Dorab Patel on Judicial Aloofness by Dr Arif Alvi

http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2009/06/11/dorab-patel-on-judicial-aloofness-cjps-meeting-richard-holbrooke

Mr Shakil Jafri editor of The Financial Daily asked me to reproduce as an article what I had written on CJ meeting Richard Holbrooke [ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry met visiting US envoy Richard Holbrooke in the Supreme Court building on FridayBy Matiullah Jan Saturday, 06 Jun, 2009 05:29 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/13+cj+receives+holbrooke+calls+on+zardari-za-12 .

Richard Holbrooke, United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan / Profile: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7846654.stm

With the intention to expand on these few paragraphs I chanced upon some reflections of a past judge which I added to my statement and am reproducing it below.

Justice Dorab Patel (b.1924 Quetta – d.15 March 1997 ), former Chief Justice of Sindh High Court, former Justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan and human rights campaigner was a founding member of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in 1987, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

Members of the Judiciary are supposed to stay aloof from social and political contacts. In this context let me quote from a speech delivered by Justice Dorab Patel at the Cornelius Society in Lahore in 1995. Justice Patel was a dissenting judge in the Bhutto case and had refused to take oath on General Zia’s PCO. He states that the judiciary in Pakistan inherited from the long line of judges, British and Indian, traditions of service, of learning and scholarship, of integrity, financial and intellectual, and of social aloofness.

He cites an interesting story of the Supreme Court of Bombay. In some civil litigation, the bailiff of the Supreme Court went to the Governor’s House to serve a summons of the Court on a member of the Governor’s staff. He was threatened and ordered to leave. The same happened when the Chief Justice sent a very senior police officer along with the bailiff. The Chief Justice instead of meeting the Governor, which the latter wanted, locked the Supreme Court and returned to England where he lodged a complaint and resigned from office. His resignation was not in vain as never again did the Bombay Government treat any Judge in a casual manner. But the most valuable legacy of this clash with the Governor was that the Judges of Bombay continued the tradition of rigid aloofness of the Judiciary from the Executive. A judiciary cannot remain independent without this tradition.

Justice Dorab Patel continues to narrate, that when he became a Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, the Chief Justice of West Pakistan, Justice Wahiduddin Ahmed (father of Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed) told him that he had to change his life and habits because he had become a Judge and it was his duty to lead a secluded life and to avoid meeting Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers and politicians which according to Justice Patel he tried his best to do. I therefore insist that our Judiciary should reflect such long and cherished traditions without which it simply cannot remain independent.

Dorab Patel on Judicial Aloofness by Dr Arif Alvi

Mr Shakil Jafri editor of The Financial Daily asked me to reproduce as an article what I had written on CJ meeting Richard Holbrooke[ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry met visiting US envoy Richard Holbrooke in the Supreme Court building on FridayBy Matiullah Jan Saturday, 06 Jun, 2009 05:29 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/13+cj+receives+holbrooke+calls+on+zardari-za-12 .

With the intention to expand on these few paragraphs I chanced upon some reflections of a past judge which I added to my statement and am reproducing it below. http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2009/06/11/dorab-patel-on-judicial-aloofness-cjps-meeting-richard-holbrooke

Justice Dorab Patel (b.1924 Quetta – d.15 March 1997 ), former Chief Justice of Sindh High Court, former Justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan and human rights campaigner was a founding member of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) in 1987, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

Members of the Judiciary are supposed to stay aloof from social and political contacts. In this context let me quote from a speech delivered by Justice Dorab Patel at the Cornelius Society in Lahore in 1995. Justice Patel was a dissenting judge in the Bhutto case and had refused to take oath on General Zia’s PCO. He states that the judiciary in Pakistan inherited from the long line of judges, British and Indian, traditions of service, of learning and scholarship, of integrity, financial and intellectual, and of social aloofness.

He cites an interesting story of the Supreme Court of Bombay. In some civil litigation, the bailiff of the Supreme Court went to the Governor’s House to serve a summons of the Court on a member of the Governor’s staff. He was threatened and ordered to leave. The same happened when the Chief Justice sent a very senior police officer along with the bailiff. The Chief Justice instead of meeting the Governor, which the latter wanted, locked the Supreme Court and returned to England where he lodged a complaint and resigned from office. His resignation was not in vain as never again did the Bombay Government treat any Judge in a casual manner. But the most valuable legacy of this clash with the Governor was that the Judges of Bombay continued the tradition of rigid aloofness of the Judiciary from the Executive. A judiciary cannot remain independent without this tradition.

Justice Dorab Patel continues to narrate, that when he became a Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, the Chief Justice of West Pakistan, Justice Wahiduddin Ahmed (father of Justice Wajeehuddin Ahmed) told him that he had to change his life and habits because he had become a Judge and it was his duty to lead a secluded life and to avoid meeting Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers and politicians which according to Justice Patel he tried his best to do.

I therefore insist that our Judiciary should reflect such long and cherished traditions without which it simply cannot remain independent.

Kurd unhappy over SC verdict on NRO By Iftikhar A. Khan Wednesday, 23 Dec, 2009
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/12-kurd-unhappy-over-sc-verdict-on-nro–bi-09

ISLAMABAD: Ali Ahmed Kurd, the firebrand leader of the lawyers’ movement and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who has been keeping quiet for quite some time, surprised a lot of people on Tuesday with his blunt criticism of the way the Supreme Court was behaving. Judges should “behave like judges”, he said. Speaking during a talk show on “Challenges facing the judiciary”, he said that people had reservations about the verdict handed down by the Supreme Court on petitions challenging the National Reconciliation Ordinance.

According to him, the judgment appeared to be based on newspaper headlines and talk shows of private TV channels.

Mr Kurd said that an independent judiciary had been restored after a great struggle, adding that the country would become stronger if the judiciary acted in the manner expected by the nation during the struggle. “If it does not happen, it will cause a blow to national security.”

He said he had been invited by various bar councils after the restoration of the judiciary, but he preferred to keep quiet. He said he did not attend functions where the chief justice had been invited and quit his practice as a lawyer in the Supreme Court. It was astonishing to see judges visiting bar councils, he added. Mr Kurd described the National Judicial Policy as detrimental to the judicial system. He pointed out that a deadline of Dec 31 had been set for courts to decide cases. He said the maxim of ‘justice hurried is justice buried’ would turn out to be true in many cases because these, including cases of murder and dacoity, and the rights of defence and the practice of producing evidence of many people would be compromised due to paucity of time. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairperson Asma Jehangir also criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment on the NRO and said it appeared to be a decision pronounced by a ‘jirga’. She was of the opinion that the NRO could have been declared null and void by merely declaring it as repugnant to Article 25 of the Constitution, but a Pandora’s box had been opened by the court. Syed Iqbal Haider and Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood also spoke on the occasion.

’عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود کچھ نہیں بدلا‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/09/090907_kurd_hit_judiciary_rr.shtml
Monday, 7 September, 2009, 12:58 GMT 17:58 PST
شہزاد ملک
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد
ججز کیس کو ختم کرنےکو زیادہ اہمیت دے رہے ہوتے ہیں بجائے اس کی کہ انصاف کی فراہمی کی جائے:علی احمد کرد
سپریم کورٹ بار ایسوسی ایشن کے صدر علی احمد کُرد کا کہنا ہے کہ عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود ابھی تک کچھ نہیں بدلا اور حالات اُسی طرح کے ہی ہیں جو نو مارچ سنہ دو ہزار سات سے پہلے تھے۔
علی احمد کرد نے عدالتی سال شروع ہونے کی تقریب سے خطاب کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ ایسا محسوس ہوتا ہے کہ ’فرعونوں‘ کےسامنے پیش ہو رہے ہوتے ہیں جو کیس کو ختم کرنےکو زیادہ اہمیت دے رہے ہوتے ہیں بجائے اس کے کہ انصاف کی فراہمی کی جائے۔
انہوں نے مزید کہا کہ یہی رویہ نو مارچ سنہ دوہزار سات سے قبل اعلٰی عدلیہ کے ججوں سے لےکر مقامی عدالتوں کے ججوں کا تھا۔
واضح رہے کہ سابق ملٹری ڈکٹیٹر جنرل ریٹائرڈ پرویز مشرف نے نو مارچ کو چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری کے خلاف سپریم جوڈیشل کونسل میں ریفرنس بھیجا تھا۔
ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کے خلاف ایک سو پچاس کے قریب پٹیشنز ریلیف کے لیے دائر کی جاتی ہیں جس میں سے بہت کم کو سول یا فوجداری اپیلوں میں تبدیل کردیا جاتا ہے جبکہ باقی رد کردی جاتی ہیں
علی احمد کرد
یہ پہلی مرتبہ ہے کہ ججوں کی بحالی کی تحریک کی کامیابی کے بعد وکلاء کے کسی سرکردہ رہنما نے کُھل کر ججوں کے رویے کے بارے میں تنقیدی کلمات کہے ہیں۔
علی احمد کُرد نے کہا کہ ججوں کی بحالی کے لیے شروع کی جانے والی تحریک میں نہ صرف وکلاء نے ان کا ساتھ دیا بلکہ سول سوسائٹی اور انسانی حقوق کی تنظیموں نے بھی اس میں بڑھ چڑھ کر حصہ لیا۔
انہوں نے کہا کہ اس تحریک میں وکلاء نے اپنی قیمتی جانوں کے نذرانے بھی پیش کیے۔ سپریم کورٹ بار کے صدر کا کہنا تھا کہ لوگ اُن سے یہی سوال پوچھتے ہیں کہ اس تحریک کی کامیابی کے کیا اثرات سامنے آئے ہیں۔
انہوں نے کہا کہ مشاہدے میں آیا ہے کہ وکلاء نے جو پٹیشنز دائر کی تھیں اُن میں سے بہت کم درخواستوں کو دیوانی یا فوجداری اپیلوں میں تبدیل کیاگیا ہے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ ماتحت عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کے خلاف ایک سو پچاس کے قریب پٹیشنز ریلیف کےلیے دائر کی جاتی ہیں جس میں سے بہت کم کو سول یا فوجداری اپیلوں میں تبدیل کردیا جاتا ہے جبکہ باقی رد کردی جاتی ہیں۔
علی احمد کُرد کا کہنا تھا کہ وکلاء ذمہ دار افراد ہیں اور کوئی بھی یہ نہیں چاہے گا کہ کوئی ایسی بےمقصد پٹیشن دائر کی جائے جس سے عدالت کا قیمتی وقت ضائع ہو۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ عدالت کا یہ فرض ہے کہ وہ وکلاء کو تحمل کے ساتھ سنے

The road to hell — and similar destinations – Islamabad diary – Friday, January 01, 2010
Ayaz Amir http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=216323

We have a developed talent, honed over the years, for counting the trees and missing the larger picture. We see things in one dimension and forget that there may be other sides to reality. This leads to false conclusions and the begetting of great tragedies.

Let us for argument’s sake accept that Asif Ali Zardari, the luckless president of a luckless country, is the author of a thousand villainies, the darkest thing to have happened to the Islamic Republic. But let us at least weigh his real or presumed infamy in the scales of history before coming to a judgment about what he deserves.

Has Zardari done anything which comes close to the unbeatable folly of the 1965 war? If anything undid us it was that foolish call to arms. We had set out to conquer Kashmir. At Tashkent we ended up lowering the casket of the Kashmir cause into the ground.

Do Zardari’s alleged crimes measure up to the folly of General Yahya Khan who presided over the break-up of Pakistan? If ever the larger picture escaped anyone it was that latter-day Muhammad Shah Rangila, caught up in circumstances beyond his control or comprehension. We couldn’t stand the notion of meeting East Pakistani aspirations half-way, just as we are having a hard time now understanding Baloch aspirations.

The frenzied crowds which poured out in 1977 to protest the alleged rigging of the elections by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto called for the establishment of Nizam-e-Mustafa (the dispensation of the Holy Prophet). Like the supposed reformers of today who think they are battling corruption, the enthusiasts of 1977 were convinced the promised kingdom was just a step away if only that incarnation of evil, Bhutto, was taken care of.

Bhutto was taken care of and eventually hanged but the frothing crowds were no nearer Nizam-e-Mustafa or anything like it. Instead, for their pains, they got General Ziaul Haq and the long night of his dark tyranny. Zia first proclaimed his aim as Islamization. Then it was accountability. These were pretexts for suppressing democracy and perpetuating his rule. Zia was perhaps the greatest disaster to befall Pakistan. We are still living with the consequences.

Nothing in our history has been more dangerous than the simplicity and innocence of our good intentions. Riding on their back we have stood before not the pearly gates promising everlasting bliss but the gates of hell. It is scarcely an accident that many of the voices now earnestly urging the Supreme Court to embrace an ever-widening agenda of reform were early supporters of Musharraf’s military rule. Such contradictions bestride our history.

Khan Roedad Khan hailed Musharraf as a messiah come to rid the country of its woes. Khan Imran Khan, to his lasting chagrin, was also part of the Musharraf-welcome crowd. At least Imran has the decency to say he was wrong. Others are not so coy. There was indeed a time when prominent media pundits, now in ultra-reformist mode, conducted themselves virtually as Musharraf spokesmen. Humein yaad hai zara zara, tumhein yaad ho keh na yaad ho.

Zardari may deserve all the pejorative adjectives in the dictionary but has he committed any crime which comes close to the enormity of the disaster that was Kargil? That adventure was meant to seize advantage in Kashmir once again. It ended up exposing Pakistan to fierce international criticism and giving birth to the term cross-border terrorism, the stick with which Pakistan has been regularly beaten ever since. Are we calling for a national commission to investigate Kargil, as we should? No, we are into other things.

Talking of Musharraf’s military rule, what was the role of our present lordships when Triple One Brigade, our highest constitutional authority, reinterpreted the Constitution once again on the long afternoon of Oct 12, 1999? A few judges — Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui comes to mind — did not take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued two months later. But if imperfect memory serves, all of their present lordships, at one time or the other, took oath under the PCO.

Not only that, some of them were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover. A few, including My Lord the Chief Justice, were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover for the second time in the Zafar Ali Shah case (2005).

Of course, we must let bygones be bygones and deal with the present. But then this principle should be for everyone. We should not be raising monuments to selective memory or selective condemnation. If the PCO of 2007 was such a bad idea, in what category should we place the PCO of 2000? And if in this Turkish bath all are like the emperor without his clothes, the least this should inculcate is a sense of humility.

And if we accept the logic that there can be a transformation in the nature of things, that people who did questionable things once-upon-a-time can undergo a conversion on the road to Damascus (or anywhere else) and become knights in shining armour, dispensing light and so on, should not some of the same indulgence, the same benefit of doubt, be extended to others?

Zardari cut deals and earned commissions and for his talent in this field earned the sobriquet Mr Ten Percent. You reap what you sow. So if Zardari is haunted by the ghosts of his past, and if his past keeps popping up in conversation and national discourse, he has only himself to blame. But now, whether we like it or not, he is something more than a mere replica of his past. He is the constitutionally elected President of the Republic.

For his failings in government, for his mistakes as President, for incompetence or inadequacy — if these are the charges brought against him — he can be pilloried and even ridiculed. This is part of democracy, part of the political process.

But when hidden forces with their hidden agendas go about manipulating things, pulling strings from behind, and if elements in the media or other distinguished places become witting or unwitting partners in this game, then it is not democracy being served or strengthened but intrigue and conspiracy.

The Supreme Court judgment on the vires of the 2007 PCO came on the 31st of July, 2009. But the knives were out for Zardari much before that. Zardari of course heads a team with no shortage of incompetents on board. In a land even otherwise dedicated to mediocrity they seemingly outshine all competitors. (Keen for a doctorate myself, I am still trying to discover the location of that celebrated seat of learning, Montecello University.)

President Zardari can also be his own worst enemy. Who told him to deliver the speech he did at Naudero on BB’s second death anniversary? There were things in it which were best left unsaid. Those whom the gods would destroy they first push into such speech-making. But it is also true that Zardari has been driven into a corner. The mandate he got — constitutionally it bears remembering — is being nullified by other means.

Their lordships are all men of honour and rectitude who stood up to Musharraf’s dictatorship and gave hope to the country. But their lordships are just one part of the national spectrum. If they are men of honour it doesn’t automatically follow that everyone else in the equation is also playing by the same rules.

There is thus a need for caution, a need to draw a line between past and present. Let us study our past and draw the correct conclusions. But let us not, wittingly or unwittingly, destabilise democracy. Cleansing the national stables is a laudable aim and makes for a heady slogan. But as our history demonstrates, good intentions, unsupported by a sense of reality or a sense of proportion, lead to unforeseen consequences.

The temple of democracy is a cohesive whole. There is no such thing as smashing one pillar and hoping the rest of the structure will survive. It won’t. And when the slabs come crashing down, we will be the losers while those who have always operated in the shadows will have the last laugh. So Happy New Year. Our curse is to live forever in interesting times. May the new year be a bit less exciting than the one which has just gone by.

Email: [email protected]

The last time the chief justice met Zardari was at Zardari House just before he moved to the presidency after becoming president. – Online photo

CJ receives Holbrooke, calls on Zardari By Matiullah Jan Saturday, 06 Jun, 2009
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/13+cj+receives+holbrooke+calls+on+zardari-za-12

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry met visiting US envoy Richard Holbrooke in the Supreme Court building on Friday.

‘The meeting was held at the request of the visiting US envoy Mr Holbrooke who came to meet the chief justice in his chambers,’ said Dr Faqir Hussain, Registrar of the Supreme Court. He said that officials of the Foreign Office were present at the meeting.

‘Matters relating to judicial reforms as per national judicial policy and the whole judicial structure of Pakistan were discussed,’ Dr Hussain said.

The meeting comes at a time when Pakistani judiciary is seized with litigations that directly involved interests of the United States. A particular case of concern to the US is that of the missing persons in which intelligence agencies have been accused of either abducting people on suspicion of terrorism or handing them over to the United States. The case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, who was reportedly abducted from Pakistan and is now in US detention, is also pending in courts. The Supreme Court spokesman denied that the issue of missing persons came up in the meeting.

When contacted, the firebrand leader of lawyers’ movement and president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Ali Ahmed Kurd, declined to comment on the meeting.

PML-N spokesman Siddiquul Farooq who has a case pending in the apex court said: ‘It was a courtesy call by Mr Holbrooke and we believe in the person of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and we believe that no one can derail him from the judicious path.’

Immediately after the meeting, the chief justice went to the presidency to attend the oath-taking ceremony of newly appointed Federal Shariat Court Chief Justice Agha Mohammad Rafique. There he had a one-to-one meeting with President Asif Zardari.

It was for the first time since his restoration that the chief justice visited the presidency and met President Zardari. Justice Iftikhar, it may be mentioned, did not accept earlier invitations from President Zardari.

The last time the chief justice met Mr Zardari was at the Zardari House just before he moved to the presidency after becoming president. After becoming president, Mr Zardari publicly resisted the restoration of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, till the success of the long march by lawyers in March this year.

One case pending before the Supreme Court and that directly affects President Zardari relates to the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) through which former President General Pervez Musharraf allowed the quashing of corruption charges against PPP leaders, including President Zardari.

Under the new judicial policy reforms spearheaded by the chief justice, judges of the superior court are required to strictly follow the judicial code of conduct which, among other things, require them to stay away from public functions and not to assume executive offices to temporarily fill vacancies created by the president and governors going abroad.

After his first restoration on July 20, 2007, Justice Chaudhry had stopped meeting the president or the prime minister and attending functions hosted by them.

Establishment VS Judiciary & Demented Pakistani Media.

When Advocate Hashmat Habib requested the court to summon heads of the Military Intelligence and the Inter-Services Intelligence, Justice Iqbal said that last time when “we tried to summon them we were sent home for almost 16 months”. Moving scenes were witnessed in the courtroom when Mrs Amina Masood Janjua, chairperson of the Defence of Human Rights who is campaigning for the release of detained persons including her husband Masood Janjua, regretted that there was silence despite the fact that witnesses were ready to help locate her husband. – ISLAMABAD: In the missing persons’ case’s proceedings on Wednesday, Justice Javed Iqbal, who heads the bench hearing the case, stated that individuals taken by intelligence agencies were considered as missing persons. The military’s role was also brought into question over the disappearances of these individuals. Justice Javed Iqbal said in the missing persons’ cases “there is always a mention of brigadiers and majors, who has given them power?” “Frontier Corps has no rights to arrest and detain any person,” Justice Iqbal said, adding that the court will be satisfied even if one person was recovered and the anxiety of one family was over. Meanwhile, Justice Raja Fayyaz said “there is a Gestapo-like reign of terror…anyone can come into a house, where is the enforcement of law?” Incidents involving hundreds of missing persons have been reported to the court in the past four years. Relatives of the missing allege they were picked up by intelligence agencies. — DawnNews – REFERENCE: Missing persons issue more serious than NRO, says judge By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 06 Jan, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/missing-persons-issue-more-serious-than-nro,-says-judge-610 SC questions military’s role in missing persons’ case Wednesday, 06 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-military-role-missing-persons-case-qs-03 – Agencies failed to recover missing persons: SC Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Seeks report within two weeks court wonders how democracy got jeopardised all of a sudden By Sohail Khan http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26504

Right after the resignation of General Musharraf from the Post of the President of Pakistan, Mr. Athar Minallah the Chief Spokesman of Defunct Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary in Private Pakistani TV Channel [AAJ TV], demanded Treason Trial under article 6 of 1973 Constitutiuon of Islamic Republic of Pakistan while shamelssly forgetting that Athar Minallah, also served in the Musharraf cabinet for two years. Shouln’t Mr Athar Minallah be brought to Justice as well because abetting in a crime is tantamount to committing a crime. Athar Minallah joined the prestigious Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) and after serving for 10 years left the post of Additional Collector Customs to join the firm as a partner. Athar Minallah brings not only rich taxation experience but also valuable scholastic input. Athar completed his law degree from the International Islamic University (Islamabad) and his LLM from University of Cambridge, UK. And his areas of interest are taxation, judicial review, Athar was appointed Minister for Law, Local Government, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights by the Provincial Government of NWFP (2000-2002). He also was the member of the Task Force constituted by the Federal Government for revamping the Taxation regime in Pakistan. Currently he is the member of the Policy Board of Intellectual Property of Pakistan and Chairman of Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee (ADRC) for Sales Tax constituted by the Central Board of Revenue. – Athar was appointed Minister for Law, Local Government, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights by the Provincial Government of NWFP (2000-2002) by General Musharraf Military Regime. REFERENCE: Musharraf Consolidates His Control With Arrests By JANE PERLEZ Published: November 4, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04cnd-pakistan.html?_r=1&hp

Sometimes Intellectual Dishonesty is more fatal than the Financial or Moral Corruption. Financial/Moral Corruption is mostly related with few and destroys few [I REPEAT I AM NOT CONDONING IT] but Intellectual Dishonesty destroys nations e.g. Sharifuddin Pirzada, A K Brohi and many many more. I will just restrict myself to the swinging pendulum of Mr. Ansar Abbasi’s pen and journalism and will quote news/columns/opinions filed by him in all these years and every article is contradicting the earlier one. Remember one thing that Ansar Abbasi had demanded Treason Trial of Musharraf for violating article 6 of 1973 Constitution whereas shamelessly Mr. Ansar Abbasi is in favour of retaining National Accountability Bureau to hound politicians [the NAB was founded by Martial Law Regime! Where is the validity? Violation is Violation and cannot be condoned through Law of Necessity. To Proceed

Mr Ansar Abbasi was a Musharraf supporter while working for Daily Dawn:

“QUOTE”

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 – 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/

Ansar 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 1973Constitution 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”

AND AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, READ THE SAME JOURNALISTS SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA IN 2009 AND THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT SOMEBODY DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS [READ THOSE JOURNALISTS AFTER READING CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN’S AFFDAVIT]

“QUOTE”

ISLAMABAD, May 29: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on Tuesday narrated for the first time his version of the events of of May 9 at the President’s camp office in Rawalpindi. He said in an affidavit that top intelligence officials had constantly pressured him into resigning, and after keeping him confined at the office for over five hours, he was allowed to leave in a flagless car. “I was informed that I have been restrained from acting as the chief justice.” The `non-functional’ chief justice informed the full-bench hearing identical petitions against the presidential reference that since the action of March 9, he had remained a victim of intrusive and not-so-intrusive intelligence and police operation. “I replied that it was not based on facts as my case was decided by a two-member bench and that attempts are being made to maliciously involve the other member of the Bench as well.” After this, the president said there were a few more complaints as well, directing his staff to call the ‘other persons’. The ‘other persons’ entered the room immediately. They were: Prime Minster Shaukat Aziz, the Directors General of Military Intelligence (MI), Director General of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Director General Intelligence Bureau (IB), Chief of Staff (COS) and another official. All officials (except the IB chief and the COS) were in uniform. “The meeting lasted about 30 minutes. The chiefs of the MI, ISI and IB stayed back, but they too did not show him me a single piece of evidence.” In fact, Justice iftikhar said, no official, except the ISI chief, had any document with him. The officials, however, alleged that Justice Iftikhar had used his influence to get his son admitted in Bolan Medical College, Quetta, when he was serving as a judge of the Balochistan High Court. The ISI and MI heads persisted in their demand for resignation, the CJ said. “I refused, saying that the demand has a collateral purpose.” “I was kept there absolutely against my will till 5pm. I was stopped there on one pretext or the other and at one stage was told the president will once again see me. “After 5pm, the MI chief told me `This is a bad day. Now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been restrained from working as a judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of Pakistan’.” Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry further said when he came out of the room, he was stunned to find that the national flag and the insignia of office were no longer there on his car. “My staff officer later informed me Justice Javed Iqbal has taken oath as Acting Chief Justice and it has been shown on TV. My driver said he had been instructed not to drive the Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.” REFERENCE: CJ says chiefs of MI, ISI asked him to quit: Affidavit on March 9 camp office event By Iftikhar A. Khan May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428 http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/30/top1.htm

“UNQUOTE”

NOW READ THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS AND THEIR TOP JOURNALISTS!

“QUOTE”

ISLAMABAD: The detailed judgment in the case of the restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan on July 20, 2007 reveals that not only Pervez Musharraf but the then Director General ISI and the DG Military Intelligence (MI) had also insisted that the chief justice resign during his illegal detention at the Army House Rawalpindi on March 9, 2007. The judgment, penned by Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, says: “The petitioner CJP went on to depose that ‘the respondent (the president) insisted that the deponent (the CJP) should resign’. He added that his refusal to oblige, ‘ignited the fury of the respondent (the president); he (the president) stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS, and the prime minister of Pakistan, saying that others would show evidence to the deponent’ (about the allegations of misconduct against the CJP).” “As per the CJP, his meeting with the president lasted for about thirty minutes meaning thereby that the president and the prime minister would have left by about 12.15/12.30 pm and the CJP was then left behind in the company only of the DG MI, the DG ISI allegedly to be shown the evidence in support of the above-noticed accusations. The CJP alleged that no evidence at all was shown to him and “in fact, no official except DG ISI had some documents with him but he also did not show anything to the deponent” (the CJP). He added that they only accused him of having secured a seat for his son in Bolan Medical College while he was serving as a judge of Balochistan High Court. “The CJP further alleged that the DG MI and the DG ISI kept insisting that he should resign from his office while he continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and were being levelled only for a collateral purpose and that he would not resign at any cost and would rather face the said false charges.” The judgment states, “While the CJP was still at the President’s Camp Office in Rawalpindi during the said crucial ‘FIVE HOURS’ and when according to the CJP he was being detained there against his wishes after 12 noon and when according to the respondents he was sitting there, in the company of the intelligence chiefs examining the reference and the material available in support thereof, a notification dated March 9, 2007, was issued by the Government of Pakistan in the Law, Justice and Human Rights Division mentioning therein that since the President of Pakistan had been pleased to make a reference called a ‘DIRECTION’ by Article 209(5) of the Constitution) to the SJC against the CJP, therefore, the President had restrained Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry from acting as the Chief Justice of Pakistan or even as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”

The honourable judges of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the case had nothing to do with army as an institution but acts of a person who happened to be chief of army staff. The judgment regarding the statement of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that ‘it was a matter between army and judiciary’ states, “This, in our opinion, was a naive attempt to create a wedge between two important and indispensable arms of the State and to put them on a war-path. What was in question before us was an act of the President and it was just an accident or a coincidence that the said President also happened to be the Chief of Army Staff. The matter had obviously nothing to do with the Army as an institution. Needless to add that the Army was an invaluable organ and instrument of the State and was as precious to us all as any other institution of our homeland. We, therefore, take this opportunity to express our disapproval and displeasure about the said statement.” Political analysts and observers who had watched the situation at the time, however, told The News that the involvement of junior military officers was minimal and on the specific orders of General Pervez Musharraf who had his own personal vested interest to protect.

They said whatever happened at the time was planned and ordered by General Musharraf and no other army or intelligence officer could be blamed for it. “It was Musharraf and Musharraf alone who must be held responsible for the treatment he meted out to the judiciary and the judges have also noted this in their judgment when they said the army had nothing to do with it as an institution,” an analyst said. It should be noted that both the ISI and the MI were directly under control of the then COAS, General Musharraf, although the ISI is supposed to be under the prime minister. A retired general who was closed to General Pervez Musharraf when contacted said that Musharraf tried to show the door to the chief justice because he wanted extension in his tenure that was expiring, election results of his own desire and government of his own choice. He considered the chief justice as the only person who could create hurdles in the achievement of his objectives. He said Musharraf’s stakes were very high and he wanted to achieve his objectives at all costs. Musharraf, he said, used his senior colleagues, to press the chief justice to quit. He said the then DG MI General Nadeem Ijaz, who was relative of Musharraf, crossed all limits in dealing with the opponents of the former dictator. The DG MI was the strong man of Musharraf. He said Musharraf took aggressive steps against judiciary on the advice of the DG MI, who was in fact responsible for spoiling Musharraf’s all matters related to judiciary. The DG IB went too far in bid to protect the interests of his boss (Musharraf).

He said under Musharraf’s pressure the DG MI Ijaz, DG IB Ejaz Shah, the then secretary interior and some others also submitted affidavits in the Supreme Court against the chief justice. He reminded that the DG ISI did not submit an affidavit. It was believed that Musharraf asked the DG ISI to submit his affidavit but the latter said sorry to the former. Musharraf, he said, was reportedly offended by the DG ISI. He said despite Musharraf’s intensive efforts, the then DG ISI Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani kept a reasonable distance from this issue in grace. He said Gen Kayani was popular as a simple soldier. He did not show any interest in Musharraf’s machinations and that was why he did not submit any affidavit. Observers are pleasantly surprised that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry wrote the names of military generals including the former DG ISI Gen Kayani, who is present army chief, and the full court also mentioned them in their judgement without showing any fear. They said the chief justice and all the members of the full court deserve praise and esteem for showing rare courage. Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday also mentioned the reasons for delay in writing the detailed judgment. The judgment says, “And before I put my pen down, I wish to offer a personal explanation which I owe in connection with this judgment. As is known, the short judgment in the matter was announced on July 20, 2007 and these reasons in support of the said judgment are being recorded after almost 2-1/2 years. This rather extraordinary delay, which was on account of equally extraordinary circumstances, warrants clarification and elucidation.” He mentioned that after vacations he was a part of a bench hearing the eligibility case of Pervez Musharraf but, when the said matter had almost reached the final stages, martial law (called emergency) was imposed in the country by General Musharraf on November 3, 2007 in his capacity as the Chief of Army Staff. Thirteen out of seventeen Judges were removed from office and some including the Chief Justice were put under house arrest which detention continued till March, 2008. “Thereafter, I was of course a free man but being a ‘REMOVED’ Judge, had no access to the Supreme Court and consequently the entire record of this case, including all the notes, were out of my reach. I, along with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and some other learned brothers, got restored to office in March, 2009 and it is thereafter that I got down to collecting the lost, the forgotten and the scattered threads and this is what I have been able to produce now.” REFERENCE: How dictator Musharraf used his colleagues against Justice Iftikhar Friday, December 25, 2009 By Usman Manzoor http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26280 http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/dec2009-daily/25-12-2009/main.htm

“UNQUOTE”

MR. ANSAR ABBASI OF THE SAME JANG GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS REFUTES THE ABOVE REPORT. WHAT A JOKE! – LIES OF MR. ANSAR ABBASI IN VIEW OF NEWS ABOVE AND IF THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH MR. ANSAR ABBASI ALSO TRIED HIS BEST TO PROVE THAT CJ’s AFFIDAVIT WAS WRONG [he didn’t write that but his article “missed” a crucial information – read the last paragraph and then read CJ Affidavit as reported in Daily Dawn above]

“QUOTE”

MURREE: The Pakistan Army would stay distant and neutral from the Supreme Court’s proceedings against the ex-army chief and condemned dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s trial on account of his Nov 3, 2007 unconstitutional action. While many wonder if the Pakistan Army would defend Musharraf despite what he did to Pakistan, its institutions and to the constitution as a 14-member bench of the apex court is currently adjudicating the former dictator’s Nov 3 actions, the military under General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani intends to stay neutral. It is not interested to drag itself into unnecessary controversy by siding with a man, who is no more associated with the Army and is sought by the country’s superior judiciary for his unconstitutional actions. The Supreme Court Wednesday summoned Musharraf to appear before the 14-member bench or get himself represented through his counsel to defend his actions of Nov 3 and later. Although the military spokesman when contacted by a member of The News Investigative Reporting Wing did not offer his comment on the question if Pakistan Army would defend its former chief in the apex court, a senior army source simply ruled out any such possibility. “What army has to do with this,” said the source, adding that the Supreme Court has taken up a political case that has nothing to do with the army.

“We have nothing to do with it,” the source said when precisely asked about the Nov 3rd unconstitutional actions of the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, the military source added, is no more in army. “You know better that he is retired now and have no link with army,” the source said, adding that dragging Pakistan Army into this would be uncalled for. In an interesting twist of fate Musharraf, who had perpetuated his dictatorial rule by misusing his powers as chief of army staff and even at the cost of the reputation of the institution of Pakistan Army, is all alone and is now trying to settle down in London as he fears facing music if comes back to Pakistan. Musharraf is becoming such a lesson for others that even Washington to whom he had sold his soul and served even at the cost of damaging Pakistan, has been abandoned by his real master. US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke Wednesday said President Pervez Musharraf is now history and that the US will not come to defend him.

The reputation of Pakistan Army was at its worse when Musharraf handed over the military command to the incumbent Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who took no time to get the army out of politics and repeatedly proved military’s neutrality from political and government matters. Kayani, the man who enjoys utmost respect both within the army and outside for his professionalism, kept army out of any electoral manipulation early last year though Musharraf was keen to rig the elections to get his choice parties elected all over Pakistan. After Musharraf’s departure and the emergence of President Asif Ali Zardari as the major opponent to the restoration of the deposed judges, again it was the incumbent army chief who played his positive role and have had a series of interactions with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to settle the issue to the best interest of the people, the country and the judiciary. This is also in public knowledge that even during the days when Musharraf was an all powerful dictator, he had also refused to give an affidavit against the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry following his controversial suspension on March 9, 2007. Perhaps not many know that Musharraf and some of his other Generals misbehaved with the chief justice on March 9 in order to coerce him into tendering resignation, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the then ISI chief, was decent and polite with the chief justice. While others were rude towards the CJ, it was Gen Kayani, who had even offered a cup of coffee to Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. REFERENCE: Army to stay away Thursday, July 23, 2009 Kayani treated Iftikhar with respect when Musharraf and aides misbehaved with him By Ansar Abbasi
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=23417

“UNQUOTE”

Some more revelations on the Agenda of Shahbaz-Iftikhar meeting:
*request from Shahbaz for investigation in misappropriation in the Baab e Watan trust funds which were generously contributed by the people of Pakistan for a monument in memory of hundreds of thousands of martyrs at the time of independence.
**another request for suo moto action on the wreckage of some villages in Jhelum around Mangla Damin 1992 flood. The angry water of river Jhelum had taken scores of lives and a number of bridges including famous Kohala Bridge in Sep. 1992 when gates of Mangla Dam were not opened well in time because Daewoo had been in need of sand along the river. Then interior minister Shujaat Hussain had put the responsibility on the Corps Commander Jehangir Karamat.But the military spokesman had denied that The Corps commander had anything to do in opening of the gates.
***The Chief Minister Punjab would have urged the Chief of Darbar e Uzma to take the case of article 270A in which all the wrong doings between 1977 and 1985 had been given indemnity and one of the most prominent beneficiary was Mian Nawaz Sharif.
Ok good bye for the next time

continuously i used to read smaller content that as well clear their motive,
and that is also happening with this post which I am reading here.

Fastidious respond in reurn of this issue with real arguments and describing everything regarding that.

Ԝe are a group of volunteers and ߋpening a brand new scheme in our community.

Yߋur web site offered սs ѡith uѕeful info to woгk on. Yoս hzve performed ɑ formidable
activity and oսr whole neighborhood ѡill likelʏ bee grateful tо you.

Hеre іs mу paǥe :: clash of clans hack no download