Ansar Abbasi’s Angling on the reference on ZAB’s judicial murder
We all knew Ansar Abbasi is capable of angling news and information to his liking but he has left all of us to stand and applaud him. While the whole nation is recovering from the loss in the semi-finals, the man stuck to his task to “review” the reference made available to him by his friends in the Supreme Court. He did the same work of copying text from the reference to beef up his “report” and find an angle that can be used against the government.
The angling in his “report” is that:
- Zardari has talked about Islamic justice, as if he has never talked about it before
- As Zardari has talked about Islamic Justice and concept of accountability therefore he has surrendered his immunity under the constitution
Honestly, Ansar Abbasi is amazing. He will off course not talk about the role of his god-fathers i.e. the judiciary in sending the great ZAB to the gallows and the tough time given to Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari but he has to find an angle to somehow be on the front page.
Let’s be straight. The President has immunity under the constitution of the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and not the ABBASI-CHAUDHRY REPUBLIC. Say whatever you want Ansar Abbasi. Create angles that are never there but are visible to you and your one eyed anti-christ sitting in court room number 1, one more attempt to subvert the process of accountability of judges who aided and abetted in sending ZAB to the gallows, the PPP and its jiyalas will take the opportunists to task. There is a limit to being acceding. That level of patience and bending backwards has been breached.
Chief Justice, do your work and provide justice to the murder of history in which your fraternity is equally responsible.
Zardari invokes accountability, for first time
By Ansar Abbasi
The News, April 4, 2011
ISLAMABAD: In his reference sent to the Supreme Court of Pakistan to revisit the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case, President Asif Ali Zardari has surrendered, perhaps innocently, his prolonged fight for constitutional immunity from criminal and corruption cases by referring to the Islamic teachings to prove the point that no one is above accountability.
Sent to the apex court under his own signature, while the reference focuses on the case of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and talks of the controversial role of the past judges in the ZAB case, it shows that President Zardari has taken the clear position that “No one is above accountability in Islam”. The reference said that since the judges violated their oath by deciding the ZAB case under coercion, therefore, it attracts Article 6 of the Constitution, which deals with abrogation of the Constitution.
An unsigned copy of the draft reference, available with The News, shows President Zardari, is banking on Islamic jurisprudence and principles to seek justice for the founding father of the Pakistan People’s Party, who was sent to the gallows following what the President calls a “wide range conspiracy”.
Briefly referring to the conspiracy and the trial, which was said to have been conducted by the LHC in a highly objectionable manner that led to the judicial murder of ZAB, the president said in the reference: “I, as the president of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in order to uphold the dignity of the court, supremacy of the Constitution and law, feel constrained to refer a few questions of law which are of paramount public importance yet remain to be finally determined and answered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”
The first point raised in the reference is: “The law of approver and criminal conspiracy is admittedly against the injunctions of Islam. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) on the occasion of (Hujja tul Wida) pronounced: ‘Beware, every culprit is responsible for offence committed by him; Beware, the father is not responsible for the offence committed by his son nor son is answerable for the offence committed by his father.’ (Ibn Maja and Tirmidi as reported in Seerat Al-Nabi Volume-II by Allama Syed Suleman Nadvi, page 153). Admittedly, absence of the accused from the scene of occurrence could not at all constitute personal liability.”
The second point raised in the reference is: “Earlier, no accused had been convicted and sentenced to obtain death solely on the testimony of an approver. The Hon’ble Suprme Court of Pakistan has again disapproved the testimony of an approver in the case of ‘Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. State’…..”
The third point discussed in the reference talks of accountability and, perhaps innocently, ruled out any exception to anyone from accountability as per the Islamic teachings. This particular paragraph reads: “Intricate questions of public importance are involved in the matter. None is above accountability in Islam and more so a Qazi. Determination of the question of accountability or at least a correction of error amounts to introspective accountability…”
In the same paragraph, the reference said: “His (ZAB) totally illegal death sentence and his execution at the hands of tyrant dictator with the help of handpicked judges is a black spot on the democratic face of Pakistan.”
Interestingly, in the NRO judgment the Supreme Court, without acknowledging any immunity to anyone, had referred to the Islamic teachings to prove that everyone irrespective of his stature or position is equal before law.
The fourth point raised in the reference is: “Whether the Supreme Court was acting within the four corners of law (in ZAB case) while deciding the appeal by a Bench which was not duly constituted after the absence of two members……. The Hon’ble Court was legally and morally duty-bound to fill the vacancies.”
The fifth point is about the bias of the judges. “In the case in hand, bias in the minds of judges was floating on the face of the record. A bias in the mind of judge results in vitiation of the proceedings….” The reference said that Shaheed ZAB bitterly complained before the Supreme Court that he had not been given a fair trial in the LHC.
The reference said that admission of former CJP Justice (retd) Nasim Hasan Shah on print and electronic media that the decision of ZAB’s appeal was under coercion, does not leave any doubt in the mind of a sane and prudent person that it was a judicial murder which was decided and executed by dictator General Zia ul Haq. This admission, the reference said, is tantamount to violation of constitutional oath of office of the CJP and judges of the superior judiciary. The reference said that as such, Article 6 of the Constitution is fully attracted in this case.
The reference also pointed out that Justice Ghulam Safdar Shah, who wrote the dissenting judgment in ZAB case, was subsequently witch-hunted and ultimately he had to leave the country in miserable conditions.
The reference raised the question: “Whether it was legally justified to award capital punishment to Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the absence of any evidence worth its name, and merely on the basis of totally cooked up and manoeuvred story which never stood the test of routine cross-examination?”
It also questioned: “Whether both the Lahore High Court as well as Supreme Court were justified in awarding and maintaining the death sentence to Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on the basis of so-called threat to complainant which was blown out of proportion?”
It asked: “Was it not legal duty of the regime to conduct an independent and fair judicial inquiry into the incident before starting criminal prosecution against Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto?”
“Was it safe administration of justice to award capital punishment to an accused of conspiracy for murder against whom the essential ingredients of conspiracy were not proved through reliable evidence?”
Another question raised in the reference is: “Whether justice can be seen to have been done in this case while the appellant was deprived of his right of appeal before the High Court, being tried directly by the High Court?”
It also asked: “Had he (ZAB) been tried by a Session Court, the trial judge would have been legally bound to follow the case law developed up to the time of trial whereas the High Court ignored the same altogether. In this case up to the time of trial and conviction there was absolutely no precedent of conviction and sentence of capital punishment on the testimony of approver. Never in the judicial history of this country murder trial of an accused was conducted by the High Court in its original jurisdiction thereby denying the accused a valuable right of appeal before the High Court…….”
It added that the very fact that three Hon’ble judges out of seven gave dissenting view whereas four handpicked judges acted under the dictates of tyrant dictator makes it imperative for the Supreme Court of Pakistan to re-examine the law on the point of approver and criminal conspiracy. It also said: “The question of bias needs to be re-visited by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the light of its judgment in case of Asif Ali Zardari vs The State [PLD 2001 SC page 685].”
The reference also pointed out that the learned HC while conducting the trial in hand did not take into consideration a material fact that prosecution was not in possession of any evidence of conversation between the approver and the appellant. Surprisingly, this fact was also ignored by the Supreme Court while appraising the evidence in appellate jurisdiction.
The president, in the concluding paragraph of the reference, made it clear that the government is neither interested in any type of vengeance against anybody nor believes in revenge but has filed the reference as the unprecedented incident of judicial murder of an international face of Pakistan’s twice elected Prime Minister and father of the first Muslim woman Prime Minister and the father-in-law of the President of Pakistan cannot be left unchecked under the dictates of justice, fair play and history.
Great Ansar Abbasi’s fellow employee or tag team partner 2nd great janab Hamid Mir is also expert in angling and misleading nation. Read his biased opinion published in news section on front page of Daily Jang.
http://ejang.jang.com.pk/4-3-2011/Karachi/pic.asp?picname=3645.gif
Rekhte ke tum hi ustad nahin ho Ghalib
Kehte hain, agle zamaane mein koi Mir bhi tha
Ansar Abbasi Launches ATTACK on Nawaz Sharif, ISI, & MQM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFtfXXDWkvw&feature=channel_video_title
Ansar Abbasi’s “Colleague” Najam Sethi says that “Ansar Abbasi” (without naming him) has been used by “Agencies”
Najam Sethi Exposes Ansar Abbasi (16 March 2011)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMVQy1Rgq3s&feature=relmfu
Conspiracy: International/National Media VS JANG/GEO TV & Hamid Mir. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ0Xl9hqlm8&feature=related
Press Conference against Mr. Ansar Abbasi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tHhii5soE0
Maulana Fazlur Rehman Curses Jang Group, GEO TV & Ansar Abbasi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V8SdU9PkkA&feature=channel_video_title
Jang Group & GEO TV VS Lawyers & Lawyers Movement – 1 (Aaj TV 15 Feb 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJXOeqkZU4&feature=channel_video_title
Jang Group & GEO TV VS Lawyers & Lawyers Movement – 2 (Aaj TV 15 Feb 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei3A2T2ZvJ4&feature=relmfu
Jang Group & GEO TV VS Lawyers & Lawyers Movement – Part – 3 (GEO TV 15 Feb 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLTzyrmahbg
Jang Group & GEO TV VS Lawyers & Lawyers Movement – Part – 4 (GEO TV 15 Feb 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zetTt7KqoJc
Jang Group & GEO TV VS Lawyers & Lawyers Movement – Part – 5 (GEO TV 15 Feb 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhsa8quctpo
Jang Group & GEO TV VS Lawyers & Lawyers Movement – Part – 6 (GEO TV 15 Feb 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_9Zbilo27M
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
It says
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Chaudhry Iftikhar named new CJ [Daily Dawn 2005] By Our Staff Reporter ISLAMABAD, May 7: President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday appointed Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court, as the next chief justice. He will assume the office on June 30 after retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, on June 29. “The notification has ended speculations of appointment of a junior judge as chief justice in violation of the seniority principle settled under the 1996 Judges case,” commented a senior Supreme Court lawyer on condition of anonymity. Justice Chaudhry will reach the superannuation age of 65 years in 2012, which will make him one of the longest serving chief justices in the judicial history of Pakistan. He will serve as chief justice for over seven years. Earlier Justice A. R. Cornelius and Justice Mohammad Haleem served as chief justice for eight years from 1960 to 68 and 1981 to 89, respectively. Justice Chaudhry was elevated as a judge of the apex court on February 4, 2000. He has performed as acting chief justice from January 17 to 29, 2005. He holds the degree of LLB and started practice as an advocate in 1974. Later he was enrolled as an advocate of high court in 1976 and as an advocate of Supreme Court in 1985. In 1989, Justice Chaudhry was appointed as advocate-general of Balochistan and elevated to the post of additional judge in the Balochistan High Court in 1990. He also served as banking judge, judge of Special Court for Speedy Trials and Customs Appellate Courts as well as company judge. He served as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court from April 22, 1999 to February 4, 2000. He was elected the president of the High Court Bar Association, Quetta, and twice a member of the Bar Council. He was appointed as the chairman of the Balochistan Local Council Election Authority in 1992 and for a second term in 1998. Justice Chaudhry also worked as the chairman of the Provincial Review Board for Balochistan and was appointed twice as the chairman of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society, Balochistan. Presently he is functioning as the chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court Buildings Committee. Reference: Caudhry Iftikhar named new CJ By Our Staff Reporter May 8, 2005 Sunday Rabi-ul-Awwal 28, 1426 http://www.dawn.com/2005/05/08/top4.htm
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 5 February 2000 Issue : 06/05 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/05feb00.html#five
ISLAMABAD, Feb 2: The government elevated five judges to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. According to a notification, the president has appointed Justice Rashid Aziz, Chief Justice, Lahore High Court; Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Chief Justice Sindh High Court; Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice, Balochistan High Court; Qazi Farooq, former chief justice of Peshawar High Court; and Justice Rana Bhagwan Das, judge, Sindh High Court, judges of the Supreme Court. After the elevation of Justice Rashid Aziz Khan to the SC, Justice Mohammad Allah Nawaz has been appointed Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah has been appointed Chief Justice of Sindh High Court and Justice Javed Iqbal Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court. After these appointments, the number of SC judges has risen to 12, leaving five posts vacant.
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Supreme Court judges’ strength completed DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 29 April 2000 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/apr29.html#supre
ISLAMABAD, April 25: President Mohammad Rafiq Tarar on Tuesday appointed five judges to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. With the appointment of these judges, the strength of the Supreme Court judges, i.e. 17, stands completed. The newly-appointed judges include Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal, Chief Justice, Peshawar High Court; Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh; Justice Javed Iqbal, Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan; Justice Hamid Ali Mirza, judge, High Court of Sindh and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, judge, High Court of Sindh. These judges have been appointed to the SC from the date they respectively take upon themselves the execution of their offices as such judges. Following are the names of the judges of the Supreme Court according to their seniority:
1. Justice Irshad Hassan Khan, Chief Justice of Pakistan,
2. Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri,
3. Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar,
4. Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmed,
5. Justice Ch. Mohammad Arif,
6. Justice Munir A. Sheikh,
7. Justice Abdul Rehman Khan
8. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan,
9. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqi,
10. Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry,
11. Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq,
12. Justice Rana Bhagwan Das,
13. Justice Mian Mohammad Ajmal,
14. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah,
15. Justice Javed Iqbal,
16. Justice Hamid Ali Mirza,
17. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.-APP
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Effects of Pakistan’s Legal Framework Order on the judiciary Naeem Shakir, Advocate, Lahore High Court, Pakistan Posted on 2004-11-08 http://www.article2.org/mainfile.php/0305/165/
The Legal Framework Order 2002 and the judiciary
It is appropriate to provide some background to explain the real intent of the LFO with regards to the judiciary, as judges were retained or dismissed by the new government on the basis of their political allegiance. Superior court judges have from the beginning been obliged to take an oath of office to uphold the constitution. However, the relevant provisions of the Provisional Constitution Order 1 of 1999, introduced by the current president, ran as follows:
No Court, tribunal or other authority shall call in question the Proclamation of Emergency of 14th day of September 1999 or any other Order made in pursuance thereof. No judgement, decree, writ, order or process whatsoever shall be made or issued by any court or tribunal against the Chief Executive or any other authority designated by the Chief Executive.
All persons who, immediately before the commencement of this Order, were in service of Pakistan as defined in Article 260 of the Constitution and those who immediately before such commencement were in office as Judge of the Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court or a High Court or Auditor General or Ombudsman and Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, shall continue in the said service on the same terms and conditions and shall enjoy the same privileges, if any.
Then the Oath of Office (Judges) Order was promulgated on 25 January 2000, with the intent that judges take a new oath to continue serving. Reproduction of the relevant provisions of this order will make it clearer how a policy to weed out undesirable judges was set in place by the government:
3. Oath of Judges — (1) A person holding office immediately before the commencement of this Order as a Judge of the superior Court shall not continue to hold that office if he is not given, or does not make, oath in the form set out in the Schedule, before the expiration of such time from such commencement as the Chief Executive may determine or within such further time as may be allowed by the Chief Executive.
(2) A Judge of the Superior Court appointed after the commencement of the order shall, before entering upon office, make oath in the form set out in the Schedule.
(3) A person referred to in clause (1) and (2) who has made oath as required by these clauses shall be bound by the provision of this Order, the Proclamation of Emergency of the fourteenth day of October, 1999 and the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 1999 as amended and, notwithstanding any judgement of any Court, shall not call in question or permit to be called in question the validity of any of the provisions thereof.
The form set out for the oath of office was of course framed for obedience and allegiance to the instruments referred to in clause 3. Many members of the judiciary naturally became apprehensive about the designs of the new rulers. The result was a sudden exodus of judges, especially from the Supreme Court. Six of its judges, including the Chief Justice, refused to take the oath. Some of the Judges of the high courts also did not make the oath, notably those of the Lahore High Court, High Court of Sindh and Peshawar High Court.
The matter itself came before the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah’s Case, by which time the judges in question had left from office. The court refused to consider the specific cases, declaring the matter closed, and stated that:
Clearly, the Judges of the Superior Judiciary enjoy constitutional guarantee against arbitrary removal. They can be removed only by following the procedure laid down in Article 209 of the Constitution by filing an appropriate reference before the Supreme Judicial Council and not otherwise. The validity of the action of the Chief Executive was open to question on the touchstone of Article 209 of the Constitution. But none of the Judges took any remedial steps and accepted pension as also the right to practice law and thereby acquiesced in the action. Furthermore, the appropriate course of action for Supreme Court in these proceedings would be to declare the law to avoid the recurrence in future, but not to upset earlier actions or decisions taken in this behalf by the Chief Executive, these being past and closed transactions.
Unquestionably, the superior judiciary of the country was in this instance intimidated and ridiculed by the military. Those who refused to succumb to the pressure from the regime acted valiantly, and the assertion in the judgement that they might have done otherwise ignores the extenuating circumstances.
The Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment, which confers absolute power in General Musharraf, is opposed to the spirit of parliamentary governance enshrined in the constitution. It is true that the people of Pakistan have again been provided an opportunity to elect a representative to run state business, but the fact remains that it is a government tailored to the desires and requirements of a military regime. General Musharraf vigorously presents his case inside and outside Pakistan, asserting that he is indispensable for the state and the people on the premises of security and for the reforms he has brought about for the good of the country. His assertions bring to mind John Adam, who rightly said, “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing of God’s service when it is violating all his laws.”
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
SCBA chief faces action By Rafaqat Ali November 4, 2002 Monday Sha’aban 28,1423 http://archives.dawn.com/2002/11/04/nat15.htm
ISLAMABAD, Nov 3: The Supreme Court has decided to strip the president of Supreme Court Bar Association of the honour of being a “senior advocate” which was bestowed upon him by the former Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan. Sources in the SC have confirmed that the decision to withdraw the status of senior advocate has been taken at the highest level after SCBA’s recent statement in which it said the judiciary had ceased to be independent after taking oath under the PCO. Hamid Khan, president of Supreme Court Bar Association, antagonised the judiciary by making a written statement before the five-judge bench, headed by the chief justice, that his association had no faith in the judiciary and arguing any matter before it, involving constitutional matters, in its present composition, would be an exercise in futility. “Those who can bestow the honour, can also withdraw the same,” an official of the Supreme Court said. The SC bench, in its order passed on the application of SCBA, mentioned Hamid Khan, as “Hamid Khan, ASC”, or only Hamid Khan, and not as “Hamid Khan, Sr ASC”, as is the practice with the senior lawyers. Under the SC rules, the status of a senior advocate can be awarded “on application or otherwise” to those who have ten years of SC practice, and “were judged by the knowledge, ability and experience to be worthy of the status of Senior Advocate.”
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Bar asks CJ not to accept extension By Our Staff Reporter March 2, 2003 Sunday Zul Hijjah 28, 1423 http://archives.dawn.com/2003/03/02/nat31.htm
ISLAMABAD, March 1: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Friday demanded that Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmad should retire on March 8, and refuse the extension of three years given to the superior judiciary by the present regime through an unconstitutional method. Chief Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmad will attain the age of 65 on March 8, when he will retire if he refuses the extension. Speaking at a news conference on the Supreme Court premises, SCBA President Hamid Khan released copies of a letter which the Bar representatives have written to the chief justice. The letter says: “Representatives and leaders of the Bar across the length and breadth of the country have denounced the attempt to enhance the retirement age of judges of the superior courts on the brute force of the LFO. Any judge who continues to hold the constitutional office of a judge of the superior courts beyond the age mandated by the 1973 Constitution shall, in the eyes of the legal fraternity, be at best a judge de facto and not de jure. Under the 1973 Constitution, you shall be retiring as chief justice on March 8. It is our hope that a constitutional crisis can be averted by your laying down the robes of chief justice on the said date.” The letter is signed by Mian Abbas, vice-chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC); Muhammad Kazim Khan, executive committee chairman PBC; Hamid Khan, president SCBA; Qazi Mohammad Anwar, member PBC; Arif Chaudhry, vice-chairman Punjab Bar Council; Mohammad Yasin Azad of Sindh Bar Council; Munir A. Malik, president SHC Bar Association; Amanullah Kanrani, president BHC Bar Association; Mohammad Ikram Chaudhry, president LHC Bar Association Rawalpindi, and Hafiz Abdur Rehman Ansari, president LHC Bar Association.
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Compromise with govt to divide opposition’ By Our Correspondent July 27, 2003 Sunday Jumadi-ul-Awwal 26, 1424 http://archives.dawn.com/2003/07/27/nat4.htm
QUETTA, July 26: Lawyers at a convention here on Saturday stressed upon the opposition leadership that any compromise on the Legal Framework Order or the president’s military post in the meeting with the government on Sunday would divide the forces opposing the LFO and benefit the military dictator. Representatives of the bar associations and councils of the Supreme Court and high courts from Islamabad, Punjab, Sindh and the NWFP and the members of local lawyers’ organizations spoke about the LFO and provincial autonomy. Pakistan Bar Council Vice-Chairman Mian Abbass presided over the fifth all Pakistan lawyers convention and Supreme Court Bar Association President Abdul Hamid Khan was the chief guest. The convention, through a resolution passed unanimously, called for a boycott of the courts on July 30 to protest against the killing of three judges in the Sialkot jail and condemned the authorities’ failure to stop the supply of firearms into the prison. It opposed the dispatch of Pakistani troops to Iraq and said the occupation forces should face the crisis instead of using Pakistani troops as their mercenary division. It demanded that the provinces should be given autonomy as prescribed in the Constitution. It deplored the promulgation of the Contempt of Courts Ordinance and considered it an attempt to muzzle the campaign of the legal fraternity to expose the misdeeds of the superior judiciary and its collusion with the military establishment.
Mian Abbass said the lawyers’ joint action committee had decided to hold a long march to accelerate the movement against the LFO and the military dictatorship. He said the date and route of the march would be finalized in a meeting in Islamabad on Aug 8. He said the next convention would be held in Lahore on Sept 5 to show that the lawyers would not make any deal on principles about the LFO, the president’s discretionary powers under Article 58(2-b) of the Constitution and his military post. He alleged that the “nexus of generals and judges to undermine the sovereignty of parliament and suppress the independence of judiciary” was aimed at undermining the fundamental rights of the citizens and imposing an unconstitutional rule in the country. The SCBA president alleged that the understanding between the “khaki uniform and the black gown” was an attempt to safeguard each other’s interests and sideline the elected representatives. He said the judges had legalized President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s rule for three years and the army ruler had given an extension in the retirement age of the judges of the same period.
He criticized the role of some judges who had legitimized the illegal steps of the military dictator. Hamid Khan said the implementation of Article 6 of the Constitution was necessary. He said the Pakistan Bar Council had published a white paper and another such document might be prepared. He said he had conveyed the message to the politicians invited by the prime minister for dialogue that a compromise on the LFO, the National Security Council, extension in the judges’ service, the president’s uniform and the contempt of court ordinance would divide the lawyers and political leaders. Amanullah Kanrani, Mohsin Javed, Ali Ahmed Kurd and Malik Zahoor Shahwani said the lawyers of Balochistan would continue their role for constitutional rule, democracy and provincial autonomy.
Bar Council Azad Kashmir Vice-Chairman Raja Sajid Ahmed assured the participants of cooperation in the struggle for the restoration of the Constitution. Lahore High Court Bar Association President Hafiz Abdur Rehman Ansari said the suppression of constitutional procedures could lead to disunity and damage the integrity of the country. Qazi Anwar and Sardar Sanaullah Gandapur from the NWFP said the denial of the provinces’ right over their resources would undermine the federal parliamentary system and lead the country to crisis. Munir Ahmed, Yasin Azad, Aqil Lakani, Nahid Afzal and Mohammad Ali Abbasi from Sindh and Kazim Khan, Sheikh Jamshed and Malik Saleem from Punjab also spoke.
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Supreme Court says its verdict has helped revive democracy By Rafaqat Ali October 31, 2002 Thursday Sha’aban 24,1423 http://66.219.30.210/2002/10/31/top9.htm
ISLAMABAD, Oct 30: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it took oath under the PCO to preserve the judicial system, and due to its judgment in which it validated the military takeover the army was going back to barracks by restoring democracy. The apex court, responding to the statement of the Supreme Court Bar Association that arguing a case before the present judiciary was a futile exercise “as it had ceased to be independent,” observed that it reserved its right to take action against the president of SCBA, Hamid Khan, for his “disparaging remarks” about the independence of the judiciary. The SCBA had asked the SC bench on Monday to return its review petition as the bar was of the view that the judiciary, after taking oath under the PCO and by upholding various orders and acts of the present military regime, had ceased to be independent and no substantial question of constitutional importance should be argued before this court in its present composition.” The SC bench called the president of the SCBA, “Hamid Khan, contemner,” and said the SCBA statement was “motivated by malice, extraneous considerations and for political reasons.” In its five-page order, authored by Chief Justice Riaz Ahmad, the SC held that the contents of the application constituted gross contempt of court as it used disparaging remarks about the judiciary through the language which could not have been expected from the pen of the SCBA president. The SC asserted that democracy was being revived in the country and the regime would go back to barracks because of the SC judgment in Zafar Ali Shah case and the oath taken by judges of the SC (under PCO). “It is because of the judgment in Zafar Ali Shah case and oath taken by the judges of the Supreme Court that a time schedule was given and the regime had to hold elections and to go back to barracks after restoration of democratic institutions.”
The court said that in compliance with its judgments, elections were held in the country on Oct 10, 2002, and the process of transfer (of power) was in progress. The SC said that taking oath under the PCO by judges of the superior judiciary was welcomed by the senior lawyers like Khalid Anwar and SM Zafar. It said that those judges who had refused to take oath under the PCO did so according to their conscience and “heavy responsibility lay upon the judges who took oath (under PCO) for dispensation of justice.” The SC stated that its judgment, validating the military takeover, was universally acclaimed and had been described as a landmark judgment.
The court said it could proceed to take action against Hamid Khan, president of SCBA, but it was always appropriate to exercise restraint. “However, we reserve the right to take the proper action at an appropriate stage.” The SC said: “Unfortunately, some members of the Bar, motivated by malice, extraneous considerations and for political reasons or ill-will, make irresponsible statements to tarnish the image of the judiciary which is not at all in the supreme national interest.” The SC said it “strongly deprecate and condemn this attitude on the part of Hamid Khan and considering the contents of this application scandalous, malicious and irrelevant, we order that paragraph (I) and (II) therefore be struck off.” The SC said it had highest respect for those members of the bar, who have shown respect to the judiciary. By making such attempts the members of the bar were abusing the sacred elected office, it said. The court further observed that by taking oath under the PCO the judiciary had “saved the independence of (the) judiciary as well as the system of administration by preserving the Bar as well.” “Failing which the bar would have been replaced by all together a new system unknown to a civilised society.” It said that judges took oath under the PCO “in the highest national interest, and therefore we have deliberately not chosen to proceed against Hamid Khan in view of the interest of the institution, “but we reiterate that we reserved our right to proceed against Hamid Khan, contemner.”
The court observed that Hamid Khan knew that all the points which had been raised in the review petition had already been dealt with in the judgment, and the court would not allow re-hearing of the matter. The court said that knowing full well the consequences of the review petition, the counsel deliberately declined to argue the case “motivated by malice, ill-will and extraneous considerations.” The court said that review petition was fixed for hearing on Oct 28 when a request for adjournment was moved on behalf of Hamid Khan, expressing his inability to appear before the court on the said date due his unavoidable personal obligation and prior commitments. The bench assembled in the court to consider the aforesaid request for adjournment when, surprisingly, the court noticed the presence of Hamid Khan in the courtroom who came at the rostrum and submitted an application under the caption “Statement at the Bar”. The court said that it was high time that counsel like Hamid Khan and the members of the bar realised their responsibility towards the courts and the society. “If this state of affairs continues then God be with us and nothing more could be said about it. As a consequence of the above, this review petition has no merits and the same stands dismissed accordingly”, the court concluded.
Iftikhar was part of that accursed PCO Bench!!!!
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
Politicians in power try to be dictators, says CJ Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:4 March 2000 Issue : 06/10 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/2000/mar04.html#poli
ISLAMABAD, March 1: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Irshad Hasan Khan, on Wednesday observed that when the politicians are in power, they try to become dictators but when they are out of power, they become champions of the rule of law. Presiding over a 12-member bench seized of the seven petitions challenging the military takeover, the chief justice directed the attorney general to provide details of the expenditure on holding elections, including the expenses made by the candidates on their election campaigns. The Supreme Court announced that it would decide the issue of maintainability and merits of the case simultaneously. The chief justice said the court had entertained the petitions. The bench started regular hearing of the petitions on Wednesday. The court first took up the petition of Syed Zafar Ali Shah, suspended MNA of PML from Islamabad. The representative petition of PML would be taken next and Khalid Anwer would argue the case on behalf of the party. Other petitions before the court are of Syed Imtiaz Hussain Bukhari, challenging the PCO; Fazal Ellahi Siddiqui, challenging the PCO; Shahid Orakzai, seeking restoration of Senate, office of speakers and provincial assemblies; Al-Jehad Trust, seeking restoration of Constitution to the extent of judiciary; and Syed Iqbal Haider of MWM, seeking validation of PCO. The bench consisted of Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice Mohammad Bashir Jehangiri, Justice Sheikh Ijaz Nisar, Justice Abdur Rehman Khan, Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, Justice Chaudhry Mohammad Arif, Justice Munir A. Sheikh, Justice Rashid Aziz Khan, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Qazi Mohammad Farooq and Justice Rana Bhagwandas.
The chief justice made it clear at the outset that the counsels should try to be relevant and unnecessary repetition of arguments should be avoided. He said the whole work of the court was suspended due to the present case. Chaudhry Farooq, the counsel of Mr Shah, said that on the last hearing the petitioner had apprehended that the judges of the court would be asked to take fresh oath under the PCO and his apprehensions proved to be true. He said the PCO (1) of 1999 and subsequent orders were unconstitutional, having no force of law. The chief justice asked the parties to avoid mud-slinging, and added that: “we will perform our function without intimidation.” He observed that the bar and the bench were integral part of the chariot of justice. He said his effort was to save the system and referred to the decisions of the Chief Justices Committee. The counsel said: “Pakistan was a gift of our forefathers, but unfortunately the rule of law had been interrupted at regular intervals. In its total life, Pakistan had suffered military rule for 30 long years”.
He said the government in its reply to the petitions had said that the elections of Feb 3, 1997, were farce. The elections in which PML obtained heavy mandate were monitored by the observers across the globe, he said, and added the armed forces were employed to supervize the elections. On the court’s query, Barrister Khalid Anwar stated that 36 per cent of voters used their right of franchise in the 1997 elections. Chaudhry Farooq said if the government of Khawaja Nazimuddin would not have been dismissed, the fate of Pakistan would have been different. He said Pakistan was created with the force of vote and not through any military operation. “Both citizens and soldiers are subject to Constitution alike.” Referring to Article 6 of the Constitution, he said abrogating the Constitution was treachery with the country. When he stated that the respondents had not replied to the Politicians in power try to be dictators: CJ challenge he raised in the petition, the chief justice observed that the counsel was trying to be hyper technical. The CJ made it clear to the counsel that notice of the case to the chief of the army staff was there.
The counsel said he was firm believer that the Kafir (infidel) could not be a friend of Muslim and Hindus being Kafir could not be trusted. When the counsel referred to a judgment from the Indian jurisdiction, the court asked him not to cite Indian judgments in the present case. When the counsel started reading an old judgment from Pakistani jurisdiction, the chief justice asked the counsel to first read the speech of the chief executive in which he had spelt out the reasons which forced him to come into power. The counsel was still reading the speech of Gen Musharraf when the court rose to assemble again on Thursday (March 2).
Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers – Part – 1 (GEO 22 Dec 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbTD-ZtDPkg
Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers – Part – 2 (GEO 22 Dec 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Igv1kg5gU
Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers – Part – 3 (GEO 22 Dec 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7VBbtAyPWE
Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers – Part – 4 (GEO 22 Dec 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPAn4TC1se8
Judicial Dictatorship & Lawyers – Part – 5 (GEO 22 Dec 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8KA5k6mAR0
Iftikhar was part of that accursed PCO Bench!!!!
“No one is above accountability in Islam”. [Ansar Abbasi]
==========
Pakistan Constitution is allegedly Islamic!
As per 1973 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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.
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.
In his petition, the senator, on whose petition the Supreme Court had earlier validated the Oct 12, 1999, military coup by Gen Musharraf, also challenged a provision in Section 3 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973, which required the federal government to move a reference for any proceedings under high treason and said this provision was against Article 6 of the Constitution, which does not demand such condition. The petition also asked whether former army chief (Gen Musharraf) did not commit breach of his constitutional oath through his Oct 12, 1999, military coup in disregard of the Constitution and, if faith and allegiance to Pakistan means upholding the Constitution which embodies the will of the people, does it not amount to treason. SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/sc-moved-against-musharraf-pmln-disowns-zafars-plea-389
The armed forces, the petition alleged, were not only ridiculed but insulted by exploiting them only for personal gains. They were made to climb the wall of the prime minister’s house on Oct 12 and used to maintain Gen Musharraf in his extra-constitutional usurpation of power, the petition alleged. To relinquish the office of Chief Executive in accordance with the Supreme Court’s May 12, 2000 judgment, means that Gen Musharraf should have surrendered the command of the armed forces to the then Prime Minister, Mir Zafraullah Khan Jamali, after holding the general elections, but by not doing so, Gen Musharraf disobeyed and violated the order of the apex court, the petition contended. SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/sc-moved-against-musharraf-pmln-disowns-zafars-plea-389
Sayed Zafar Ali Shah submitted that General (R) Pervez Musharraf used force against the elected prime minister, overturned the entire political and democratic system, he acted against the integrity and security of the country and was liable to be punished under Article 6 of the constitution of 1973 read with Section 2 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973. SC moved for Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 By Sohail Khan dated Sunday, August 23, 2009 http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24034
Ansar Abbasi & Jang Group Illegally Tape the Phones of Citizens & Judges – P – 1 (9 Apr 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95rtWVvqahw
Ansar Abbasi & Jang Group Illegally Tape the Phones of Citizens & Judges – P – 2 (9 Apr 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyRQkewdj4Q
CJ (R) Sajjad Ali Shah Exposes Pakistani Judiciary Corruption – P – 1 (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIyp5rIiOm0
CJ (R) Sajjad Ali Shah Exposes Pakistani Judiciary Corruption – P – 2 (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFfKfKYHyRg
CJ (R) Sajjad Ali Shah Exposes Pakistani Judiciary Corruption – P – 3 (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDTc2enQ1r4
CJ (R) Sajjad Ali Shah Exposes Pakistani Judiciary Corruption – P – 4 (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONSoqD1-JeE
CJ (R) Sajjad Ali Shah Exposes Pakistani Judiciary Corruption – P – 5 (2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sdQS5rsLaM
finally supreme court decided to hear the reference filed by the president of Pakistan: http://www.thenewstribe.com/2011/04/14/zab-case-sc-decides-to-form-new-bench/
We all wasting are time by giving importance to Ansar Abbasi. He is by no standard a journalist? Only a tout of a agency. He know some more prominent of this tribe, who publish news and analysis without knowing what is written in it. In fact they receive a written material which they just hand over to news desk and under the order of the owner that material is published. Any sensible reader can find out that from where all these information are coming from. They all are beneficiaries of Gen Zia plan to militarize this society. The chief editor of his newspaper who received Rs15 lakh from agencies as lost published in 1992 in more than two newspapers and had never been contradicted. He is the same person who was publishing a on line newspaper and his main target was army general. Than all of sudden something and stopped its publication with apology. There is series of misdeeds of these agents.
I liked up to you’ll receive carried out right here. The cartoon is attractive, your authored material stylish. however, you command get bought an edginess over that you would like be delivering the following. in poor health definitely come further previously again as exactly the same just about very ceaselessly inside of case you defend this hike.