Sanctimonious Lawyers: Barrister Akram Sheikh & Mehran Bank Scandal

http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/04/sanctimonious-lawyers-barrister-akram.html

Why do we forget that Lawyers Movement was basically a game to ease out Pakistan Army from the mess which was the creation General Pervez Musharraf and Military Establishment. CJ basically attained a lot from 2000 to 2007 [March to be precise]. I wonder how an Incommunicado CJ was issuing statement often published in The New York Times/Washington Post “during his days in Bastille” – [I still fail to understand that when CJ was sacked in March 2007, he and the press said the CJ is under house arrest and held incommunicado whereas the very next day Air Marshal [R] Asgher Khan “successfully” met him As per Daily Dawn dated March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428

“ISLAMABAD, March 11: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has demanded that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should hold open proceedings on the reference against him sent by President Gen Pervez Musharraf. This was stated by seasoned politician Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan after a meeting with Justice Chaudhry here on Sunday. The demand made by the suspended chief justice indicates that he is not ready to resign and is determined to contest the allegations levelled against him. – But one day earlier the CJ was held incommunicado – “There is no other way to describe the situation as no one is being allowed to meet him,” he said after police officials stopped him and other lawyers from going inside the chief justice’s residence. REFERENCES: Justice Iftikhar seeks open SJC proceedings: Asghar By Iftikhar A. Khan March 12, 2007 Monday Safar 22, 1428 CJ held incommunicado; lawyers slam ‘arrest’ By Nasir Iqbal

If he was held incommunicado then how the hell Air Marshal (retired) Asghar Khan [a key Musharraf adversary] succeeded to meet with Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry? These Four artciles from Daily Jang and text after that will further expose the filthy character of General Retd. Chisti, General Retd Aslam Beg, Air Marshal Retd. Asgher Khan, General Retd Asad Durrani and last but not the least the Mother of All Trouble General Retd. Hamid Gul [after committing every crime mentioned in the book against innocent Pakistanis is now itching for Non-Sense Islamic revolution. REFERENCE: Cowasjee: Who can tolerate an independent judiciary?

There was one person who was not seen but he and others were with CJ in all this AND now read what CJ had submitted in the court and also read as to how Ansar Abbasi is trying to save Kayani. [read every word of it]: Establishment VS Judiciary & Demented Pakistani Media.

Referring to the Zafar Ali Shah case, Barrister Ahsan recalled that the Supreme Court had prescribed limits not to touch the basic feature of the constitution because it was granting the right of amending the constitution on an emergency basis to a single person who was a dictator then. Articles 238 and 249 of the constitution also take away the right of the judiciary to strike down any constitutional amendment, he said, adding what the apex court could do on the petitions challenging the 18th Amendment was to suggest certain improvements after interpretation but not modifying it by itself. Barrister Ahsan accused the lawyers who used to appear before the Dogar court and PCO judges of advocating against the supremacy of the parliament, an accusation that was taken seriously by Advocate Akram Sheikh who alleged that Mr Ahsan had appeared for the independence of judiciary only once in his career by defending the chief justice against his suspension. Mr Ahsan appeared on behalf of the federal government in the 1996 Al-Jihad Trust case to oppose the independence of judiciary, said Mr Sheikh who is representing one of the petitioners who have challenged the 18th Amendment. Mr Ahsan also used to appear before the military courts, he alleged suggesting that he should not pelt stones while sitting inside a glass house. REFERENCE: Aitzaz, Akram spar over parliament By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 21 Apr, 2010

Mr. Mohd Akram Sheikh is a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan. He graduated with an LL.B from one of the most prestigious educational institutions: Foreman Christian College, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan in 1970. He subsequently attained postgraduate studies from Punjab University in 1972. To enhance his education, he then went to England and spent a year to complete his postgraduate studies at the Queens’ Mary College, University of London, London. He started his legal career in 1973. Throughout his legal career, Mr. Sheikh has been involved in various critical cases which effected major changes in various areas of law such as Constitutional and Human Rights matters. He won the national and international admiration when he acted before the Supreme Court (1988-1990) in a famous case pertaining to “determination of the powers and relations between the Federal Government & the Province of the Punjab”. He has introduced the provincial banking system, independent of the Federal regulatory system, which later resulted in the formation of one of the most successful banks, The Punjab Bank, Khyber Bank and other Banks. He has conducted the first case of floor crossing before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in (1989) and later, in 1993 acted as Senior Counsel in the famous case of “Dissolution of the National Assembly”. Mr. Sheikh successfully challenged the establishment of Military Courts to try civilians on charges under anti terrorist laws in 1998 and has been a counsel in almost all landmark Constitutional cases. He has always been a very vocal Member of the Bar – fighting for Human Rights, rights of women and Independence of Judiciary. The “blind girl” (Safia Bibi) case conducted by him in 1983 which won him international acclaim. He has always been criticizing appointment of Judges on political basis and in violation of the principles of seniority and due to his very vocal criticism he has had to face contempt charges. REFERENCE: Profile:Barrister Akram Sheikh

The Judges and Judiciary are quite fond of lecturing the Lawyers as to who should they plead or defend and who shoudn’t be represented at all and while passing this most perverse comment the Judiciary conveniently forget that – “QUOTE” Whereas 1973 Constitution of Pakistan says; – nor shall he be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Reference: 9. security of person. 10. Safeguards as to arrest and detention. PART II Fundamental Rights and Principles of Policy Chapter 1. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTShttp://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html”UNQUOTE” Recently the court also called Home Secretary. The court also scolded the Rasheed A Rizvi for pleading the case for Ahmed Riaz Sheikh. As per Daily Dawn – The court questioned Advocate Rasheed A. Razvi for pleading the case of Mr Sheikh while being the president of a bar association. The counsel replied that he strongly believed in the established principle that justice should not only be done but appear to have been done. REFERENCES: NAB chief to be jailed for defying court order: SC warns Updated at: 1245 PST, Monday, March 29, 2010 SC irked by govt failure to implement NRO verdict By Nasir Iqbal Tuesday, 30 Mar, 2010 SC sends ex-FIA official to jail Updated at: 1358 PST, Tuesday, March 30, 2010

No such question or rude remarks were passed against several Devil’s Advocates like Qazi Anwar, Barrister Akram Sheikh, Athar Minallah [Former Spokesman of incumbet CJ na Former Minister of General Pervez Musharraf’s Cabinet] Barrister Khalid Anwer [a Former Deputy of Notorious Martial Lawyers like Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, A. K. Brohi and last but not the least, the Maverick Abdul Hafeezz Pirzada??? Why this “Double Standard”????

Let me give a glimpse of Barrister Akram Sheikh [who is nowaday itching for the Supremacy of Judiciary over Parliament, Rule of Law, Constitution and bla bla bla] and one of his most Lethal and Valuable Client i.e. General [R] Mirza Aslam Beg who is involved in a worst kind of Corruption Scandal in Pakistan i.e. Mehran Bank Scandal. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada is also involved in Mehran Bank/ISI Scandal and accepted Bribe and Petition Vide Number (HRC 19/96) is still pending in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. One wonders where the hell is the Suo Moto Notice and Judicial Activism of Judiciary???? Read what General [R] Mirza Aslam Beg had to say about the Judiciary and Barrister Akram Sheikh was representing him.

ISLAMABAD, Feb. 24: Former army chief Gen Aslam Beg told the Supreme Court that he was not answerable to it regarding his actions as the chief of army staff and the sitting COAS is the only competent and proper person to look into the allegations or take action. He made this statement after the issuance of notice by the Supreme Court on the petition of Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan. The former air chief had filed a petition against the former COAS alleging that he had drawn Rs150 million from the Mehran Bank and had distributed the amount to different politicians before the 1990 elections. When the hearing started on Monday, Deputy Attorney-General Mumtaz Ahmed Mirza placed a certificate from the secretary ministry of defence stating that the ISI had not received any money. The counsel for Gen Beg, Mohammad Akram Shaikh, demanded that Gen (retd) Asad Durrani and General (retd) Naseerullah Babar should be summoned to the court for recording their statements. The three-member bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan and Justice Bashir Jehangiri, adjourned the hearing of the case till March 26. REFERENCE: Beg says he is not answerable to court Staff Correspondent DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 01 March 1997 Issue:03/09

Barrister Akram Sheikh provided his “services” to a Corrupt Ex-Army Chief of Pakistan i.e. General [R] Mirza Aslam Beg who was least bothered about the “Honour and Respect of Judiciary, another glimpse,

Former Army Chief General Mirza Aslam Beg in an interview on February 04, 1993 admitted that he had sent an emissary, then senate chairman Wasim Sajjad to the Supreme Court to warn the justices not to restore the national assembly. Two weeks later, Supreme Court charged General Beg with contempt of court. Beg met with army Chief Abdul Waheed Kakar and later appeared defiantly in the court and many witnesses ridiculed the judges. Supreme Court could not handle the fallout from its confrontation with even a retired army chief. Court finally convicted him of contempt but strangely did not give any judgment about the sentence. The same court even overturned its own decision after an appeal was filed. After a year of half hearted measures, on January 09, 1994 the court dropped all proceedings against general Beg. REFERENCE: Judicial Jitters in Pakistan – A Historical Overview Hamid Hussain Defence Journal, June 2007

Abdul Hafeez Pirzada is also involved in Mehran Bank/ISI Scandal and accepted Bribe and Petition Vide Number (HRC 19/96) is still pending in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. One wonders where the hell is the Suo Moto Notice and Judicial Activism of Judiciary????

Now, as we approach the promised October elections, our press carries many a story about how the intelligence agencies are transferring and ‘placing’ officials all over the country, and how the agencies are harassing certain individuals for not toeing the official line. We also read reports about how the ‘placed’ aspiring legislators and their ’supporters’, all renowned as shady characters, are even managing to ‘influence’ men in uniform to gain support. On July 3, the governor of Sindh, Mohammadmian Soomro (my ‘nephew’ – he very respectuflly addresses me as ‘uncle’), transformed his learned and efficient education minister, Professor Anita Ghulam Ali, into an ‘adviser’ and also sent home his irrigation minister, Ali Mir Shah. He then swore in Syed Ejaz Ali Shah Shirazi as irrigation minister and Sardar Muqeem Khan Khoso as agriculture minister (water tap and land ownership/transfer controllers), Khan Mohammad Dahri as education minister (organizing teachers at polling stations), Mian Abdul Baqi as auqaf minister (money to spend and distribute), and Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim as minister of local government (the works). My ‘nephew’ could not explain who chose these ‘fixers’, who ordered him to swear them in, and who is their ‘godfather’.

Nothing new. On April 25, 1994, this newspaper carried an editorial entitled ‘Our secret godfathers’, which opened up : “Two basic points emerge from General Aslam Beg’s admission that in 1990 he took Rs 14 crores from the banker Younus Habib and that part of this money was spent by the ISI during the elections that year . . . . . “. And closed, saying “. . . it is time now for some sort of check on the rogue political activities of our intelligence agencies . . .”. It was not time, and apparently it is still not time. In 1996, Air Marshal Asghar Khan filed a human rights petition in the Supreme Court against General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of army staff, Lt General Asad Durrani, former chief of the Inter Services Intelligence, and Younus Habib of Habib Bank and then Mehran Bank, concerning the criminal distribution of the people’s money for political purposes (HRC 19/96). In this case, Lt General Naseerullah Babar filed an affidavit in court supported by copies of various documents and a photocopy of a letter dated June 7, 1994, addressed by Durrani to the then prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who, during her second term in office, appointed him as her ambassador to Germany, which reads:

“My dear Prime Minister,” A few points I could not include in my ‘confessional statement’ handed over to the director, FIA. These could be embarrassing or sensitive. (a) The recipients included Khar 2 million, Hafeez Pirzada 3 million, Sarwar Cheema 0.5 million and Mairaj Khalid 0.2 million. The last . . . . . . . [illegible] someone’s soft corner that benefited them. (b) The remaining 80 million were either deposited in the ISI’s ‘K’ fund (60 m) or given to director external intelligence for special operations (perhaps the saving grace of this disgraceful exercise. But it is delicate information.) [Noted in the margin of this paragraph, by the writer in his own hand: “This is false. The amount was pocketed by Beg (Friends)”]

“The operation not only had the ‘blessings’ of the president [Ghulam Ishaq Khan] and the wholehearted participation of the caretaker PM [Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi], but was also in the knowledge of the army high command. The last mentioned will be the defence of many of us, including Gen Beg (who took his colleagues into ‘confidence’ but that is the name that we have to protect). “The point that I have ‘wargamed’ in my mind very often is : what is the object of this exercise? (a) If it is to target the opposition, it might be their legitimate right to take donations, especially if they come through ’secret channels’. Some embarrassment is possible, but a few millions are peanuts nowadays. (b) If the idea is to put Gen Beg on the mat : he was merely providing ‘logistic support’ to donations made by a community ‘under instructions’ from the government and with the ‘consent’ of the military high command. In any case; I understand he is implicated in some other deals in the same case. (c) GIK will pretend ignorance, as indeed he never involved himself directly. (d) Of course, one has to meet the genuine ends of law. In that case let us take care of the sensitivities like special operations and possibly that of the army.

“It was for these reasons that I desperately wanted to see you before leaving. I also wanted to talk about my farewell meeting with the COAS [General Waheed Kakar]. In the meantime you must have met often enough and worked out what is in the best interest of the country. I keep praying that all these natural and man-made calamities are only to strengthen us in our resolve and not in any way reflective of our collective sins. With best regards and respects Yours sincerely, Asad” Filed also in the court is a note, attached to Durrani’s letter written in his own hand, reading: “YH TT Peshawar A/C Sherpao For Election 5,00,000; Anwar Saifullah for MBL deposit 15,00,000; Farooq Leghari PO Issued 1,50,00,000. Another 1,50,00,000 paid through Bank. There are a host of other political figures who received funds like Liaquat Jatoi, Imtiaz Sheikh.” Naseerullah Babar also filed in court a copy of a bank account sheet headed “G/L Account. Activity Report. Account 12110101 G. Baig (sic.)” The column heads read “Transaction, Date, Particulars, Debit, Credit.” The numbered transactions took place between October 23, 1991, and December 12, 1993. The first transaction listed was “Cash-P.O. Karachi Bar Association A/C Gen. Baig (sic.), debit, 5,05,680″ (advocate Mirza Adil Beg, Aslam Beg’s nephew, the then president of the KBA, confirms that the KBA received the money).

In January 1992 USD 20,000 was sold @ 26.50 and 5,30,000 was credited to the account. Thereafter all debits: “Arshi c/o Gen. Baig (sic.) 2,90,000; Cash paid to Gen. Shab 2,40,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 [Aslam Beg’s organization, FRIENDS, Foundation for Research on National Development and Security] ; Cash TT to Yamin to pay Gen. Shab 3,00,000 ; Cash TT to Yamin Habib 12,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash paid through YH 10,00,000 ; Cash Friends TT to Salim Khan 2,00,000 ; Cash 1,00,000 ; Cash Towards Friends 5,00,000 ; Cash Asif Shah for Benglow 35,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000 ; Cash TT through Yamin for Friends 1,00.000 ; Cash paid to Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim 2,00,000 [he confirms having received the money from General Beg as fees and expenses for defending him in the contempt of court charge brought against him – PLD 1993 SC310] ; Cash paid through TT to Yamin for Friends ; Cash paid to Fakhruddin G Ebrahim 1,28,640 [he confirms receipt for fees/expenses for contempt case] ; Cash Guards at 11-A 10,500 ; Cash TT for USD 240,000 Fav. Riaz Malik to City Bank (sic.) New York 68,76,000 ; Cash Friends 1,00,000; Cash Guards at 11-A 10,500 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 10,000; Cash mobile phone for Col. Mashadi 28,911 ; Cash TT fav. Qazi Iqbal and M Guddul 3,00,000 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 10,000 ; Cash TT to Peshawar 3,00,000 ; Cash deposited at Karachi A/C EC [Election Commission] 3,00,000 ; Cash Guards 24,000 ; Cash TT to Quetta 7,00,000 ; Cash mobile bill of Col. Mashadi 3,237 ; Cash TT to Peshawar Br. 4,00,000 ; Cash deposited at Karachi Br. 4,00,000 ; Cash Guards 11,520 ; Cash TT to Peshawar for EC 2,00,000 ; Cash TT to Quetta for EC 2,00,000 ; Cash Guards 5,760 ; Cash Mjr. Kiyani 5,000 ; Cash A/C Guards 8,640 ; Cash th. YH 2,00,000 ; Cash A/C Guards 5,760 ; Cash TT to Salim Khan 1,00,000.”

The “host of other political figures who received funds” from an ISI account were revealed in the Supreme Court when Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s petition was being heard. Inter alia, Nawaz Sharif received (in rupees) 3.5 million, Lt General Rafaqat [GIK’s election cell] 5.6 million, Mir Afzal 10 million, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi 5 million, Jam Sadiq Ali 5 million, Mohammed Khan Junejo 2.5 million, Pir Pagaro 2 million, Abdul Hafeez Pirzada 3 million, Yusuf Haroon 5 million [he confirms having received this for Altaf Hussain of the MQM], Muzaffar Hussain Shah 0.3 million, Abida Hussain 1 million, Humayun Marri 5.4 million. During the hearing of the case, Aslam Beg, under oath, revealed the existence of a political cell within the ISI, whilst clarifying that though he was aware of the distribution of funds he was never personally involved. These documents and many others, filed in the Supreme Court, are a matter of public record. In this regard, reference should be made to paragraph 111, ‘Corruption’, of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the Proclamation of Emergency dated 14th, October, 1999 (approved for reporting), delivered by Chief Justice Irshad Hassan Khan and his eleven Brothers, sanctifying General Pervez Musharraf’s takeover. It is a list presented by Attorney-General Aziz Munshi listing cases of corruption, some dating back to 1990, the lists of ISI payments, Babar’s and Durrani’s affidavits being amongst them. Should not all these corrupt, bribed political people who shamelessly accepted the people’s money for their own political ends, and who have never denied having received such payoffs, not stand disqualified for life? Air Marshal Asghar Khan is still waiting to have his petition challenging the corrupt and clandestine use of public funds (pending since 1996) heard by the Supreme Court, as is also General Naseerullah Babar. They both have much to reveal. They are prepared to face the judiciary. REFERENCE: We never learn from history – 2 By Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 10August 2002 Issue : 08/32

The petitioner, Asghar Khan, requested that Beg, Durrani and Younus Habib of Habib and Mehran Banks be named as respondents. The ISI requested that the hearing be in camera and the court agreed to the request in so far as proceedings regarding the legal position of the ISI were concerned. Hearings commenced in February 1997 and continued through the year. On November 6, the statements of Babar and Durrani were to be recorded, and Justice Shah recounts how his court was faced with the awkward question as to the law under which the ISI and its political cell had been set up. Beg’s counsel, the weighty Akram Shaikh, after fulsome praise of the agency and its great achievements – greater than those of RAW, the KGB or MI-5 – explained how the political cell had been established in 1975 under the orders of the then prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The court asked the attorney general (Nawaz’s lawyer Chaudhry Mohammed Farooq) to provide the relevant documentation as to the scope of the activities of the political cell and to clarify whether, under the law, part of its duties was to distribute funds for the purpose of rigging elections. The AG, of course, wriggled out of that one by stating that the matter was of such a ’sensitive’ and ‘delicate’ nature that it could not be heard in open court. Asghar Khan’s lawyer, Habibul Wahabul Khairi, countered by saying that as the entire matter had been aired in the press, with all the names involved fully listed, there was little left to warrant in camera proceedings, and besides, the people had every right to know how their money had been used and whether the use in question was permitted by law. The court, however, allowed the recording of Babar’s and Durrani’s statements and their cross-examination to be held in camera, which were done on November 19 and 20. That was the last hearing of this important case. Eight days later, on November 28, 1997, the Supreme Court was stormed by men of the government of Nawaz Sharif. A group of judges of the Supreme Court (whose intention for some months had been to oust Sajjad Ali Shah) via a series of orders issued by the Peshawar and Quetta benches forced him to step down as chief justice. Sajjad went on leave prior to retirement and Justice Ajmal Mian took his place. REFERENCE: We never learn from history – 5 By Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 31 August 2002 Issue:08/35

Barrister Akram Sheikh used to support Notorious 8th Amendment [introduce by a Military Dictator General Zia in 1973 Constitution of Pakistan]

LAHORE, Nov. 21: Parliament has no power to summon any member of the superior judiciary, including the chief justice, for any reason or purpose under the Constitution of Pakistan, Supreme Court Bar Association outgoing President Muhammad Akram Sheikh said. Talking to Dawn on his return from Islamabad after a week of eventful Supreme Court proceedings, he said the position was entirely different under the Indian Constitution, which empowers parliament to impeach superior court judges. A judge guilty of misconduct in the eyes of the government in Pakistan can only be dealt with under Article 209, which provides for inquiry and adjudication by the Supreme Judicial Council. There is no corresponding provision in the Indian Constitution. But Indian parliament has used its power to impeach the superior court judges sparingly, probably only once. It was not exercised when Mrs. Indira Gandhi was unseated, or when certain constitutional amendments protecting her were declared ultra vires for being repugnant to the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, or even when corruption cases were started against leading parliamentarians. Mr. Akram Sheikh, who is appearing as amicus curiae in the contempt case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, said Article 68 is quite categorical in prohibiting Parliament from even discussing the conduct of any judge. How can it summon a judge when it cannot even discuss his conduct in his absence.

IMPEACHMENT MOVE: Mr. Akram Sheikh said the Supreme Court can stay an impeachment move against the president if it has no nexus with the grounds mentioned in the Constitution for the president’s removal — incapacity or gross misconduct.

As in case of the repealed Article 58 (2) (b) envisaging the National Assembly dissolution by the president if the constitutional machinery breaks down, the superior courts can assume jurisdiction to examine whether the grounds mentioned in an impeachment notice or resolution have any nexus with the grounds mentioned in Article 47 of the Constitution, he said. Mr. Akram Sheikh affirmed that he always supported Article 58 (2) (b) and most other provisions of the Eighth Amendment as they provided for a system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court also upheld them as being in accord with the salient features of the Constitution — Islam, democracy and federal parliamentary system. About the Supreme Court restraint order to the president, who has power to consider and return a questionable bill adopted by parliament within 30 days, Mr. Akram Sheikh said the court can intervene when a matter is patently outside the legislative competence of parliament. It is better to nip an illegality in the bud rather than waiting for it to mature before striking it down. REFERENCE: Parliament cannot summon CJ: Akram By Shujaat Ali Khan DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:22 November 1997 Issue:03/47

Barrister Akram Sheikh also loves “Boxing” with PML – NAWAZ GROUP.

ISLAMABAD, Nov. 18: Exchange of hot words between Privatization Commission Chairman Khwaja Mohammad Asif, PTV Managing Director Sen Pervaiz Rashid and Advocate Akram Sheikh led to a scuffle in the precincts of the Supreme Court when the contempt case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his colleagues came up before the court for hearing. It all began with an exchange of light taunts between the old buddies when in the heat of the moment their tempers snapped and they started hurling abuses at each other. Khwaja Asif gave two punches on Akram Sheikh’s face. This left a scar on his face. “Take the picture”, a baffled Akram Sheikh shouted at a photographer standing nearby. Some lawyers intervened and saved Akram Sheikh, who later raised the issue inside the court and narrated the whole story. He said he had invited Khwaja Asif and others to join him at tea. Akram Sheikh said he called Khwaja Asif a corrupt banker and also admitted to hurling an obscenity. He said he had decided not to lodged any formal complaint with the police. He, however, called upon the Chief Justice to take note of the violation of the sanctity of court. REFERENCE: Scuffle breaks out in Supreme Court precincts DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:22 November 1997 Issue:03/47

Swinging Mood of Barrister Akram Sheikh:)))

ISLAMABAD, April 18: Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid took oath as a permanent judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah described the event as a step towards the implementation of the SC verdict. The President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Akram Sheikh, a Muslim League lawyer, termed the appointment of Justice Nasir Aslam to the Supreme Court illegal, asserting that being the most senior judge he should have been appointed chief justice of the Sindh High Court under the SC judgement instead of Justice Mamoon Qazi. When his attention was drawn to a reported statement by Akram Sheikh alleging that the government was pressuring him for an agreement and to administer the oath to the newly-appointed judge, he said: Neither there has been any agreement nor I am the kind of a person who can be pressured. Asked whether the appointment of Justice Mamoon Kazi as the SHC chief justice was in line with the Supreme Court decision verdict, he said the appointment was all right as Justice Nasir Aslam had taken oath as a permanent judge of the apex court. Justice Sajjad Ali said the next step in the implementation of the apex courts judgement would be regularisation of the ad hoc judges in the High courts. REFERENCE: Nasir Aslam sworn in CJ denies any govt pressure Bureau Report DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 25 April 1996 Issue:02/17

LAHORE, Jan 23: Chief Ehtesab Commissioner Justice Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza heard submissions from two senior counsels about which records should be summoned from which departments in references against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Ehtesab Bureau Chairman Senator Saifur Rehman and others. Advocates Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Sharif Husain Bukhari said the references should be referred for investigation to an agency, which was not under the direct or indirect influence of the Prime Minister and the Punjab chief minister. In their opinion, Military Intelligence or the Federal ombudsman could be entrusted with the investigations, and the CEC was fully competent to call for its assistance. Akram Sheikh presented the case of the development of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Raiwind farms (Jati Umra) at a cost of Rs630 million to Rs700 million of the public money. Mr Sheikh pointed out that because of the development of the area, its value had gone up to Rs600,000 to 700,000 a kanal while once it was possible to purchase a square of land for that Price. “The development of the area (at the public expense) has caused the nation a fortune, and it has made a fortune for a few individuals (of the ruling family)”, Mr Sheikh said. REFERENCE: Independent agency should investigate, say counsel By Ashraf Mumtaz DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending:30 January 1999 Issue:05/05

Barrister Akram Sheikh is also confused, in the Past and nowadays as well on Nataional Accountability Bureau.

ISLAMABAD, Sept 12: A three-member bench of the Supreme Court admitted on Tuesday 15 constitutional petitions challenging the validity of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance for early hearing by a larger bench. Headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, it ordered that notices be issued to the Federation through the cabinet division and the federal law secretary and to the NAB chairman. Another notice was issued to the attorney-general under Order 27-A of the Civil Procedure Code as important questions requiring interpretation of constitutional provisions are involved. The petitions were filed directly before the apex court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. The provision confers original jurisdiction on the court if the matter agitated involves enforcement of fundamental rights and is of public interest.

The petitions have been filed by ousted premier and NAB convict Mian Nawaz Sharif, GDA leader Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, NAP president Asfandyar Wali Khan, PPP leaders Hakim Ali Zardari and Ms Naheed Khan, Dr Farooq Sattar of MQM, NAB accused Asif Saigol and Hussain Nawaz, former petroleum minister Anwar Saifullah Khan, PML lawyer Zafar Ali Shah, Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, ex-MNA Chaudhry Sher Ali, Punjab Bar Council member Pir Masood Chishti and Syed Iqbal Haider of Muslim Youth Movement. Advocates Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Aitzaz Ahsan Chaudhry, Mohammad Akram Sheikh, Dr Abdul Basit, K.M.A. Samdani, Supreme Court Bar Association president Abdul Haleem Pirzada, Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Zafar Ali Shah and M. Ikram Chaudhry and Mr Iqbal Haider pressed for the admission of petitions for regular hearing. Though not on notice, NAB prosecutor-general Farooq Adam Khan was present throughout the proceedings. AG Aziz A. Munshi and Senior Federal Minister Sharifuddin Pirzada also watched the proceedings for quite some time.

The admission order said the petitions have raised 23 questions as ‘matters of first impression’. They are of great public importance involving fundamental rights as ordained by Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. The ordinance has been assailed for being repugnant to the principle of the separation of powers and the independence of judiciary, freedom of trade, business and profession, security of person, safeguard from arrest and detention, protection from retrospectivepunishment, inviolability of dignity of man, freedom of movement, equality of citizens and other basic rights. The order recalled that in the case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah and others versus Gen Pervez Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan, and others, the Supreme Court had observed that the ‘validity of the NAB Ordinance will be examined separately in appropriate proceedings at appropriate stage’. The court made it clear that it would examine the question of validity of the impugned ordinance and not individual grievances raised by some of the petitioners directly or indirectly. However, the petitioners shall not be debarred from pressing their pleas through appropriate proceedings before competentcourts. The SC admission order shall not operate as stay of proceedings before NAB, accountability courts or any other court in relation to matters arising out of the impugned ordinance. REFERENCE: SC admits 15 pleas against NAB law: Larger bench to be formed Shujaat Ali Khan DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 16 September 2000 Issue:06/35

Very good site and very nice….