Asma Jahangir is the president of Supreme Court Bar Association, so if the Judiciary is not ‘independent’, so as to say ‘corrupt’ in other words, then she is herself at the apex of this strata of corruption.
Secondly, if she knows so much already due to her ‘supernatural’ powers, she may well be knowing already whether the memo is true or not. So what was the whole point in taking stand in the case? She should go out in the street with her circus troupe where she belongs.

@Unaiza:

Asma is not president of SCBA. Just because you are an idiot does not mean Asma is wrong.

Probe ISI too if you must: Asma tells SC
By Faisal Shakeel
Published: December 29, 2011

Husain Haqqani’s counsel says memo mentioned a national security team in Pakistan, while no such team exists here. PHOTO: EXPRESS/ FILE
ISLAMABAD: The relentless Asma Jehangir lay down the gauntlet on Thursday.
If the court wouldn’t abandon the memo case, it should be prepared to question not just the civilians, but also the khakis, warned Jehangir, counsel for the former ambassador to US Husain Haqqani.
Jehangir piled up a host of questions before the Supreme Court as she concluded her arguments against the maintainability of the petitions in the memogate scandal on Thursday. The entire affair smacks of foul play, Jehangir argued, as she attempted to convince the court to abandon the case in favour of a probe by an NA panel.
The Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief left for London, without the prime minister’s permission, to meet Mansoor Ijaz, who had been writing against the ISI for the past three years with impunity, Jehangir argued.
If the court decided to hold a probe, it would also encompass the motive behind General Pasha’s visit to London to meet with Ijaz, Jehangir warned.
Jehangir insisted that the affair is a complicated political matter and should be left to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security for a decision. The judges did not appear entirely convinced.
“Do you want us to leave all these questions for the committee to decide?” said Justice Jawad S Khwaja. “I am also a parent and a citizen of this country and feel concerned,” the justice observed.
Jehangir said the judge was right in expressing anguish, but could not break free from the confines of the constitution’s dictates regulating his work.
She said Ijaz’s reply had been full of contradictions, and said that even General James Jones, who claimed to have delivered a memo to Admiral Mike Mullen, doubted the Pakistan government’s capacity in delivering on the terms set out in the memo.
Her query left the chief justice quizzical: “Why did General Jones deliver the memo to Admiral Mullen if he felt this way?” he observed
Jehangir then attempted to punch holes in Ijaz’s credibility. The court should not attach more credibility to the statement of Ijaz than that of her client, who made ‘hectic efforts for safeguarding the country’s interest’ as the ambassador to the US, she argued.
The Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who is protecting our borders, had confirmed the existence of the memo, the chief justice shot back.
Jehangir talked about General Kayani’s responsibilities, but added that history bore testimony to the fact that generals too made mistakes.
She added that the right forum for holding her client responsible for his alleged crime was the PCNS, or a probe under the Inquiries Commission Act of 1956.
Do you seek an inquiry for your client and later referral of that inquiry to an authority through the government, asked Justice Saqib Nisar.
Precisely, Jehangir answered, adding this is what she meant when she sought ‘due process’ for Haqqani.

The petitioners, meanwhile, insisted that the court forge ahead. The memo is an American conspiracy to pit the army against the government, argued petitioner Barrister Zafarullah. He asked the court to dismiss Jehangir’s application against maintainability because the case is related to the infringement of the collective security of the country.
Another petitioner, Tariq Asad, said the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the case and order a probe into the matter.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 30th, 2011.

Memo affair

The nine-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) hearing the memogate case has unanimously ruled the other day that the petitions are maintainable and has set up a three-member judicial commission to investigate the affair and report back in a month. The commission will be headed by the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Balochistan High Court Qazi Faez Isa and include the CJs of the Islamabad and Sindh High Courts. The SC bench has also reiterated its order of December 1 directing former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani not to leave the country without the court’s permission. It may be recalled that the counsel for Mr Haqqani, Asma Jahangir, had argued before the SC that the petitions were not maintainable on grounds of the issue being a political one, and had cited case law from foreign and Pakistani jurisprudence in support of her arguments, apart from questioning the appropriateness of the issue being agitated at a judicial forum when parliament was already seized of the matter. She had also questioned the order of December 1 against her client, stressing that he had been ‘condemned’ unheard and this was a violation of Mr Haqqani’s fundamental rights. That order has been questioned also on the grounds of being tantamount to giving relief to the petitioner/s that they had not even asked for. No wonder then that the latest ruling visibly upset Asma Jahangir, who criticised the ruling as being ‘establishment-minded’, having put the civilian government under the military’s command and prioritised national security above fundamental rights. She was of the view that the order was not in accordance with the rule of law. She characterised the occasion as a dark day for the judiciary, questioning whether the judiciary restored through the lawyers’ movement was a judiciary of the people or the establishment. Reluctantly accepting the ruling, as is expected of a senior lawyer, she nevertheless reserved the right to file a review petition against the ruling once the detailed order was available. She also cautioned the petitioners, particularly the PML-N, that the court’s order would come back to haunt them in future.

As validation of Ms Jahangir’s contention, the parliamentary committee on national security has decided to summon Husain Haqqani, DG ISI General Pasha and the main character in the whole brouhaha, Mansoor Ijaz, to appear before it. We are in therefore for an embarrassing scenario where two of the highest forums of the state, parliament and the judiciary, would be dealing with the same matter at the same time. On this count, many senior jurists, including Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, have added their voices to the criticism of the SC in admitting the petitions for hearing at such a juncture. A possible, bruising outcome could be that the judiciary and parliament rule contradictorily on the issue, sparking a division and perhaps a clash between the two highest state institutions.

The independence of the judiciary has been proclaimed repeatedly since its restoration. That is of course a desirable outcome, given the sorry history of supine judgements of the superior judiciary in our past, especially where validation of military coups has consistently been in evidence. Although CJ Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has repeatedly said there is no question of repeating that bad track record, the doctrine of necessity on which such past validations were based having been buried, the present case does arouse concerns that the court may be giving more weightage to the views of COAS General Kayani and General Pasha, whose affidavits before the SC seem to be at odds with their nominal ‘bosses’, the federal government. In cases of such political and constitutional import, the SC in its own interests must ensure that justice is not only done, but is seen to have been done, without giving critics the slightest opportunity to accuse it of bias, since this would be deleterious for the respect and dignity of the judiciary.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201212\story_2-1-2012_pg3_1

I thought he is just blind of one eye but he is totally blond… Bastard Chief Justice… Was that we foight for free judiciay…?

Whither an independent judiciary?

Noted lawyer and human rights activist Asma Jahangir has refused to appear before the judicial commission investigating the memo case as counsel for Mr Husain Haqqani. Ms Jahangir’s decision is a serious expression of no confidence in justice being delivered from either the court or the judicial commission. This has raised some serious questions regarding the superior judiciary. From the very beginning of the memo case, it was obvious that more credence was being given by the court to the military top brass as against the civilians. Ms Jahangir expressed her disappointment with the judgement of the nine-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. She termed the judgement as a win for the military establishment, which undermined civilian supremacy: “If nine judges of the SC can be [under the establishment’s influence], then I am sorry to say I cannot have any expectations from the high court judges [heading the judicial commission].” That the court is focused on national security instead of upholding fundamental rights and civilian authority has turned the public’s expectations from the ‘independent’ judiciary into disillusionment.

Those who have criticised Ms Jahangir for ‘running away’ from the fight or ‘defeatism’ must remember how hostile the bench was towards the defence counsel. In fact, it seemed like a repetition of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s case, where some quarters lamented that Mr Yahya Bakhtiar did not plead Mr Bhutto’s case well, which led to his hanging. This was despite the fact that the judiciary in those days was completely under the army’s thumb and highly biased towards Mr Bhutto. A similar scenario is in the making today in the memo case. Independent courts all over the world do not hear political cases but in Pakistan’s case, as the Human Rights Watch (HRW) has pointed out, “a tendency for the courts to find themselves embroiled in matters that they would not otherwise be an appropriate forum for”. HRW also expressed “concern about the fear of judicial overreach and unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the legislature and the executive”. Courts should be a forum of justice where citizens go expecting their rights will be protected. Ms Jahangir was not able to get justice for her client despite making a strong legal case about the maintainability of the memo petitions. Now the judiciary’s ability to provide justice hangs in the balance.

It would be interesting to see if the findings of the judicial commission are different from that of the parliamentary committee’s investigation. In such an event, whose findings would be considered ‘supreme’ would determine where the real power lies. In principle, parliament is supreme but by hearing the petition on an unsigned memo, and that too when parliament is siezed of the matter, the court has in effect given an impression of ignoring the possible pitfalls ahead. With the success of the lawyers’ movement, it was expected that the judiciary would become truly independent but now the perception is growing that not much has changed. If this trend continues, the issue of civil-military imbalance may not be addressed and democracy remain in the dock.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201213\story_3-1-2012_pg3_1

A woman of great courage and valour! So proud to have her as a pakistani, this nation should learn to appreciate her, she is standing up for all of us to face the evil that exists in Pakistan, if not for her the cursed Taliban and their admirers would run us all over, Pakistan was NOT MADE for these scum. They should all go to Afghanistan and make their ideal jahilliya society there, this is what idiots like Unaiza need to understand provided she has brains which i seriously doubt!