LUBP is publishing exclusive documents which show that Dr. Arsalan, son of Pakistan’s Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, did indeed accept bribery from Malik Riaz of Bahria Town in monetary and non-monetary forms. We have received these documents from at least two sources via email.
The documents comprise summaries as well as receipts of Dr. Arsalan’s various trips to London, Monte Carlo etc.
It is important to mention that a significant portion of payments were made in cash.
Finally, a question:
By establishing through documentary evidence that Arsalan did actually accept monetary benefits and by alleging that the money was accepted in the Supreme Court’s name in order to influence the outcome of judicial proceedings, it is the integrity, independence and credibility of the SC that has been impugned. The charge levelled by Malik Riaz never was that the exercise of authority by the SC or the CJ had been influenced by illegal gratification. That was not the main cause of concern in public mind.
The charge was that the CJ’s son had made a promise (in the name of the SC) in return for consideration and had failed to deliver. Consequently the questions and doubts in the public mind were threefold: One, did the CJ’s son accept money and benefits from Malik Riaz? Two, if so, was the receipt of money the outcome of genuine business dealings between private persons?
And three, if the CJ’s son accepted money by creating an impression that he could get someone relief from the SC, would the SC prosecute him with the same fervour and rigor that it unleashes on those implicated in lesser corruption scandals? In not recognising and addressing these questions and concerns in the Arsalan Iftikhar-Malik Riaz case, the Supreme Court has seriously erred.
The three failings evident in the Supreme Court ruling are these. One, the assertion that the court usually refrains from exercising its inquisitorial powers under Article 184(3) isn’t backed by the court’s record in the many corruption cases it has handled recently. When it assumes supervisory jurisdiction and issues categorical directions and timeframes for inquiries in other scandals, why leave this matter to the attorney general? Application of restraint in one case and activism in others without any significant distinction in the subject matter raises the question of whether the court is applying double standards.
Two, the court celebrates the role of the media when it highlights scandals implicating executive officeholders, but issues a sermon when the media acts as a whistleblower in a graft case involving the CJ’s son. There is no denying that the media needs its own code of ethics, but a case involving the alleged impropriety of the CJ’s son might not have been an opportune time to drive home the point. Additionally, here the media did not allege any facts that are untrue. So having stumbled on an embarrassing story regarding the CJ’s son, should it have simply shoved it under the carpet in the ‘larger national interest’?
And finally, to assert that the concerns in public mind stand addressed because Malik Riaz has submitted in writing that court verdicts weren’t affected by his bribes is to miss the point completely. This man sits on national TV for two hours and continues to hurl accusations at the CJ and his son and the honourable court asserts the very next day in a detailed judgment that the matter now rests. Such naïveté lends credence to SC detractors who allege that we are living in an era of selective justice. (Source)