Consistent honesty? Ardeshir Cowasjee Week Ending : 12 April 1997 Issue : 03/15 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/12Apr97.html#cons

HOW fortunate can a man be? Take me, for example. I have had the pleasure
of knowing, partaking of their wisdom, and enjoying the company of Allah
Baksh Kadir Baksh Brohi, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, and Brohi’s protege,
Khalid Anwer. Friend Brohi is with us no more. Friend Sharifuddin is very much around, but for the time being enjoying a sabbatical. One can but admire his self-
confidence, as he is still sure that he can convince his Maker (if his
Maker will hear him) that all he has done upon this earth has been good and
just. Khalid is on his way up. He successfully had Nawaz’s dissolution
overturned. He successfully had Benazir’s dissolution upheld. Now he has
had 58(2)(b) erased from the Book. As a member of the government, he bears
a great deal of the collective responsibility for any action taken by this
government, for he is by far the brightest, the most finely educated, the
most well-read, and the most balanced of the democrats amongst whom he
sits.

Fascdism on the march — II Ardeshir Cowasjee Week Ending : 20 December 1997 Issue : 03/51
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/20Dec97.html#fasc

AN open letter to Justice Ajmal Mian, the honourable J-1 of the
Supreme Court:

As a citizen of Pakistan, no more no less, I address you, today the
principal custodian of the honour and dignity of the judiciary of
Pakistan, particularly that of the Supreme Court. You may perhaps
have read my column printed last Sunday, the manuscript of which is
sent herewith.

The crucial issues pending before your court include;

* Contempt of court action against Nawaz Sharif and seven others.

* Petition regarding the unlawful allotment of thousands of plots
by him when chief minister of Punjab.

* Petition regarding the unlawful ISI distribution of Rs 140
million of the people’s money to him and others.

* Petition regarding award of wheat transport contract by him to
his crony Saeed Shaikh.

* Petition regarding his misuse of power in pressurising banks to
settle loan cases out of court.

* Petition challenging his Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

* Petitions regarding suspension of 13th and 14th Amendments.

Fascism has been on the march in our country from 1954 a mere six
years after Jinnah’s death. Governor General Ghulam Mohammed used
fascist force to try to prevent Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan from
arriving at the High Court of Sindh to file his petition against
the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. He ordered that
Tamizuddin be arrested before he could get there, and the High
Court was surrounded by the police. Disguised in a burqa,
Tamizuddin managed to get through to the Deputy Registrar, Roshan
Ali Shah, father of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Sajjad Ali Shah,
held by certain of his bretheren now to be “under restraint.”

Roshan Ali protected Tamizuddin and took him to Chief Justice Sir
George Constantine, who accepted the petition and ordered the
police to disperse or face action. You will also recall how, in
1973, District and Sessions Judge of Sanghar Mohammed Owais Murtaza
was hand-cuffed, arrested while presiding over his own court, and
jailed by provincial minister Jam Sadiq Ali, as ordered by Bhutto,
for having granted bail to certain men he had imprisoned. The
steadfast CJ Tufail Ali Abdul Rehman stood his ground and
protested. Why was his judge humiliated, why was he, the Chief
Justice, not consulted? Judge Murtaza moved the High Court for bail
and Bhutto had him released before his application could be heard
by Tufail Ali Abdul Rehman.

It was also in the 1970s, when I first heard of you. You were a
young legal adviser of the Karachi Port Trust. My father Rustom,
the senior-most trustee, was acting as the Chairman of the Trust.
One fine morning, an agitated Chief Engineer Aftab informed him
that Chief Minister of Sindh Mumtaz Bhutto had arranged to lay the
foundations of a labour colony on port land that afternoon. The
platform had been erected, flags were flying and buntings hung. My
father immediately wrote off to the CM telling him that the land
was port land reserved for its development, that he should
therefore cancel his building programme and save himself
embarrassment.

Within minutes, the gruff CM telephoned. Who are you? he asked, and
how dare you address me as you have? Dared I have, replied my
father. Right now, I am the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of
the Karachi Port Trust, and therefore the chief conservator of all
the land and water notified as falling within the port limits.

Whoever you may be, responded the Talented Cousin, always remember
that every inch of land in Sindh is mine to do with as I will. What
will you do if I lay the foundation stone and build a colony? I
will file a petition in the High Court, came the answer, and stay
your designs.

At lunch that afternoon, my father related this exchange to his
sons. But, he said, we have a clear-headed young lawyer. “Ajmal
tagro che,” and Tufail will stay Mumtaz’s hand within fifteen
minutes. However, before we could finish lunch, Aftab rang saying
that the platform, flags and buntings had all been removed and the
ceremony was off.

My father could act as he did, banking on an honest High Court
presided over by a fearless CJ who would feel bound to protect the
Trust.

Moving forward to the present, may I request that this letter of
mine be accepted as a petition, and that you take suo moto action,
for the gravest contempt committed in the face of the court,
against those who stormed the Supreme Court on November 28 as well
as all those responsible for organizing, paying, and directing them
to so do, and that severe deterrent punishment be handed down to
all of them. (Possibly taking their cue from the Nov 28 happening,
50 mobsters on December 12 attacked the court of a civil judge of
Faisalabad). Collectively responsible and guilty is the entire
federal cabinet and its primus inter pares.

As evidence, sent herewith is a cassette. You will see clearly from
this video recording, that the disgraceful and unprecedented scenes
that took place on the premises and inside the court building on
November 28 were undoubtedly government inspired and led, funded by
the peoples money. You will, as did I, recognize certain prominent
members of the present government, of the Senate, the National
Assembly and the Punjab Provincial Assembly. And should you be
familiar with the Muslim Leaguers of the prime minister’s own home
town, Lahore, you will no doubt see many familiar figures,
flaunting the flag of the ruling party, proving that the
substantial and violent mob was bussed in from the provincial
capital specifically for the raid.

You will see on the portion taken from BBC tracks, that prominent
in the pushing, shoving and shouting crowd outside the court is the
well known federal minister Mushahid Hussain who works closely with
the prime minister. As he jostles along he is smiling the smile of
sweet success and contentment. You will observe that he made no
effort to pacify or dissuade the mob. Clambering over the gates of
the court premises can be spotted the ample figure of MPA Sa’ad
Rafiq, a former leader of the Muslim Students’ Federation.
Encouraging the attack is the since- sacked-then-reinstated
political secretary to the prime minister, Mushtaq Ali Taherkheli,
who later was interviewed by the BBC. You will also see the many
law enforcers, flak-jacketed policemen, standing watching, or
strolling by, apparently under orders not to react.

Women were well represented by Najma Hamid, a former MPA of Punjab,
I am told.

Amongst those directing the mob within the court building was
Senator Saifur Rahman, Nawaz’s chief trouble-shooter and man for
all affairs, and his chief-in-charge of ehtesab. It was very sad to
spot him amongst the hooligans. I thought better of him. The night
before, he was hurriedly sent for by provincial chief minister
Shahbaz Sharif and he flew back with him from Lahore in the CM’s
special plane at 0300 hours that morning.

Sardar Naseem, an MPA of Lahore, was prominent, as was an associate
of the well-known Khwaja Riaz Mahmood, a former deputy mayor of
Lahore, famous for remarking that he cannot understand why two
police constables were not simply sent to arrest the chief justice
and get the whole thing over with quickly.

Other honourable Senators seen directing the rioters were Raja
Aurangzeb, and a man recognized by some as Parvez Rashid. MNA Tariq
Aziz did his active best. Former hockey star Akhtar Rasool, and
Mian Abdul Sattar, both MPAs of Lahore, performed well. From
Rawalpindi there was MPA Chaudhry Tanvir, a former vice-chairman of
the Cantonment Board. You will see how the rowdies were guided in
and, after forcing the court to adjourn, hurriedly ushered out.
They were later accorded a celebratory feast at Punjab House.

The affairs of state will trundle on and soon Chief Justice of
Pakistan (under restraint) Sajjad Ali Shah will be invited by the
government to honour his constitutional obligation and swear in the
new President, as required by Article 42. But, on you, for the
present, rests the onerous responsibility of reconsecrating a badly
desecrated and purposefully divided Supreme Court.

Fascism on the march By Ardeshir Cowasjee

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/13Dec97.html#fasc

THEORETICALLY, in a Westminster-style democracy that this country
has tried to emulate, there are four pillars of state – the
legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and the press. But our
country rests imbalanced on five. The fifth pillar, the most
powerful, the richest, the most organized, is the army. Fortunately
for us, it is now headed by a good commander.

Nawaz Sharif’s `overwhelming’ mandate, comprising less than ten per
cent of the total population of the Republic, but sufficient for
him and his `sovereigns of parliament’ to do good by the 140
million should they so wish, did not satisfy him.

He first tackled the executive, emasculating the president, rushing
through at midnight the 13th Amendment, suspending all rules of
procedure, aided and abetted by a pliant assembly speaker and a
pliant senate chairman (both front-runners in the present
presidential race). To neutralize the legislature, he repeated the
exercise with his 14th Amendment (passed without a single dissent)
banning dissension or abstention in parliament. Never in the
recorded history of any democracy have parliamentarians voluntarily
given up their right to speak.

At the time when Farooq Leghari and his caretaker government were
assuring Nawaz Sharif his second term, Abbaji was heard to declare,
“leghari Sahib kay ehsan, mein, aur merey baitey, aur hamara
khandan, kabhi nahin, bhoolengey.” This was forgotten on February 3
when Nawaz Sharif was elected.

Nine months down the line, a weakened Leghari, given the choice
between a threatened impeachment (which, because of the numbers
game, may never have come off) or resignation, chose the latter. He
should have called Nawaz Sharif’s bluff, and, following the
dictates of his conscience, gone on to sign or not sign whatever
was presented to him. An independent judiciary would have
intervened and passed appropriate orders against a mala fide and
colorable impeachment.

Leghari having resigned, a new president now has to be elected.
When my friend, Nawab Mohammad Akbar Shahbaz Khan, Tumandar Bugti,
was asked whether he was an aspirant, he replied “No. I do not
qualify. I have a spine.” Amongst the pliable favorites are Wasim
Sajjad, Sartaj Aziz, Ilahi Bakhsh Soomro, and, of all people, Ghous
Ali Shah. Of this sorry lot, one is guilty of having lied under
oath in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The fourth pillar of the state, the press, is no longer just the
printed word. it is also the predominating electronic media. Nawaz
Sharif and his men do not, or cannot, read, so, by and large, we
remain relatively free. PTV, our prime ministers’ personal
television channel, remains abjectly controlled, so much so that it
was prevented from broadcasting President Leghari’s resignation
speech to the nation. Shots were shown on foreign television
channels, and the world informed that it was banned from the
national channel. This reinforced international opinion as to Nawaz
Sharif’s authoritarian tendencies.

The army stands as one. Chief of Army Staff General Jehangir
Karamat has acted prudently. Nawaz Sharif’s propaganda about his
having army backing is neither correct nor is it generally
believed.

Why do you glorify the army chief so, asked Ayaz Amir (not so long
ago one of our credible national columnists but now a budding
Nawazite)? Have you forgotten your history? Have you forgotten how
Hitler divided and destroyed the Wehrmacht? Have you forgotten the
Blomberg-Fritsch affair? Have you forgotten how the ageing giant
Hindenburg was duped by Hitler? If Nawaz succeeds in his aim, will
Karamat be forgiven? I told him I had not forgotten any of it and
how not so long ago I had sent to the general a copy of a video
film on the Fuhrer which is being followed up by a copy of Shirer’s
`The Rise and Fall of the third Reich’.

As for the judiciary, Nawaz Sharif with his (or rather, our) money,
with his carrots and sticks, has successfully managed to undermine
this institution so recently built up. Neither history nor the
people can ever forgive him for this.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Sajjad Ali Shah (to the Bar and the
people he is neither `under restraint’ nor `under suspension’) was
appointed by Benazir in 1994. No judge, or member of the Bar, up to
November of this year, voiced any protest against his appointment
or his administration. As Rashed Rahman, son of a former Supreme
Court judge, wrote about him in The Nation, “That he is a man of
courage and has a clean record goes without saying. In that sense
he can be compared to a hero of a Shakespearian tragedy whose fall
is brought about as much by a flaw in his own character as by
outside factors.”

Fali Nariman, a former Attorney-General of India and now president
of the bar association of India, who keeps himself abreast of
happenings in the courts of our country, asked me to fax him the
orders passed by the Quetta and Peshawar Benches and by Chief
Justice Sajjad Ali Shah relating to the ouster. On December 5, a
perplexed Nariman asked, `but is there any legal or constitutional
basis for the orders of the Quetta and Peshawar Benches?”

My constitutional adviser and senior counsel, Barrister Makhdoom
Ali Khan, was immediately consulted. Careful Makhdoom’s first
response was to say, “Not to my knowledge.” I asked him for a one-
word answer, either `yes’ or `no’. “No,” he said. There are
certainly no precedents in Pakistan for what has happened, but
there are many against. It is a settled principle that no writ will
be issued by one judge to another.

On November 28, I was in the Supreme Court whilst the contempt case
against Nawaz Sharif and others was being heard by Chief Justice
Shah’s Bench. Sitting beside me was my friend and lawyer, Khalid
Anwer, now federal law minister. Whilst alleged contemner Nawaz
Sharif’s lawyer, S.M. Zafar, laboured on and on, Khalid shook his
head from side to side. Zafar, making his usual noises, shifting
his weight from one foot to the other, told the court that its
constitution was in question. A calm and composed Sajjad asked, why
then are you here before us? Zafar also questioned the legitimacy
of Sajjad’s appointment as chief justice. If you do not recognize
me as chief justice, do you recognize me as a judge of the Supreme
Court? queried Sajjad.

As the harangue continued, I remarked to Khalid that his writ as
law minister does not extend far, and asked if it would extend far
enough for him to protect my seat whilst I nip out to attend to a
call of nature. Good humouredly, he replied that though he may not
succeed as law minister, he could manage to do so as a senior
counsel of the Supreme Court. Before I could reach my destination
one floor below the courtroom, a surging screaming crowd of
hooligans appeared in the corridors. Zahid Hussain, correspondent
for The Times (London) and the chief of AP in Pakistan, was with
me. We were both hurriedly sent back by court officials who were
rushing around instructing each other that the doors of the
courtroom be closed, that the crowd had arrived to arrest the Chief
Justice.

As we re-entered, I heard Sajjad remark, to Zafar, “Thanks to you,”
whilst adjourning the case and leaving the courtroom just before a
section of the crowd, spearheaded by women, rushed in. Turning to
Khalid I said that if Nawaz Sharif must use women, he should at
least see to it that they are good looking rather than frightening.
A lawyer of Lahore standing close by informed me that they were not
actually women, but intermediary beings, and that I would look like
them were I to shave off my beard and moustache and put on lipstick
and make-up. He even recognized a few of them as being famous
`tanglas’ from certain specialized areas of Lahore. As we pushed
our way out of the courtroom, a dejected Khalid Anwar muttered to
himself, “Most unnecessary, most unnecessary.”

Acting Chief Justice Ajmal Mian is so far clean on record, and, as
far as is publicly known, free from any impropriety. His first
challenge is to deal with all those involved in the attack on the
Supreme Court. This will not be easy. It must nevertheless be
faced. The mob did not attack a man, or a building. The institution
of the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its apex, was the
target of the assault. This was contempt of court of the worst
kind, and any lack of firmness or alacrity in dealing with the
culprits will only encourage others to use similar methods each
time the court is seized of a politically sensitive matter. The
authority of the court will become subject to the muscle- power of
the mob and the machinations of those who hire them.

The master-fixer, my friend the Jadoogar of Jeddah, Sharifuddin
Pirzada, who snoozed besides me as we flew back to Karachi, was
firm in his opinion that the gravest of contempt had been
committed, that it’s an open and shut case.

Hear no evil Ardeshir Cowasjee http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/07Mar98.html

OUR two alternating juvenile prime ministers and opposition leaders are
made of the same stuff. They care not for our Constitution; they make no
effort to conform to it; they amend it to suit their own purposes. They
have no regard for our laws, which they chop and change at will. When a
chief justice asserts the independence of the judiciary, he is deemed to
be ‘non- cooperative’ and is removed by machinations defying law.

Had the seven honourable judges of the Supreme Court now hearing the
cases against this prime minister and his minions been able to hear the
testimony of former president Farooq Leghari (who suffered both
juveniles), he would have sworn on oath that neither is capable of
tolerating, or surviving, an independent judiciary.

He would have reaffirmed his public statements of December 2, 1997 when
he announced his resignation (and might even have revealed other issues
such as Tarar’s flight to Quetta on November 26, 1997). He would have
substantiated his affirmations with details of past shameful events, and
the Supreme Court of Pakistan might just have found the present and
former heads of government guilty as charged.

Shortly after the March 20, 1996, judgment was announced by the then
Chief Justice of Pakistan, Sajjad Ali Shah, Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto went to President Leghari and asked him to denotify the Chief
Justice. Why? Because his judgment, repugnant to her selfish interests,
would stand in her way. Impossible, he told her, and advised her not to
take on the judiciary in a battle she was bound to lose.

Eighteen months later, on October 16, 1997, shortly after the then Chief
Justice had nominated five High Court judges for elevation to the
Supreme Court, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif went to Leghari, taking with
him as support and as his voice Leghari’s erstwhile friend, Punjab
Governor Barrister Shahid Hamid. They asked him to denotify the same
Chief Justice, giving as an excuse their fear that with the five judges
elevated, he may shoot down their Anti-Terrorism Act. Nawaz had the
denotification document ready for the President’s signature in his
pocket. Once again, Leghari had to refuse. Nawaz Sharif went a step
further and asked him to send to the Supreme Judicial Council a
reference against Sajjad Ali Shah on the grounds that his appointment
was unconstitutional and that he was guilty of misconduct. There was no
way, under the Constitution, that Leghari could agree to this. Nawaz
Sharif then put on a brave face and announced that all was not lost as
they had “worked on the Judges.” When Leghari pressed them to give the
true reason, they admitted that it was Nawaz Sharif’s fear that Sajjad
Ali Shah, with the support of those elevated, might well disqualify him
in the cases filed against him. And, besides, it suited Nawaz to have
two of the five remain where they were.

At around 0130 hours on November 27, following the unprecedented
unconstitutional suspension of Sajjad Ali Shah (Chief Justice of
Pakistan for almost four years) by the Quetta Bench of the Supreme Court
in the afternoon of the 26th, Nawaz Sharif arrived at the Aiwan to meet
Leghari, bringing with him Speaker Ilahi Bakhsh Soomro, Senate Chairman
Wasim Sajjad, Law Minister Khalid Anwer, COAS General Jehangir Karamat
and DG-ISI Lt. General Rana. For four hours they tried to pressure him
into swearing-in as Chief Justice the seniormost judge of the Supreme
Court, Ajmal Mian. The Law Minister trotted out at length various
precedents to support the action of the Quetta Bench, in response to
which Leghari informed him that during the past three months it was his
advice that had brought Nawaz to his present predicament.

Leghari informed them that he would not sign Sajjad Ali Shah’s
denotification, that he would rather resign and hand over to Wasim
Sajjad who, as Acting President, would have no moral compunctions to
swiftly signing on the dotted line. They begged him not to resign, quite
ignoring the fact that for the past many days Nawaz Sharif, Illahi
Bakhsh and Wasim had been frantically busy trying to move an impeachment
motion against Leghari.

Five days later Leghari did resign rather than uphold Sajjad Ali Shah’s
unconstitutional removal. In his December 2 resignation speech (recorded
by his men) to an audience which included some 200 international and
national media people, he spoke at length on the crisis engineered by
Nawaz Sharif, intent upon his confrontation with the Chief Justice,
loathe to make any attempt to resolve it. He spoke of the cost to the
nation in economic terms of the two-month paralysis of the government, a
cost of some Rs.1 billion per day, and of the cost in other intangible
terms – the negation of the rule of law, the subjugation of the
judiciary, the damage done to the nation’s institutions and morale.

He spoke of the engineered disruption of the Supreme Court, of
government pressure exerted upon the judges of the Court in order to
deliberately and with mala fide intentions fuel the confrontation
between the executive and the judiciary. He spoke of how the prime
minister’s parliamentarians in open court had insulted the chief
justice, of how the ruling party had sent in “goons and militants and
parliamentarians to assault the Supreme Court, to jump over fences, to
break through doors, to go through corridors waving flags, chanting,
dancing and hurling abuses at the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the
Supreme Court of Pakistan.”

He spoke of how he had done his best to dissuade Nawaz Sharif from his
tussle, to instead concentrate on the major issues confronting the
nation, such as poverty, illiteracy, the backwardness of its women, its
health, the need for social reforms, the need for modern technology, the
need to improve science and agriculture through research. He spoke of
how he had begged Nawaz Sharif to back down, to uphold rather than
destroy the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law, to not
damage irreparably the institutions of the state. He spoke of how Nawaz
Sharif had thrice offered him a second term in return for his
‘cooperation’ and how thrice he had refused.

On February 24, 1998, an application under Order V Rule 1 of the Supreme
Court Rules 1980, was filed by Advocate Muhammad Ikram Choudhary,
petitioner in the contempt case against Nawaz Sharif and others now
being heard in the Supreme Court, and his Advocate on Record, M A Zaidi.
The application pleaded:

“That Mr Ardeshir Cowasjee has written an article in Dawn of Karachi, on
Sunday the 22nd of February 1998, titled ‘The second Tumandar’ relating
to alleged ‘subjugation and politicising of the judiciary,’ as stated by
Mr Farooq Leghari, the ex-president of Pakistan, and so stated in the
above article.

“That Mr Ardeshir Cowasjee … has already sent the speech on video
cassette to the Resgistrar S.C. Islamabad. “That Mr Leghari, as per
Ardeshir Cowasjee, is ready to make a statement on oath in the learned
court for the purposes of analysis of the relevant facts and events
involved in this case and to do so in the interests of justice.

“That the petitioner is placing on record the video cassette containing
the speech of Mr Leghari and other things stated above and requests for
an appropriate order”.

The application came up the next day before seven judges. They ordered:

“In our view, Mr Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari’s the then proposed speech
which is contained in the video referred to in the application cannot be
taken by this Court as a piece of evidence on the controversy in issue.
The application is dismissed.”

The video cassette of the speech submitted to the Court is not the
recording of ” Mr Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari’s the then proposed speech”.
It is the recording of the speech actually made by President Leghari at
the Aiwan-e-Sadar on December 2, 1997.

Excerpts from this speech were broadcast on international television
channels on December 2 and December 3, but no part of it was allowed to
be broadcast by the government-controlled PTV. Excerpts were also
reported in the national and international press of December 3.

Storming of the Supreme Court Ardeshir Cowasjee Week Ending : 04 April 1998 Issue : 04/14
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/04Apr98.html

AS you drive towards the rear entrance of the Sindh High Court, on the left
hand side, near the old Sukkur Barrage offices, you will see a 70-year old
shady tree which should wear a plaque with the engraving: “Saved by Nasir
Aslam Zahid.” One day in 1993, on my way to the Court, I noticed that two of the four old trees that had been planted when the British built the Barrage offices had
been chopped down and uprooted. They were just about to start on the third. The
Chief Justice in those days was Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid. I approached him in
his Chamber and told him of the destruction taking place just outside the
Court compound. What can we do to save what is left, I asked. He did not tell me to
file a writ, he did not consult the law books to check on what sections
permitted him to do what, he was ready to act immediately. I got the
Commissioner on the line and he then and there ordered him to stop the
felling. By that time three had gone, but one was safe.

Nasir Aslam Zahid was one of the best CJs that Sindh has had, and afforded its
people full protection. Upsetting the prime minister or the provincial chief
minister and their various minions never worried or concerned him, so
obviously he had to go. Soon after Benazir Bhutto came in at the end of 1993, he was
exiled to the Shariat Court. His departure was a great loss to the people of
the province. However, when his two-year term on that Bench came to an end he
was elevated to the Supreme Court. So, it was with great relief that I read early this month that Chief Justice of Pakistan Ajmal Mian had appointed Justice Zahid to preside over the Bench comprising Justices Munawar Ali Mirza and Abdur Rahman Khan, former Chief Justices of the Balochistan and the Peshawar High Courts, to investigate the November 28, 1997 storming of the apex court of the land by the rowdies of the government. After the passage of four months, something would be done about restoring the people’s faith in their judiciary.

Soon thereafter, a notice was sent to me from the Supreme Court asking me
to be present in the court of Justice Zahid at Islamabad on March 25 to record my
statement concerning the video cassette I had sent the Chief Justice with my
letter to him of December 13, 1997. This video cassette contained a recording
of the disgraceful events of November 28 shown by the BBC and recorded by the
CCTV cameras installed in the Supreme Court. Inter alia, I had written :

“You will no doubt appreciate the urgency of the matter. Apparently encouraged
by the successful storming of the Supreme Court on November 28, a fortnight
later a mob invaded the court of a civil judge at Faisalabad.
“It is my firm belief, which, needless to say, is shared by many others, that,
as is the case with Benazir Bhutto, her family and followers, Nawaz Sharif and
his adherents can neither tolerate nor survive a strong united judiciary.

“If Nawaz does survive beyond the next six months, he will find ways to remove
you.” Since I myself am not familiar with the majority of Nawaz Sharif’s MNAs and
MPAs, and certainly not with his party workers, I sought the help of Spin
Doctor Hussain Haqqani, who had spun for both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto,
and Zahid Husain, correspondent for The Times (London), in charge of the AP
bureau in Pakistan, and writer for Newsline. Apart from Mushahid Husain and
Saifur Rahman and Nasreen Jalil who I know, Haqqani was able to identify a few
MNAs, MPAs and others and Zahid confirmed the identity of those he knew. This
was conveyed to the Court. Those listed as having been seen on the film were Mushtaq Tahirkheli, political secretary to the PM, information minister Senator Mushahid Hussain of the PML, Ehtesab Bureau Chief Senator Saifur Rahman of the PML, PML MNAs Khwaja Asif and Tariq Aziz, PML MPAs Saad Rafiq, Chaudhry Tanvir, Akhtar Rasool, Mian Abdul Sattar and PML party worker Najma Hamid.

On March 25, the CCTV cassette was shown in the courtroom and I confirmed the
listing of the names as submitted with my affidavit and was then cross-examined
by the Attorney General. Of those listed, in the court that day was Tariq Aziz, who was asked to make his statement. He swore that he was a law-abiding man and
that contrary to what was reported in the press it was not he who had removed a
court signboard. When he was caught by a press photographer, with arms
upstretched and the board in his hands, he explained that he had reacted
subconsciously and was actually trying to hand it back from where it had been
torn down. Two others who had been present at the court that day but were not
identified on the film, PML MNAs Mian Mohammed Munir and Rao Qaiser,
volunteered their statements which were recorded by the Court.

The ‘heavies’ followed the next day. Najma Hamid made her statement and
testified that she was neither in Islamabad nor in the Supreme Court on
November 28, that the chaddar-clad woman filmed climbing up the staircase (and
identified by Hussain Haqqani) was not her. It was a case of mistaken
identity. I apologized, she graciously accepted the apology and withdrew. Next came Senator Saifur Rahman, seen in the film waving the crowd on towards the courtroom door. He had no intention of coming to the court on November 28, but had been sent there by Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif (whose jurisdiction does not extend to Islamabad) to see what was happening as he had heard that there was some sort of disturbance going on in the court premises. All he had done was to try and control the crowd and get them out of the court.

Khwaja Asif, MNA and Privatisation chief was in the court that day, as he was
one of the contemners summoned by the then Chief Justice, Sajjad Ali Shah. He
had also done his best, pleading with folded hands whilst standing on a table,
begging the stormtroopers to disband and go home. Lastly came the prime minister’s Spin Doctor Mushahid. His stance and demeanour was that of a minister making a political statement in the Assembly and on several occasions the judges had to restrain him and remind him that he was not in the National Assembly, but in a court of law, where he had been summoned to give an explanation and to answer questions, not to give a political speech. To quote Justice Zahid: “You might be a minister, but in this court of mine you are here merely as a witness, testifying under oath.” Justice Munawar Mirza also felt compelled to reprimand him: “You should remember that this is a courtroom of the Supreme Court and not the floor of the National Assembly.”

Mushahid Husain’s explanations were at odds with each other. He firstly, in
his statement, claimed that the storming of the court was “a spontaneous reaction
of the people to a charged atmosphere.” Later he proclaimed, in answer to a
question, that the storming was the result of “a conspiracy hatched by Farooq
Leghari and Sajjad Ali Shah to destabilize the government.” Again he had to be
reprimanded. Justices Zahid and Mirza firmly informed him that it was quite
improper for him to refer to Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as plain “Sajjad Ali
Shah.” Then, with a flourish and a satisfied smile, Mushahid Husain produced a
copy of Dawn of March 25, and turning to the letters page pointed to a letter to the
editor headed “Selective criticism,” written by one M Riaz-ul-Haq Ramay of
Multan, opening with the sentences: “Mr Ardeshir Cowasjee is really a
turncoat. He makes selective criticism.” It ends: “He has his blind spots – selective
criticism, as I said.” The Court allowed me to respond to this by informing the honourable judges that every information minister has a team of letter-writers paid to discredit journalists and columnists who are not complimentary to their masters and to
“set the record straight.” The very same letter sent by the same Ramay of Multan had been printed in Dawn eight to ten days ago. (On checking, it was found to have been printed on March 17.) At this, a flustered Mushahid held up the back page of Dawn and pointed to the print line where the name of the editor is printed. Exuding false
innocence, he exclaimed that planting letters in a paper edited by the present editor of
Dawn was an impossibility. The judges asked him to keep calm, not to get excited,
not to persist with making unsolicited statements but to restrict himself
strictly to answering questions. I sprang to his defence and the court was most indulgent. I was allowed to explain that normally Mushahid Sahib is a very calm man, extremely good natured, who smiles and laughs with the greatest of ease. In fact, one of his assistants had told me how on one occasion when he was informed of the
death of an acquaintance he responded with his usual happy laugh and had to be
prevailed upon to listen carefully while the sad news was repeated to him.
The court assembles again on April 2 when the remaining five on the list will
be examined. They are Tahirkheli and four MPAs from Lahore.

Storming of the Supreme Court – 3 Ardeshir Cowasjee http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/18Apr98.html
SOON after receiving a notice from the Supreme Court summoning me
up to Islamabad to appear on March 25, where my statement in
connection with the November 28 storming of the Court was to be
recorded, one of our senior most journalists rang to say that what
he could not tell me on the telephone he wished to come, pronto,
tell me in person.

He came and whispered that an Intelligence Bureau man had enquired
about my antecedents and those of my General Staff Officer-1 (G-1),
my fellow-columnist by avocation. The IB had been ordered to
compile files. Nothing new, I told my worried friend, they have
been preparing files on me since 1948, and my telephone remains
tapped. A new man has apparently fallen upon an old job.

This was filed away as a circumstance.

In the early hours of March 22, a man broke into my house, came
into my bedroom, and when I sleepily asked who he was and what was
happening, with hand held over his mouth, he ordered me to go back
to sleep. Switching on my beside light, I asked why, having awaken
me, he now wished me to sleep. He put off the light, hand still
over mouth, hoarsely whispered “Paisa, paisa.” I had none, I said,
but he could take whatever pleased him, and depart. Patting his
midriff, he threatened, “Goli marega, goli marega.” Go ahead, I
told him. An inquisitive man, he wanted to know how I eat without
money.My money is with my major-domo who feeds me. He could go
downstairs, and rob him if he could. He then pulled out my
telephone wire.

He rifled around the room, opening cupboards and drawers. Intrigued
by my hat boxes in one cupboard, he wanted to know what they
contained? My ceremonial Parsi pugrees, I told him. Take them. In
another cupboard were my panama hats. How many hats do you wear, he
asked? He fondled the CD player, the VCR, the receiver. He
inspected my camera, put it back. Fiddling about on my dressing
table, he picked up my gold signet ring and my watch, padded about
a bit, and then left.

Not a usual occurrence, but not that unusual in this city devoid of
law and order. The man was a junkie, I concluded, wanting money for
a quick fix. On second thoughts, he was far too clean for the
normal junkie, too well dressed, in a ‘khadar’ shalwar-kamiz. The
incident was filed away as a happenstance.

Whilst in Islamabad, I narrated this happening to my retired
friend, Khan Roedad Khan, the longest-serving interior secretary of
our country who glorified that office for nine years running.
Secure in his knowledge and giving me a severe look, he told me not
to take the matter lightly, it was an ‘agency’ intimidation ploy.
How ‘unlightly’ do I take it, I asked? Shall I double my guard and
oil my revolver?

Back in Karachi, after the March 25 hearing, due once again in the
Supreme Court on April 2, when a further lot of ‘stormers’ were to
give their statements, I prepared a second affidavit attaching
additional press cuttings in which names of the MNAs, the MPAs and
the PML stalwarts were mentioned as having been present at the
Court on November 28, and in which were printed photographs of
certain prominent ‘stormers.’ We worked on this on the evening of
March 31, prior to flying off to Islamabad on April Fool’s Day.

Finishing late, my General Staff Officer 1 (G-1) left for her home
at around 2330. Going up the Shahrah-i-Iran towards the sea, just
short of the British High Commission, one takes a right turn to
enter the gate of the block of flats in which she lives. Halting at
the intersection, the lanes leading down to the Do Talwar
roundabout were clear. On taking the turn, to slightly double back
and drive into the gateway, came an almighty explosion, jostling
the creeping car to a halt just short of the driveway.

The left side of the car was in smithereens, shattered glass all
over the place. My G-1 got out of the car, leaving the engine
running, to find out just what had happened. A motor bike was lying
on its side in the middle of the road, with a man getting to his
feet. He walked over to the kerb and sat down. Before she could ask
him what the hell he was doing riding without a light and banging
her broadside, a hefty man strode out of the darkness, switched off
the car ignition and pocketed the key. In the meanwhile, the
apparent unhurt kerb-sitter lifted his shirt to rub his midriff.
Around it he wore a belt and a gun holster.

She requested the ‘hefty’ to kindly give her back her car keys so
that she could get the car off the road and into her compound. He
waved a plastic card at her, would not let her hold it to see
exactly what it was, said he was the law, lifted his shirt and
pointed to the gun holster he too wore. There was no reaction to
her complaint that the motor bike had no lights. He then walked
over to the man on the kerb and spoke to him.

After a few minutes, when the normal crowd had gathered, all
passing traffic having stopped to see the ‘tamasha’, the motor-
biker decided to lie down on the road and do a bit a moaning and
groaning. The ‘heavy’ used his mobile phone and called a police
mobile which duly arrived. My G-1’s further requests for her car
key were refused, the ‘heavy’ handed it over to a uniformed
mobileman, mounted the mobile with the motorbike rider, informing
all present that he was taking him to hospital. Whilst all this was
happening, a few of G-1’s neighbours arrived to help. One, a friend
of the former DC of District South (to our sorrow recently
transferred), raised him on his mobile phone. The cop was ordered
to relinquish the car key.

Not once was my G-1 asked her name, where she lived, or what had
happened. No lawmen present asked for her car papers, or driving
licence, or expressed the slightest interest in the event. No
questions, no hint of investigation. The motor-bike too was taken
away. The whole matter ended there, in the middle of the road in
the middle of the night. No queries, no follow-up, nothing. This
also was filed away as a coincidence, one of three within the space
of three weeks.

Now to less frivolous matters. The contempt of court cases
initiated by former Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah against Nawaz
Sharif and his apostles, Benazir Bhutto, columnists, authors,
publishers et. al., have been decided. To no one’s surprise, all
have been let off. Three contemners, MNAs Khawaja Asif, Hamza
(ruling party), and Asfandyar Wali Khan (ANP) were found guilty but
not punished. The opposition politicians must be rejoicing. These
three they can have disqualified by filing references before the
Election Commissioner.

Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer, S.M. Zafar, has boasted that the 500- page
judgment (which needs to be seriously analysed) is monumental,
historic. Would Law Minister Khalid Anwar please assure the people
that S.M. Zafar and others, who defended the legislators, have not
been paid, directly or indirectly, from the national exchequer.

Now, the most serious matter. The next hearing of the inquiry into
the storming of the Supreme Court by members of the ruling partly
is fixed for April 23. The Attorney-General and his officers tutor
the PML legislators and others summoned to testify before the
Court. Why? To his credit it may be said that at the hearing on
April 2, the Deputy Attorney-General was honest enough to admit
that summoning other PML members would produce no fruitful results
as they would all tell the same story they are law-abiding
citizens who hold the judiciary in the greatest esteem, they were
present in the Court on November 28 solely with the intent to
persuade the court-stormers to cease their dancing and chanting, to
leave the premises and uphold the sanctity of the honourable Court,
so on and so forth.

Lastly, to the man who relieved me of my watch and ring. The ring
has gone, melted down by now, no doubt. Many years ago in England a
burglar cleaned out the flat of King George V’s jockey, Gordon
Richards. Richards wrote to the press, telling the burglar that he
can keep all the rest of his booty but would he consider returning
the gold cigarette case presented to him by the King, which bore
the engraving “George V, R.I.” as it had great sentimental value.
The burglar obliged. Now, please, will my forty-year-old Vacheron
Constantin, specially made for me with loving care, shaped and
sized to fit my wrist. I will compensate him.

Storming of the Supreme Court – 5 Ardeshir Cowasjee http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/16May98.html#stor

ON April 4, the Bench presided over by Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid,
sitting with Justices Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rahman Khan,
now inquiring into the pre-planned Storming of the Supreme Court by
parliamentarians, members and supporters of the PML on November 28,
1997 heard the statements of three witnesses.

Media-wizard who knows all the tricks of the political trade,
Hussain Haqqani, filed his affidavit, as did Altaf Hussain Bhatti
of Asas / Lashkar, and Aslam Butt of the Frontier Post.

Haqqani suggested that the November 28 video recordings of the
Supreme Court CCTV cameras, and those made by the various TV crews,
be shown on PTV, and members of the general public invited to
identify any recognizable individuals. This is in line with the
action taken by the Tribunal that inquired into Murtaza Bhutto’s
murder, also presided over by Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, which had
“published a notice in the newspapers that anyone in possession of
any information regarding the incident in question may send his
name and address and an affidavit to the Registrar of the
Tribunal…”.

Brave Bhatti, shrugging off all ‘inconveniences’, filed his
affidavit, written in Urdu, relevant translated portions of which
read :

“I was an eye-witness to whatever happened outside and inside
Courtroom No.1 on November 28, 1997 and give this statement to
assist the apex court of the country in my capacity as a
responsible citizen.

“Whilst the Bench headed by Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah
comprising Justices Bashir Jehangiri, Mohammed Arif, Maimoon Kazi
and Munir A Shaikh, was hearing the contempt of court case against
the Prime Minister and other parliamentarians on November 27, 1997,
Zafar Ali Shah, MNA, Advocate of the Supreme Court rose and said
that the Chief Justice could not conduct the Court, as after the
judgment of the Quetta Bench he was no longer CJ. Minister Chaudhry
Nisar Ali Khan, and MNAs/MPAs Kabir Khan, Inamullah Niazi, Sardar
Naseem and Advisor to PM Mushtaq Tahirkheli also stood up in Court
in support of Zafar Ali Shah. The Muslim League crowd present also
heckled the CJ, and when he declared that the Quetta Bench decision
was null and void in law they shouted ‘Chor , chor .’

“PML workers also demonstrated against the Chief Justice on
Constitution Avenue. That evening, government sources briefed
journalists that Justice Ajmal Mian will be sworn in as CJ the next
morning and CJ Sajjad Ali Shah will proceed on leave.

“On the morning of November 28, I read a prominent headline in the
‘Daily Pakistan’ announcing that the Muslim League was to
demonstrate its strength outside the Supreme Court that day. This
news story said that the PM and the CM Punjab had directed PML MPAs
to bring Muslim League workers to Islamabad, via the motorway, for
a show of strength. So, I left my home at 0700 hours and arrived by
wagon outside the Supreme Court at 0815. At that time, traffic was
flowing on Constitution Avenue and a few people had arrived outside
the SC. Police reserves had just started taking their positions.
The SSG Police group was led by Inspector Mehr Yar Mohammed. SHO
Secretariat Jamil Hashmi and SHO Bahra Kahu, Mussarat Khan were
also there with their men.

“At around 0830, people arrived in buses and wagons from the
direction of Punjab House. Muslim League office bearers from
Rawalpindi and Islamabad came with their workers. MSF, Nawaz Sharif
Force and PML Women’s Wing were particularly active. Efforts were
made to get inside the SC. The gate was shut because entry was
restricted to holders of entry passes, but certain PML
parliamentarians were allowed entry without passes. Demonstrators
held banners and placards reading ‘We respect the Court but Sajjad
Ali Shah is dishonest,’ ‘Jewish agent Sajjad Ali Shah,’ ‘Sajjad Ali
Shah na manzoor,’ ‘Justice demands that the Chief Justice be
dismissed.’

Retired Major Rashid Warraich, head of Hizbollah, was also present
and his group held up their own placards. Women standing next to
the main gate were singing ‘Qadam barhao Nawaz Sharif, hum tumarhey
saath hein.’

“At 0900 serious slogan-mongering commenced. The workers who had
come from Lahore were led by Akhtar Rasool, MPA, and others, while
Rawalpindi workers were accompanied by MPAs Sardar Naseem, Advocate
Akhtar Mahmood, and Chaudhry Tanveer Khan. I know several of the
workers who were there, including Riaz Khan, Shakil Awan, Zahid
Qureshi, Babar Awan, Maqbool Ahmed, Mumtaz Ahmed, Farooq Khattak of
Zia Foundation, Ali Abbas and Liaquat Ali Khan. From the Women’s
Wing in the forefront were Javedi Fatima, Nilofar Bakhtiar, Seema
Gilani, Tahira Shaukat, Naseem Ali and Mukhtar Begum. Prominent in
the hullabaloo were Shahbaz Goshi, Suleman Khan, Raja Hafiz,
Chaudhry Allah Ditta and Malik Shuja.

“At 0930 I entered Court No. 1 after showing my pass, and sat on
the press seats, with Khushnood Ali Khan, Rao Khalid, Wadood Qureshi,
Mushtaq Minhas, Nasir, Rashid Habib, and Zafar Shaikh.
Present in Court were MNAs Ejazul Haq, Khwaja Asif, Asfandyar Wali,
MPAs Ashfaq Sarwar, Raja Basharat, Chaudhry Tanveer Khan, Akhtar
Mahmood, Sardar Naseem, Senators Raja Aurangzeb and Saifur Rahman,
and other PML MNAs, MPAs and office bearers.

“In the course of the proceedings, Khwaja Asif, through his
counsel, sought permission from the Court to leave. As the Chief
Justice was about to show the video cassette [of the Assembly
session at which the alleged contempt took place] MPAs Sardar
Naseem, Ashfaq Sarwar, Akhtar Mahmood and Ali Afzal Jadoon also
left the Courtroom. Soon thereafter, a noise was heard from outside
and Fakhr Zaman, the reporter for Zaman , a Turkish publication,
entered the courtroom, panting, and shouted ‘My Lord, the court has
been attacked. They will kill you. The Judges should protect
themselves.’ The CJ remarked to S M Zafar, ‘Thank you, Mr Zafar, we
are now adjourning the proceedings, but your clients will have to
bear the responsibility.’

“Soon after the Judges had left the courtroom a large crowd led by
Sardar Naseem [who had gone out shortly before] re-entered and
assaulted Fakhr Zaman. Some journalists intervened. Outside the
courtroom, I saw demonstrators swaggering around in different areas
of the building, carrying flags and placards. The ML workers were
shouting slogans : ‘Sajjad kutta hai hai’, ‘Leghari kutta hai hai’,
‘Lotay judges na manzoor’. In the main hall of the Court Khwaja
Asif, Zafar Ali Shah, and some other ML leaders were telling the
workers to go back, but the main door of the building was shut.
When I looked out from the balcony of the first floor, hundreds of
demonstrators were shouting slogans inside the Supreme Court
grounds while police inside and outside the building stood as
silent spectators.

“I remained in the Court until 1200 hours gathering material for my
press report. I present herewith a copy of Asas of 29/11/97.”

The attention of the Judges was drawn to the back page of the Asas
that carried the photograph of a huge banner, made to measure, tied
and displayed over half the full length of the front compound
railing of the Court, reading : “Istehkam-i- Pakistan ka dushman
Sajjad Ali Shah Pakistan Muslim League.” (Enemy of the solidarity
of Pakistan, Sajjad Ali Shah – signed : PML).

The next hearing is on May 18. Another affidavit is being submitted
to the Court to be placed on record, to which the following have
been attached :

(a) A copy of letter dated November 28 1998 sent by CJ P Sajjad Ali
Shah to President Leghari, in which he relates details of the mob
attack that day.

(b) A copy of letter dated November 29, 1997, sent by President
Leghari to PM Nawaz Sharif, forwarding a copy of the CJP’s letter,
in which he refers to : “…the disgraceful and premeditated mob
assault on the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 28th November …”.

(c) A copy of the Prime Minister’s November 29, 1997 rejoinder to
the President’s letter.

(c) A video cassette of the recording of President Leghari’s
address to the press conference held on December 2, 1998 at which
he announced his resignation, and in which he made reference to the
November 28 storming and desecration of the SC by the “goons and
parliamentarians of the ruling party.”

At the last hearing, it was requested that certain concerned
persons be summoned by the Court to give their statements. The
Court informed me that for this to be considered I should make an
application. This is being done, listing the following :

Former President of Pakistan Farooq Leghari; the then IGP,
Islamabad; concerned officer of the ISI; the then DIG Special
Branch, Islamabad; the then DG IB; Punjab CM Shahbaz Sharif; SAPM
Anwar Zahid; Senator Iqbal Haider ; Zahid Husain (Newsline and AP);
Fakhr Zaman (Turkish news agency Zaman); Khushnood Ali Khan
(Khabrain); Rashid Hijazi (Daily Pakistan); Faraz Hashmi (Dawn);
Aslam Khan (Internews); Zafar Shaikh (Nawa-i-Waqt); Muhammad Ismail
and Naveed Mairaj (Frontier Post).

The sooner the better that our honourable judges realize that the
people are but trying to help revive and rehabilitate the honour of
the Supreme Court.

Storming of the Supreme Court – 6 Ardeshir Cowasjee http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1998/30May98.html

AND so, it ended – six months after the Storming of the Supreme
Court by the members of the ruling party who successfully
obstructed the course of justice, prima facie committing contempt
in the face of the court. The Inquiry Tribunal has held ten
sessions over the course of the last two months.

Parliamentarians, members, activists and supporters of the ruling
party have been examined under oath and have, more or less, given
similar statements. They have sworn that on that 28th day of
November they arrived at the Supreme Court merely to be present to
cheer on their Great Leader who was to be present at the contempt
of court hearing. And this, despite the fact that the public had
been informed by the press that the leader had been exempted by the
court from personal appearance. The lesser orders, the “pawns” as
they have been dubbed, arrived with cloth banners (one measuring
50′ x 4′ reading ‘Enemy of the solidarity of Pakistan, Sajjad Ali
Shah – Pakistan Muslim League), printed pamphlets, placards, and
rehearsed slogans such as ‘Sajjad Ali Shah, kutta, hai, hai, –
Leghari kutta, hai. hai’.’

The main players, the upper crust who testified, all swore that
they were there to disperse a mob that had spontaneously formed and
was spontaneously charged (in Lahore?) by the current events, thus
implicitly admitting that there was in fact a violent mob organized
to disrupt the Chief Justice’s Court. Their protestations of
innocence were such that even Deputy Attorney-General Mian Tariq
Mahmud (now wearing a halo in the Lahore High Court) was prompted
to admit to the Bench that summoning any further ML
parliamentarians or supporters was a waste of time as they would
all swear to the identical story.

He should know. For the Leaguers who were summoned to testify
verbally came to court via the Attorney-General’s office, where
they were tutored as to the statements they were to give. When,
later in the hearings, the Bench ordered that written statements be
prepared by those summoned, in the case of the four ANP leaders
these were also said to have been drafted and typed in the
Attorney-General’s office. With the usual government inefficiency
and sloppiness, the men of the AG’s office inserted the phrase
“just before tea break” quite forgetting that on Fridays there are
no tea breaks. The newly hired super- consultant to the AG, Raja
Muqsit Nawaz Khan, was obviously caught napping.

Senator ANP President Ajmal Khattak and ANP’s Asfandyar Wali
produced identical statements, as did ANP’s Arbab Jehangir and
Ghulam Mohammed Bilour with the necessary name changes as they
declared they came together.

In the case of the former two: “My Lord the Chief Justice, your
court has been raided . . . . . “. Each had heard the man who had
‘rushed’ into the courtroom to warn the judges whereafter the
judges rose and the “…….. people started going out of the
courtroom where the doors were closed from the outside and we were
told that hundreds of Muslim League workers had entered the main
gate of the court . . . ., ” but “….I had not seen anything
happening . . . . . we came down and learnt about the unfortunate
incident.” When questioned by the court, Asfandyar Wali stated that
he saw no one outside the courtroom but he did see overturned
damaged chairs and flowerpots. Now, who could have done the damage?

The latter two ended their statements declaring they were both
outside the compound, standing together on the left of the gate.
“And then we heard cries and shouting and learnt that a mob had
broken the main entry gate and they were heading towards the main
building. Since I and . . . . both are physically weak, we
therefore got to a side so as we were neither hit nor crushed.” By
what were they to be hit or crushed? By cries, by shouts? They saw
nothing. However, when asked by the bench whether the crowd
resembled a group exiting from a mosque after Friday prayers,
Bilour admitted that that was exactly how it was.

The last man to be examined, on May 21, was Senator Iqbal Haider
(Groovy to his friends). His statement ran into seven handwritten
pages.

He opened up: “The attacks on the SC started on August 21, 1997,
when the strength of the SC judges was arbitrarily reduced. The
spate of attacks on the SC continued thereafter with the intent to
disrupt the course of justice and prevent the court from hearing
the most crucial cases, incriminating the prime minister and his
parliamentarians and friends, e.g. cases relating to the wheat
freight contracts, recovery and rescheduling of loans under
pressure, allotment of plots, distribution of over Rs.140 million
of public money to the candidates of the ruling party and their
allies, Riba, the Anti-Terrorism Act, the 13th and 14th Amendments,
contempt of court, etc, etc.”.

Senator Haider went to state that the attacks were twofold.
“Firstly, efforts were made to influence, pacify and win over the
judges of the SC, as has been revealed by former President Farooq
Leghari in his press conference of December 2 and subsequent press
interviews. Secondly, to physically intimidate and to harass the
judges. This started in the court of the CJP on November 27 when
the contempt cases against the prime minister and his
parliamentarians were being heard.”

Groovy related how his car was mobbed and battered, how he had to
save himself, drive away and park, and return to the SC on foot,
how later when the judges had retired, Mushtaq Tahirkheli had
accosted him outside court No.1, exhorted the mob to beat him up,
and accused him (of the PPP) of having instigated the whole
scenario, how he had to be rescued and ultimately escorted safely
out of the court premises by the PM’s counsel, S M Zafar.

Groovy’s most telling and most pertinent remark is that the mob
attack on the court on November 28 must not be seen in isolation.
It is the background to it that is of vital importance.

Now to Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari: It was suggested that he, being
privy to the background, be called to give his statement. In his
press conference of December 2, at which he announced his
resignation, he dwelt in detail on the events leading up to the
attack. The video cassette is on record with the Supreme Court. The
Bench held otherwise. No, he cannot be called; he must volunteer.
In the same breath, the judges observed that times had changed,
that Benazir and Nawaz Sharif had appeared before the honourable
court in other cases. Their attention was drawn to the fact that
indeed they had appeared, but both had been summoned.

Sajjad Ali Shah (the intended victim of the mob attack who, after
conferring with his brother judges on that mortifying day, decided
to rise and retire so as to save them and the court further
humiliation and contempt): It was never suggested that the former
Chief Justice be summoned to give his statement to the court, to be
subject to being questioned by the very judges who, with seven of
their bretheren, had decided that, after holding his high office
for almost four years, he had held it unlawfully and removed him.

In my statement of May 16, sent to the court, to which was attached
Sajjad Ali Shah’s press statement of May 14 and his letter of
November 28 written by him as Chief Justice to the then President
describing the mob storming, I simply requested that this be put on
court record, adding: “Should the court or the Attorney-General
challenge the veracity of [former] Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah’s
statement or letter, appropriate action is available to them.”

Nevertheless, the people have managed to place more than sufficient
evidence on court record to establish the truth. Press reports,
columns and articles of November 28 and 29 are on record.

Five reputable journalists who were in court on November 28 have
come forward voluntarily to record their statements: Altaf Bhatti
of Asas, Aslam Butt of the Frontier Post, Zahid Hussain of
Newsline, The Times, and AP, Wadood Qureshi of Din, Mahmud Ahmad of
the Business Recorder, and Naveed Meraj of the Frontier Post. They
were witness to the assault on journalist Fakhr Zaman who warned
the judges that a mob had invaded the building. Zaman was beaten,
kicked and abused by PML men, infuriated that their plan had been
thwarted.

Those likely to be examined this coming week are members of the
police force, the Islamabad administration (according to former DAG
Tariq Mahmud the ‘entire’ administration was present that day), and
employees of the Supreme Court. Their evidence, procured as it will
be, can be of no importance.

‘Round up the usual suspects’ Ardeshir Cowasjee http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1999/09oct99.html#roun

In my column of July 24 I wrote of the bank defaults of Nawaz
confidant Saifur Rahman and his Redco group, how Saif had
endeavoured to get the banks concerned to ‘cooperate,’ and how when
they resisted he harassed their officials, going to the extent in
the case of United Bank (UBL) of having one officer picked up by
the FIA.

Saifur Rahman, chieftain of our accountability process, and his
concerns have defaulted in the repayment of their loans to UBL,
which borrowings total some Rs.1.4 billion (Rs.1b. in Pakistan,
Rs.0.4b. abroad). UBL’s recovery suit filed in 1998 is pending
before Justice Ehsanul Haq Chaudhry, the banking judge of the
Lahore High Court. Redco filed a counter-suit claiming damages,
which is also pending in the LHC. Saif filed a writ petition in
Justice Malik Qayyum’s court at the LHC seeking, inter alia, that
proceedings in the UBL suit be stayed so as to give him time to
approach the high-powered bankers’ rescheduling committee. On
September 9, Saif filed an application (CM 1099/99) which was heard
by Justice Qayyum. Without hearing UBL or the AG, the judge ordered
:

“Notice to the respondents for 5.10.99. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has stated that the petitioner was ready and willing to
discharge its liability in terms of the package announced by the
State Bank of Pakistan, but the respondents did not allow it to do
so and have instead put the names of the applicants on the list of
defaulters. To come up on the aforesaid date. In the meantime the
names of the applicant/petitioner and its directors shall be
removed from the list of creditors maintained by the State Bank of
Pakistan.”

Until this order is reversed the defaulting party will be able to
borrow further amounts from the government banks (no foreign bank
will lend it anything). UBL, HBL, NBP and others will be coerced
into giving money, further indebting the nation.

On September 30, under the heading ‘Loan and tax cases,’ Jang
published a news report. Its translation :

“A division bench of the Lahore High Court presided over by Justice
Malik Qayyum reserved judgment in the case of three units of the
Ittefaq Group relating to incorrect assessment of tax and
adjustment of loans . . . . . . . . Whilst addressing the nation,
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had offered three units of the Ittefaq
Group, namely Ittefaq Foundries, Brothers Steel, and Ittefaq
Brothers to the banks and DFIs in settlement of his
loans/liabilities of the Ittefaq Group. These units were handed
over to the company bench of the Lahore High Court . . . . . . . .
The court also considered the nine-year-old case of incorrect
assessment of income tax of the Sharif family. Advocate A. K. Dogar
representing the Sharif family argued that the income tax
department had assessed the liability of the Ittefaq Group at Rs.2
crores [20 million]. Benazir’s first government had raised the IT
demand to Rs.40 crores [400 million] in collusion with the IT
department. On appeal [during the first Sharif round ?] the amount
was reduced to Rs.2 crores. In Benazir’s second round an appeal was
filed [presumably by the IT department] after a period of three and
a half years instead of the normal 60 days period, and the tax
liability was again raised to Rs.65 crores [650 million]. Shafqat
Chauhan, advocate for the IT department said that it was due to the
pressure exerted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that the case could
not be heard. Justice Qayyum asked why, when Benazir was in power,
did the department not proceed as at that time Nawaz Sharif was
running from one court to another. Later the court reserved
judgment.”

For whom are the institutions of the state – the courts, the IT
department, the attorney-generals, etc – working? For the state and
the people, or for the prime minister and the party in power?
Naturally, the latter lot will try to remain on top as long as they
can, not wishing to be relegated once again to the list of ‘the
usual suspects.’

🙂 Thanks.

As per The News International dated Saturday, October 09, 2010 – ISLAMABAD: Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in his written correspondence with the Prime Minister termed the appointment of Deedar Shah for the post of Chairman NAB as inappropriate. Nisar terms Deedar’s appointment ‘inappropriate’
http://www.thenews.com.pk/latest-news/2605.htm And as per the same News International

Nawaz trusted the new NAB chairman By Rauf Klasra Saturday, October 09, 2010 Shawwal 29, 1431 A.H http://www.thenews.com.pk/09-10-2010/Top-Story/1195.htm

ISLAMABAD: The 10-year-old official record of the Sindh High Court (SHC) reveals that PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, when he was a high profile detainee of Pervez Musharraf, during his trial on the hijacking charges punishable with death penalty, had not only shown confidence but also praised professionalism of the then Sindh High Court chief justice and the new NAB chairman, Deedar Hussain Shah. The record available with The News reveals that with the elevation of the then SHC CJ, Deedar Hussain, to the Supreme Court on April 28, 2000, detained Nawaz Sharif had suddenly found himself in big trouble at the hands of the new SHC CJ, who had constituted a full bench to hear the hijacking case on a daily basis. It created panic in the ranks of Nawaz’s legal team.
Sunday, October 10, 2010, Zul Qadah 01, 1431 A.H
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/oct2010-daily/10-10-2010/main3.htm

Why Chaudhry Nisar rejected Former Judge Mukhtar Junejo as Chairman NAB???-The Lahore High Court accepts (Feb 9, 1998) the constitutional petition filed by Rafiq Tarar against his disqualification by the (former) Acting CEC and declared him qualified to contest for and hold the office of President. The acting CEC, Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo of the Supreme Court, had found Mr Tarar, a former Supreme Court Judge, guilty of propagating views prejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary at the time of his nomination as a presidential candidate under Article 63(G) of the Constitution and debarred him from the December, 1997 contest. Former President Rafiq Tarar Sabotaged & Subverted the Judiciary. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/09/former-president-rafiq-tarar-sabotaged.html

Unlawful Acts of Nawaz Sharif & Saifur Rehman.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/10/unlawful-acts-of-nawaz-sharif-saifur.html It is unfortunate that cases sans evidence were instituted during his tenure, but it is heartening that he (Nawaz Sharif) has revealed the truth without any fear or reluctance. Just have a look at some other words of Nawaz Sharif in the same interview. Sharif says: “I was not in favour of arresting Benazir Bhutto, but Saifur Rehman would insist upon her arrest. Ch Shujaat Hussain is witness to this fact that I wanted Benazir Bhutto to go abroad before being sentenced. In fact, I never wanted her to go to jail.” REFERENCES: Ghaddar Kaun? Author: Sohail Warraich – Nawaz Sharif opens up to Sohail Warraich in a big way

Hello there, I found your blog by means of Google while looking for a comparable subject, your site got here up, it seems good. I have bookmarked to favourites|added to bookmarks.