleged, had been defamed by a report in the English language newspaper ‘The News’, published by the Jang/News Group, owned by Mir Shakil ur Rehman, the virtual media king of Pakistan.

“The complainant symbolizes the Islam loving populous of Pakistan by being an active member of the Tableeghi Jamaat which stands and works for the preaching of Islam…” his petition in the Anti-Terrorism Court No III, based in Lahore, began. Click here to View Petition Page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 Page5 Page6 Page7 Page8 Page9 Page10

He then recalled his role as ISI chief in putting together the Mujahideen Government in Kabul, in April 1992 when Soviet-backed President Najibullah was overthrown and US-backed Mujahideen took over Kabul.

In self adulatory language, the General said in his petition: “On 14th March 1992 I was appointed as DG ISI and became an instant international figure when in April 1992, through his persuasive power and motivational talks he brought all the warring factions of the Afghan Mujahideen to agree to the famous Peshawar Accord and successfully installed the Mujahideen’s first Government under (President) Mujadadi in Kabul.”

“A true practicing Muslim, he would not compromise on the interests of Islam and Pakistan,” the petition filed by Gen Nasir said, and then revealed: “Despite UN ban on supply of arms to the besieged Bosnians, he successfully air lifted sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles which turned the tide in favour of Bosnian Muslims and forced the Serbs to lift the siege, much to the annoyance of the US Government.”

The documents goes on to give details of how then the US threatened Pakistan, then ruled by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to be declared as a terrorist state, if Sharif did not remove him from the post of the ISI chief.

“He thus became the target of US, Indian and Secular minded lobbies both inside and outside Pakistan. Having failed to buy him, the US Government started a totally fabricated and mendaciously false propaganda against him and demanded his removal as ISI chief, failing which Pakistan would be declared a terrorist state,” the petition filed by his lawyers in the court said.

“In April 1993, the US Government finally warned Pakistan Government in writing to remove the complainant as ISI’s head failing which Pakistan was threatened to be declared a terrorists state. It was therefore at the behest of the US Government’s official demand that he was prematurely compulsorily retired from service by the Caretaker Government of Mir Balkh Sher Mazari on 13th May 1993,” it said.

SA Tribune learnt that the highly damaging disclosures by the ex-ISI chief were objected to by the lawyers of the defendants, who had the common sense to point out that these state secrets should not be divulged by a person who was supposed to be responsible and had occupied a sensitive post as the ISI chief.

But despite the warnings, the petition of the General was not changed and was included in the public record of the case against the newspaper.

“UNQUOTE”

Your readers might wanna have a look at some online tv streaming I found the other day, too.

I’m commenting to make you be aware of of the useful discovery my wife’s child encountered reading through your web site. She came to understand many pieces, most notably how it is like to have an incredible helping heart to have a number of people really easily understand specific grueling issues. You actually surpassed our own desires. I appreciate you for supplying the important, trustworthy, informative and as well as fun tips on the topic to Ethel.

I am extremely inspired along with your writing talents as well as with the format to your blog. Is that this a paid subject matter or did you customize it your self? Anyway keep up the excellent high quality writing, it is uncommon to peer a nice weblog like this one these days..