Movement for Restoration of Dictatorships

http://www.aajkal.com.pk/news/2009/12/4/editorial_n2.jpg

Anchor’s show

http://www.aajkal.com.pk/news/2009/12/4/editorial_n4.jpg

JI – Cain in culpable terrorism

If in-depth analyses are carried out it will be dawn upon every one that JI has been holding the rank of Cain (Qabil- Prophet Adam pbuh’s son) in culpable terrorism in the country, region and the world at large, which the later have won in culpable homicide in human history.
The third dictator, Zia-ul-Haque proved himself the most third-rate among the lot and of course he was the worst among the rest. His legacy will haunt the nation, region and world at large. He was so duffer that on loosing the most strategic region of Siachen to Hindus in the so called heyday of Pak-US ties he was fooling the nation by downplaying the importance of Siachen. So whenever he was asked for comment, his reply was always by snuffling; “Siachen is a place where not a single twig of grass grows over there”. Although it was revealed subsequently that apart from strategic importance of Siachen the world rarest rose plants grow only over there!!!
One of the nastiest tragedies that occurred during Gen Zia-ul-Haque’s 11 years long dark night was arming of JI’s progeny as well as the his own progeny; MQM from top to toe along with granting the training facilities throughout the whole country.
What the nation is reaping now was sown by the third dictator, Zia-ul-Haque with the help of JI’s progeny which was brought up by the fourth dictator Gen Mush with the help of JI’s progeny during their five years Talibanization in the NWFP. What I say has been my naked eye observation but still for public knowledge I would like to refer only one aspect: You won’t see ever that JI’s top brass would condemn Taliban, Talibanization or their inhuman atrocities, ever!!! If Cain was the pioneer in culpable homicide then JI deserves to be awarded the title of Cain in culpable terrorism.

Aftab Alam Advocate (HIGH COURT),
President District Bar Association Swat

Cell: 0301-8536776

Hi guys, you are very good people. Pakistani judiciary has always been insrumental in serving ant-people and anti democracy interests of the thugs, dictators, tyrants, generals and usurpers. Yesterday’s supreme court’s so called judgement on the HRO also proves once again that although he has changed the clothes but the Emperor remains the same.

http://www.aajkal.com.pk/news/2009/12/23/editorial_n6.jpg

Latif Chauhdry on PPP bashing…..
http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1100805532&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20091223

Afghanpur not Pakhtunkhwa

Let us strike at the root of the trouble. And the only best way-out for resolving our protracted problems is to declare the presently 22 divisions of the country as provinces and each one is declared entitled for equal resources, irrespective of population, topography and area. (Na rahy bans na baji gi bansri).The root cause for all of our basic tribulations is misgovernance and mismanagement because of incompetence of our elites and unmanageability of our masses. But looters are not supposed to be leaders.
So let us to be confined to this non-issue of renaming this ill fated province of this ill fated country.
So my suggestion is that ‘Afghanpur’ is more appropriate and more in consonance with the beautiful people of NWFP, hence I suggest ‘Afghanpur’ instead of ‘Pakhtunkhwa’ to be declared the new name of this province. And I have grounds for my suggestion. All of the people of NWFP, including Chitrali speaking, Hindko speaking, Torwali speaking, Gujro speaking, Kohistani speaking, Kalami speaking and Pashto speaking are of course Afghan in origin but not Pakhtun in toto. So to be harmony, suitability and acceptability among all the people ‘Afghanpur’ is more adequate and becoming.

Aftab Alam Advocate (High Court),
President District Bar Association Swat

attn Mr.Nishapuri if u r real giala why u not passing to us mobile.nos of evil force of movement for dictatorship, Kamran khan ,Ansar abbasi,Shahid masood etc and their emails of tv programs we want to show their real faces throgh this technologies thx

Please send it to every where
Please take action against Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary Saib.
9. Over Media is honest but not professional, easily can be trapped by any traitor of this country. As proof following proved facts are mentioned.
10. Please don’t destroy your self and say words which are not justiceful. Because according to Hadith all words are accumulated and same returns to its speaker.AND where justice will not be observed there severe punishment by the God could be seen. If person ,home or any will do they will face but if judge will do injustice whole nation will bear AZAB.
11. Decision against NRO is not matter but where is justice, about 10 Years old Proved case,which is pending with Supreme Court about conspiracy against this country Same like Bangladesh (Country was broken by Nawaz Sharif and others that day when Nawaz Saib took amount to restrain PPP from Punjab) Same like Bangladesh.
4. Decision against NRO is not matter but where is justice, when Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary Saib.Reinstated first time after deal with Musharaf that Musharaf will take bake 70%allegatios against Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary Saib and after that CJ will give decision in favour of Musharaf with uniform president election .Pubulic and record is witness it was done same as deal.President took back 70% allegation and Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary Saib.
did same)gave decision in favor of Mushraf that he can participate in election with uniform.
12. Decision against NRO is not matter but where is justice,Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary Saib did not take any action about billion of rupees remitted by banks in favour of Sharif families and they handed over their minor properties to NAB before going from Pakistan after NRO with Musharaf Saib.
13. Decision against NRO is not matter but where is justice,Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary,he did not take Sue Motto action against those advocates who abused to Pak Army when he was addressing to Lahore Bar for his restoration.
14. Decision against NRO is not matter but where is justice,Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary Saib did not take any action against sugar mill owner on sugar prices issue because most were linked with Nawaz league.
15. Decision against NRO is not matter but where is justice,Chief Justice of Sharif Brotheran,Ahtazazan and anti Pakistan Jnab Ifthekhar Chouduary, where is Sue motto action against his son’s Corrupt
16. Were is justice about FIR against him self Chief Justice when dozen People were killed in Karachi just because Chief Justice refused to go back from Karachi despite after saying by Govt and wanted the massacre.
9.Were is justice about recent interview of Peervaiz Ellehe to Hamid Mir Saib on 17-01-10 about 12 Million remitted bank loan for Shabaz Sharif .
10. Were is justice when cj write final decision of NRO and mentioined Shahabnama, poetry and moral lectures but he did not see himself that one judge can not give or participate in any case which is personalize against judge and in same case president clearly had said that cj is corrupt in his personal case and president will not reinstate him. So this decision is un justice and can not implemented.
11. Chief justice saib is really great and honest ,sorry above mentioned facts are true but now after reading your NRO decision whole muslin world will prude on CJ that he did not protected himself , did not care himself during writing this decision against NRO,as CJ mentioned that all self created decision of Attorney General including about ending case of Switzerland was wrong and all decision are canceled ,so clearly 70% allegations against CJ Ifthekhar before first time reinstatement was taken back by Attorney General of Musharaf GOVT. So now case against CJ has been reopened again because that order also has been canceled . Due to back of 70% allegations CJ was exonerated by the Bench.
12. Justice Qayum should have mentioned point No.11 in his review petition but most advocates has no awareness about the law that how to fight under law.
13 It is justice that one minister Rehman malik had to appear in same day in 3 courts ,Lahore ,rawalpindi and peshawer,he requested to extend his tow cases for next dates but refused just to give him contempt of court on none appearance.

میرے رسول کہ نسبت تجھے اجالوں سے
میں تیرا ذ کر کروں صبح کے حوالوں سے

نہ میری نعت کی محتاج ہے ذات تیری
نہ تیری مدح ہے ممکن مرے خیالوں سے

تو روشنی کا پیامبر ہے اور میری تاریخ
بھری پڑری ہے شعبے ظلم کی مثالوں سے

تیرا پیام محبت تھا اور مرے یہاں
دل و دماغ ہیں پر ، نفرتوں کے جالوں سے

میرے ضمیر نے قابیل کو نہیں بخشا
میں کیسسے صُلح کروں قتل کرنے والوں سے

میں بے بساط سا شاعر ہوں مگر کرم تیرا
کا باشرف ہوں قبا و کلہ والوں سے

احمد فراز

have a look at this Video at 0:49 where Hanif Abbasi categorically saying that PPP “real” working are with us and supporting us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#v=Aill1Yio1v0&feature=related

and next then when they won the election these started saying that its the defeat of PP and Zardari.

this is the true, hypocratic face of the Muslims league.

Hi. I read a few of your other posts and wanted to know if you would be interested in exchanging blogroll links?

Khawaja Shafique :
Ahmadis are not muslim. why you ppp are defending Ahmadis that were out lawed by the hero of pakistan zulfikar Ali Bhutto. you should follow your leader.

We are following Rafizi Jinnah who appointed the First Quadiyani Foreign Minister for the “so-called Islamic Republic of Pakistan” founded on the basis of a IRRELEVANT TWO NATION THEORY concocted by a Known Haidth Rejector Racist Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.

Ahmadies were not out lawed by ZAB. They were declared non-Muslims not, non-humans. They have and should have all rights as any other citizen of Pakistan. As far as they are not involved in any criminal activity, they should enjoy their rights. Please do not try to impose mullahism in Pakistan.

Also the way the CJ is acting after restoration proves the position of AAZ why he did not want to restore CJ.

I think these officers named in UN report should be imprisoned and sent to police remand so that they tell the truth. Javed Cheema, Nadeem Ajaz and Saood Khan will I am sure name Mush/GHQ for this murder.

Just wanted to bring this thing to your notice :-
The fake BB letter to Peter Gailbraith dated 1990 has re surfaced again and making round on the Interweb (eg here http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=429100675648&comments) . It would definitely be necessary that you come up with a strong, conclusive and authoritative post in this regard. I am not a PPP activist or worker but I feel that bad mouthing politicians, especially through fake means has been the establishments tool since time immemorial and it would be necessary that the young impressionable minds aren’t just thrown at propaganda by the establishment.

The most ironic thing is that it has emerged when the ISI, MI and the entire establishment is under fire and possible scrutiny for its involvement in the entire BB assassination episode. They are yet again trying to flog dead horses (who were fake even the first time around) and trying to divert attention from their own “rogue” acts.

It is highly pathetic to see that this old forgery has re surfaced again and the reasons are obvious to me.

Firstly, even back in 1990 it was proven to be a forgery. As NYT noted, ” But the frenzied efforts to portray Ms. Bhutto as a tool of the Americans are beginning to backfire. This week, an adviser to Nawaz Sharif, president of the Islamaic Democratic Alliance and the leading candidate for Prime Minister if Ms. Bhutto’s party is defeated, circulated a letter purporting to be written by Ms. Bhutto to Peter Galbraith. Mr. Galbraith, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff, is a friend of Ms. Bhutto’s from college days at Harvard.

The letter, however, is so patently a forgery that it has made the Islamic Democratic Alliance look foolish.

Apart from the inexplicably formal salutation, ”Dear Peter Galbraith,” the letter misspells as Solarzs the name of Representative Stephen J. Solarz, the chairman of the House subcommittee on Asian affairs, It asks Mr. Galbraith to ”please use your influence on V. P. Singh the Indian Prime Minister, to engage the Pakistan Army on the borders, so that they do not impede my way.'”

Source : http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/18/world/bhutto-facing-new-misconduct-charges.html?pagewanted=1

What is amazing is that the PML-Q used this old forgery in their election campaign in 2008 as well. It was printed in leading newspapers on Nov 14, 2007.

What is highly disappointing is that every freaking uneducated, illiterate and pathetic blogger thinks that he can be the most objective and informative political analyst and without verification (or purposely) spreads lies and forgeries across the blogosphere and effects negatively the free thought of citizens.

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/5-8-2010/images/08_05.gif

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs522.ash1/30695_1315128718044_1225491280_30867362_1896738_n.jpg aik puran artical apky nazer

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30867360&id=1225491280

may 12 k shaheedo ko salaam

http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/14798.pdf

Article on 18th Amendment by Haris Gazdar

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-7-2010/images/1034.gif
kuch haqwqat bhi ha mager dr hafeez shiakh internationally giant mai kam kar chuke hain , aur qable fazel personality hain , itny kum waqt mai aur dastyab wasayel mai is say acha budget nahi la sakta thy .

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-8-2010/images/02_12.gif

Democracy is the best revenge

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-9-2010/images/06_04.gif

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-9-2010/images/1028.gif

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-9-2010/images/1058.gif

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-9-2010/images/04_01.gif

intellectual furrukh suhail goendy great ha

dharty ma ka garoor bb shaheed
irfan urfi
wo gareboo ki umang umeed aas the,mazlomo ka saroor the ,wo aamriat kay manbaey taqat kay maqabil muzahemat ki tehreek the -bade saba the mohabbat ki devi the ya devi of democracy the ismay itna saber zabt berdasht tahul mizaji burdbary the wo faham o frasat aur danish o benish say bhrpoor the -wo mashriq mai the magrib mai bhe the saray aalam mai aman ki kushbo the siasat kay ufaq ka taj fikr o aaghy ka humala mohabbat he mohabbar sarapa piar the the qalander the ya qalanderana mizaj rakhty the wo aalim bhe the aalimoo ka ahtram bhe karti then menarae shaour the-
dhrty maa ka garoor the wo zulfi ki pinki the,fatima ki vudi bua the-bilwal bakhtwar asifa ki mumi jan the -nusrat ki talwar the murtaza bhutto shaheed aur shahnawaz shaeed ka maan the .sussi bhutto ki aani ,asif ali zardari ki shareke hayat the ,ya sab tu the mager in sab say badh ker wo siasat ki rooh the !!gareboo kay lyae kushali ka pegham the ,wo bag o bahar shakhsiat zeruk hama jehat wa hamager shakhsiat the. wo bolty the tu phool khiltay thay uskay lulkarnay say aamriat kay but larez jatay they ,jamia kalam o kamalt the,nider the,tarekh ka roshan bab ha !!wo dunya ki siasat ko nikharna sanwarna janty the !chahty the !mager uskay bandhe hovay they zalimoo nay . shaheed shahzadi the ya shaheed e jamhoriay the jo zinda benazir the murnay kay baad bhe benazir the wo non stop total democracy ki bat karte they .shaheed baba ki shaheed beti the wo azemat ki rah ki shahsawar the .wo shahedoo ,qalndroo,hurriat pasandoo ki rahpe gamzen ! classic siasat ka azeem shahkar the wo popular siasat ki trend setter the is mai munfrid aur numaya muqam rakhty the wo social democrat the aur pakistan ki image building bhi isy tur karna chahty then -wo subhe noor ki pheli roshan kiran ban ker siasat mai warid hueyn .aur shauor o aaghye ban ker saray alam mai cha gyen ,wo amne alam k ay lye sargrame amal the, isnay siasat mai rawadary kay culture ki perwarish o nighedasht ,terbiat o rehnumai kartay huey jame shahdat nosha kia -wo awam ki khidmat per mamor iqtadar perasto kay propaganga ka shikar dyare gher mai apni dharty say door taqat ka sarcashma awam say hazaroo maeel door mahea bay aab ki trah tarapty rahy .mager zalimo nay issay aik tawel arsay tak jila watan rakha shoher ko sakht qeed ki saobatayn uthanai padhaen ,shoherki terbiat e khas kertay huay asia ka nelsen mandela bana dya .wo bhutto kay kauy pegham ki piyamber ban kay aagay he aagay badhtay chlay gye .serat o surat mai noori the .is ghata toup andheray mai menare a noor the !dunya mai miyana ravy aitidal pasandi ka fikry shaour ujager karnay mai apni misal aap the .wo baserat afroz alami aman ki alamberdar dunya ki mazlom tareen aurat the.wo mashray kay oppressed awam ki umang justojo the .tehzeb o tamadun ki pehchan the .insani haqooq kay idaroo kay lye mashal e rah the milat ki aaan ban jan the kahen azemushan the tu kahen alishan the .azemulmurtabat khuda ki shan the .guftar mai aik alag maqam aur blund kirdar rakhty the.wo aala zerf kuch ker dekhanay ki tamna lye bechain be qarar the .wo iqbal ka shaheen the tu quad e azam kay khwabo ki tabeer the .madre milat ki taswer the quad e awam ka vaqar the .wo wafaq ki alamat the.jamhoriat ka rosahn chiragh the .aisa lagta ha k wo parestan say aaye huy pary the .shahdat kay martabay per faiez ho ker horoon ki shahzadi bun gye .wo shahadatoo ki dastano ko azem say azem ter kartay huey qafla e jamhoriat ko surkhro kargye .aur ya narae mastana laga gye kay shaheed ki jo mot ha wo quom ki hyat ha .issy lye qaflae jamhoriat ka her sipahi yahe narae mastana lagata ha kay zinda ha bb zinda ha !!zinda ha bb zinda ha tum kitnay bhutto maro gay her ghar say bhutto niklay ga

http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-28-2010/images/08_03.gif

25-06-10EditorialStoriesEditorial04
fm speech
by .GAZI salahuddin , jurrat

Democracy is the best solution !
http://ejang.jang.com.pk/6-29-2010/images/1028.gif

degree !
http://ejang.jang.com.pk/7-1-2010/images/08_01.gif

THINK MANTRA
Weldon Bangladesh !
http://ejang.jang.com.pk/7-10-2010/images/139.gif

by .khursheed nadeem میڈیا اور اہل سیاست کی کشمکش
اہلِ سیاست کے فکر و عمل کا یہ تضاد ہر اس شخص کے لیے بھی ناقابلِ فہم ہے جو ان کے لیے کلمہ خیر کہتا ہے۔
اگر پنجاب اسمبلی کے منتخب ارکان اہلِ سیاست ہیں تو پھرنوازشریف، جاوید ہاشمی، پرویز رشید اورچوہدری شجاعت حسین صاحب کون ہیں؟ اگر یہ سیاست دان ہیں تو پھر پنجاب اسمبلی کے اراکین کو ن ہیں؟ اگر دونوں اہلِ سیاست کی نمائندگی کر رہے ہیں تو پھر یہ تضاد کیوں ہے؟
فکر و عمل کا یہ تضاد دو میں سے کسی ایک نتیجے پر منتج ہوتا ہے۔ یہ ذہنی پراگندگی کی دلیل ہے۔آپ اپنے مؤقف میں واضح ہیں اور نہ یہ جانتے ہیں کہ آپ کیا فرما رہے ہیں۔ دوسرا امکان کردار کی اس کمزوری کی علامت ہے جسے منافقت کہتے ہیں ۔ آپ نے تقسیمِ کار کا اصل اختیار کیا ہے۔ ایک طرف اراکینِ پنجاب اسمبلی سے کہا گیا ہے کہ آپ میڈیا پر چڑھ دوڑیں۔ دوسری طرف آپ نے کچھ لوگوں کو یہ ذمہ داری سونپی ہے کہ آپ زخموں پر مرہم رکھیں۔ یہی جاگیردارانہ سیاست کا آزمودہ حربہ ہے۔ کچھ لوگوں کو بھیج کر کسی کو بے عزت کرنا اور پھر ثالث بن کر صلح کروا دینا۔ آج لوگ دوسری بات کہہ رہے ہیں۔ میرے پاس یہ کہنے کے لیے کوئی واقعاتی شہادت نہیں ہے، اس لیے میرا رحجان پہلی بات کی طرف ہے۔
میڈیا کے بارے میں اہلِ سیاست میں پایا جانے والا یہ ابہام نیا نہیںہے۔میڈیا جب دوسرے فریق کا احتساب کرتا اور اسے آڑے ہاتھوں لیتا ہے تو وہ اس پہ تالی پیٹتے اور آزادی صحافت کا گیت گاتے ہیں۔ یہ سلسلہ دراز ہوتا رہے تو وہ خوش رہتے ہیں۔ جیسے ہی اس کا رخ تالیاں بجانے والوں کی طرف ہوتا ہے انہیں ضابطہ اخلاق یاد آ جاتا ہے اور وہ پھر اپنے حقوق کی دہائی دیتے ہیں۔غور کیجیے تو اہلِ سیاست کا یہی رویہ فوج اور عدلیہ کے بارے میں بھی رہا ہے۔ عدلیہ آزاد ہے اگر اس کے فیصلے آپ کے حق میں ہیں۔ فوج جمہوریت کی دوست ہے اگرفریقِِ مخالف کی حکومت ختم کرتی ہے۔ لیکن جیسے ہی ان کا رخ آپ کی طرف ہوتا ہے، رائے بدلنے لگتی ہے۔کیا ان تضادات کے تحت اہلِ سیاست اپنا اعتبار قائم کر سکتے ہیں۔ میر اخیال ہے مشکل ہوگا۔
سب سے حیران کن رویہ نوازشریف صاحب کا ہے۔ایک طرف وہ عصری سیاست کے جملہ اطوار سے پوری طرح مستفید ہورہے ہیں اور دوسری طرف وہ اپنا دامن بھی صاف رکھنا چا ہتے ہیں۔وصال صنم اور خدا کو پا نے کی خواہشات بالعموم ایک ساتھ پو ری نہیں ہوتیں۔یہ بات باور کرنا ممکن نہیں کہ وہ ثنا اللہ مستی خیل صاحب کی تایخ اور اعمال سے بے خبر تھے۔ یہ ان پر اچانک منکشف ہوا کہ یہ صاحب کسی اور کے ایجنڈے پر کام کر رہے تھے۔اسی طرح وہ ایک ضمنی انتخاب میں میسر تمام صوبائی اختیارات کا بے دردی سے استعمال کر تے ہیں اورپھر یہ خواہش بھی رکھتے ہیں کہ انتخابات میں دھاندلی نہ ہو۔میڈیا کی جو بات اس وقت اہل ِسیاست کو پریشان کیے ہوئے ہے،وہ انہی تضادات کی نشان دہی ہے۔ اب مسئلہ یہ پیدا ہو گیا ہے کہ جمہوریت کا کو ئی تصور آزادی صحافت کے بغیر قا بل ِقبول نہیں۔اگر کو ئی سیاست دان اس سے عدم وا بستگی کااعلان کرتا ہے توجمہوریت سے اس کی وابستگی مشکوک قرار پا تی ہے۔حکومتیں چا ہتی یہی ہیں کہ وہ طاقت کے استعمال سے مخالفانہ جذبات کو دبا دیں لیکن آج کے دور میںیہ بات جنرل پرویز مشرف صاحب جیسے آمر کے لیے ممکن نہیں توجمہوریت کی دعویٰ رکھنے والی کسی سیاسی قیادت کے لیے کیسے ممکن ہے۔؟یہی مخمصہ ہے کہ جس میں اس وقت سیاست دان مبتلا ہیں اور اس کا ایک مظاہرہ پنجاب اسمبلی کی قرار داد اور اس پر سیاست دانوں کے رد عمل میں ہوا۔
اس سارے معا ملے کا بہر طور ایک مثبت پہلو بھی ہے۔جمہوریت کی برکات اب ظاہرہو نے لگی ہیں۔جس طرح ہمارے ہاں لوگ اہل ِ مذہب کی خرابیوں کو بنیاد بنا کر مذہب کی نفی کرتے ہیں اسی طرح کچھ لوگ اہل ِسیاست کے قا بل ِاعتراض افعال کی اساس پر جمہوریت کو مطعون کرتے ہیں۔یہ دونوں رویے کم نظری کی دلیل ہیں۔اہل ِسیاست کی ناکامیاںیاتضادات اگر سامنے آرہی ہیں تو یہ اس بات کا اعلان ہے کہ جمہوریت کامیابی کی طرف رواں دواں ہے۔جمہوریت کا کام ہی یہ ہے کہ وہ لوگوں پر ہر بات واضح کر دے تا کہ کوئی انہیں دھو کہ نہ دے سکے اور انہیں فیصلہ کر نے میں آسانی ہو۔اس کام کا آغاز ہو گیا ہے اور لوگ اگلے عام انتخابات میں اس کے مثبت نتا ئج دیکھیں گے جب یہ لوگ عوام کے پاس آئیں گے۔مستی خیلوں کے پیچھے جو خر مستیاں کارفرما ہیں،اب ان کی بات ہو نے لگی ہے۔یہ بات آگے بڑھتی ہے تو اس سے سیاست کے بہت سے عقدے کھلیں گے۔
جمہوریت میں تطہیر کا یہ عمل کسی ایک شعبے میں نہیں ہو تا۔یقیناً میڈیا کی کارکردگی بھی پر کھی جا ئے گی اور لوگ اس کے بارے میں بھی ایک رائے قائم کریں گے۔اس کا ندازہ سیاسی ٹاک شوزکی بڑھتی ہو ئی عدم مقبولیت سے کیا جا سکتا ہے۔جب بعض اینکرز کے ہاں لوگوں نے یہ جانا کہ ایک فرد ان کا نشانہ ہے تو اس پر ان لوگوں نے بھی منفی رد َعمل کا اظہار کیا جو ان کے ہدف کے لیے نا پسندیدگی کے جذبات رکھتے تھے۔ اگر اہل ِسیاست کے بارے میں میڈیا بحیثیت مجمو عی عدم توازن کا شکار ہوا ہے تواس پر بھی یقیناًعوامی رد ِعمل سامنے آجا ئے گا۔اگر اہل سیاست کو کوئی جائز شکایت ہے تو وہ بھی اپنا مقدمہ عوام کے سامنے رکھ دیں۔میڈیا بھی عوامی جذبات کے خلاف رویہ اپنا کر قائم نہیں رہ سکتا۔جمہوریت دراصل یہ بھی سکھا تی ہے کہ کسی کے خلاف ناراضی کا اظہار کیسے کیا جا تا ہے۔ ہندوستان کی تقسیم ہو ئی تو فسادات میں بہت سے لوگ کام آئے۔جواہر لال نہرونے اس پر تبصرہ کرتے ہو ئے کہا کہ یہ درد ِزہ(birth pangs) ہے جو اس کا اظہار ہے کہ نئے ملک پیدا ہو رہے ہیں۔پنجاب اسمبلی کی قرارداد اور اس کے بعد سامنے آنے والا ردِعمل تکلیف دہ ہے لیکن انہیں درد ِز ہ سمجھنا چاہیے کہ ایک جمہوری معاشرہ جنم لے رہا ہے۔
تشویش کی بات البتہ یہ ہے کہ سب نے اپنے اپنے گروہ کا ساتھ دیا۔کسی نے خود احتسابی کی ضرورت نہیں محسوس کی۔

irfan can you also post a link to the original article if you get the chance? thanks! (or better still email it to [email protected])

inqlab e roos
by ahmed salim
http://www.sadaejumhoor.pk/page%2040.jpg
http://www.sadaejumhoor.pk/page%2041.jpg

ind o pak muzak rat
by nazir naji
http://ejang.jang.com.pk/7-17-2010/images/08_01.gif

The facts behind reality

President Asif Ali Zardari rounded off a trip to Britain by addressing a political rally Saturday, has faced criticism and protesters for touring overseas as floods killed more than 1,500 people in his country.

Most of private news channels of Pakistan had reales a F-A-K-E news that one heckler threw a shoe at Zardari during the event, missing the president, while outside the convention center police cordoned off more than 100 protesters but later on it become a pretense of courage.

Now lets turn towards the both protesters weather they are in country or out of the country as the PAK media has shown only oneside of the fact to the people.

The opposition leader Nawaz Sharif said that President should record his protest on the statement given by Britain cancelling his tour to UK and should be at home under the critical situation of stuck-flood in the country, Imran Khan from PTI and Altaf hussain MQM with same objections, On the other hand Imran khan who flew out from Pakistan with some of his party workers, Altaf who are living in london from many years till today and Mr. Nawaz shareef whose son has running business in London but never launched any donation cell for the victims of flood like the son of President Zardari…

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari launched fund-raising campaign in London and collected 70,000 pounds within an half hour but also his daughter Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari has launched a fund-raising campaign in Pakistan. However President Asif Ali Zardari announce Rs 5 million donation including Rs. 2 million for Bilawal campaign, Rs. 2 million for Bakhtawar campaign and Rs 1 million for the Prime Minister’s Flood Relief Fund.

Now, first the question comes to mind..Did Nawaz or Imran launched a fund-raising cell being in Pakistan to suppourt the people of Pakistan…the answer is NO NO NO.

So, We ( the nation) should have complete faith on the elected President and Prime Minister and should belive on the fact behind reality instead of News Channels.

Written By: Rida Baloch

Double Standard of Iftikhar Ch. et al
The Supreme Court has made public the verdict in petition filed by Kh. Haris against appointment of Mr. Irfan Qadir as Prosecutor General, NAB. The decision is in favour of the petitioner and Mr. Irfan Qadir has lost his job. The SC acted swiftly to decide a legal matter about a clause in NAB Ordinance.
Let us see what actually is the law in this regard? The prosecutor General of The NAB is to be appointed for a period of three years (un-extendible). Mr. Irfan Qadir had completed a term of three years during previous regime. This time he had been given the job anew. It had nothing to do with the previous tenure. But the great interpreters of the laws have decided as if it were an extension.
Now let us take another case. It relates to a constitutional matter. According to article 179 of the Constitution of Pakistan which reads, “A judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty five years, unless he sooner resigns or is removed from office in accordance with the Constitution.” We know that Khalil ur Rehman Ramday and Ghulam Rabbani have retired after completing 65 years of age but the two have been inducted as Ad Hoc Judges. The article 182 which deals with ad hoc judges reads, “ If at any time it is not possible for want of quorum of Judges of the Supreme Court to hold or continue any sitting of the Court, or for any other reason it is necessary to increase temporarily the number of Judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan may, in writing,-
(a) with the approval of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court and since whose ceasing to hold that office three years have not elapsed; or
(b) with the approval of the President and with the consent of the Chief justice of a High Court, require a Judge of that Court qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court,
to attend sittings of the Supreme Court as an ad hoc Judge for such period as may be necessary and while so attending an ad hoc Judge shall have the same power and jurisdiction as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Here it seems that the CJ has taken advantage of the term, “person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court” as a provision to appoint an overage person as ad hoc judge, but article 260 i.e. Interpretation makes no difference between a Judge and an Ad Hoc Judge,” “Judge” in relation to the Supreme Court or a High Court, includes the Chief Justice of the Court and also includes
(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, a person who is acting as a Judge of the Court; and
(b) in relation to the High Court, a person who is an Additional Judge of the Court”. If status of an ad hoc judge is the same as the permanent judge all the rules must apply including the age. In my opinion a person eligible for appointment as ad hoc judge would be a former judge who had resigned as a judge for any reason but is below 65 years.
Comparing the appointment of Mr. Irfan Qadir with that of Khalil Ramday we simply say that the latter is also void. Isn’t it a display of double standard of Mr, Iftikhar Ch.
There is still another point which raises objection over the attitude of the SC. Appointment of an official to a certain department is a trivial matter and it may be ignored. The Court still took up the matter swiftly and heard the parties summarily and gave its verdict. There is a case in SC which questions the validity of membership of The CM Punjab in the provincial assembly. As compared to the case of Irfan Qadir this case has a constitutional anomaly under article 224. The petition filed by Mr. Shahid Orakzai has been dumped in the cold storage of SC along with the petition of Mr. Asghar Khan which not seen light of the for the last 11 years. It is high time senior lawyers like Mr. Kurd and Aitizaz Ahsan prevail upon the SC to be sane and impart justice without prejudice.

http://www.transparency.org.pk/pm/gopak/8%20July%2010.pdf

Legal intellect of a Supreme Court Judge
The other day the reknowned son of the Chief Justice was intercepted while speeding @87 Km/h on maximum speed limit of 70 km/h. The chap was challaned and he wholeheartedly accepted it. A good omen it was. The very next day during a court proceedings one of the judges sitting beside the father of the chap paid complements to the chap by saying “KAL JO KUCH HUA WOH QANOON KI HUKMIRANO NAHEEN BALKEH QANOON KA EHTERAM THA”. What a legal itellect from the judge of the apex court. If we examine the case academically, the judge was absolutely wrong. The Chap did not respect (EHTERAM) the Law but the law prevailed (HUKMIRANI).
isnt it bad luck that people with such low sense of law are working as judges

A rare example of respecting oath of a judge and love of doing justice by the Supreme Court of Pakistan
On the last day of hearing on 18th amendment, a number of Judges in the bench expressed their love of their oath on the constitution of Pakistan. Let us take an example to judge their commitment with the Constitution.
Mr. Shahid Orakzai a journalist/lawyer has been knocking at the doors of our independent judiciary. Unfortunately he has chosen a wrong respondent. Had the respondent been Zardari Mr. Orakzai would have won the case. But the respondent is Shahbaz Sharif and hence the case is lingering on and on. The case involves a very serious matter i.e “is Shahbaz Sharif a member of Punjab Assembly or not?” The matter is to be view under article 223 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Let us first read the said article
“ 223. Bar against double membership.
(1) No person shall, at the same time, be a member of,
(a) both Houses; or
(b) a House and a Provincial Assembly; or
(c) the Assemblies of two or more Provinces; or
(d) a House or a Provincial Assembly in respect of more than one seat.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent a person from being a candidate for two or more seats at the same time, whether in the same body or in different bodies, but if he is elected to more than one seat he shall, within a period of thirty days after the declaration of the result for the last such seat, resign all but one of his seats, and if he does not so resign, all the seats to which he has been elected shall become vacant at the expiration of the said period of thirty days except the seat to which he has been elected last or, if he has been elected to more than one seat on the same day, the seat for election to which his nomination was filed last.
Explanation:- In this clause, “body” means either House or a Provincial Assembly.
(3) A person to whom clause (2) applies shall not take a seat in either House or the Provincial Assembly to which he has been elected until he has resigned all but one of his seats.
(4) Subject to clause (2), if a member of either House or of a Provincial Assembly becomes a candidate for a second seat which, in accordance with clause (1), he may not hold concurrently with his first seat, then his first seat shall become vacant as soon as he is elected to the second seat.”

Mr. Shahid Orakzai has taken the plea that Mr. Shahbaz Sharif had been a member of Punjab Assembly from PP-42 ( Bhakkar ). He further contested on PP-10 and again won that seat as well. In accordance with article 223 as soon as result on PP-10 was announced Mr. Shahbaz Sharif ceased to be member from PP-42. Afterwards Shahbaz Sharif decided to resign from PP-10 and so he is no more member of Punjab Assembly. The case was being heard by a division bench of Supreme Court under Mr. Javed Iqbal JJ. But the hearing has been put of sine die.
Let us now examine the case on the basis of facts. I hereby reproduce the relevant notification of The Election Commission of Pakistan about PP-10. Viewing these notifications, I am of the opinion that it is an open n shut case which does not require any interpretation from the judges.
Following are the notifications
ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
********
PRESS RELEASE

Islamabad the 3rd June, 2008.- The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan has published the name of the candidate returned to the Provincial Assembly of Punjab as a result of un-contested Bye-Election from the under mentioned Constituency :

No. and Name of Constituency Name Father’s Name Address
1 2 3 4

PP-48 Bhakkar-II Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif Mian Muhammad Sharif 180-181-H Model Town, Lahore.
________________________________________
ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
********
PRESS RELEASE

Islamabad the 21st June, 2008.- The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan has published the name of the candidate returned to the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab as a result of Un-contested Bye-Election from the under mentioned Constituency:
No. and Name of Constituency Name Father’s Name Address
1 2 3 4

PP-10
Rawalpindi-X Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif Mian Muhammad Sharif 180-181-H
Model Town, Lahore.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
********
PRESS RELEASE

Islamabad, the 4th July, 2008.- The Chief Election Commissioner has called upon the electors of the Constituency No. PP-10 Rawalpindi-X of Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, to elect a Member to fill the seat from the said Constituency, which has become vacant due to the resignation tendered by Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, Member of the Provincial Assembly, Punjab and specifies in relation thereto, the following dates for Bye-Election:

PROGRAMME

Sl.No. EVENTS DATE

(1) Dates for filing of nomination papers with the Returning Officer by the candidates
07-7-2008
to
12-7-2008

(2) Dates for Scrutiny of nomination papers by the Returning Officer 14-7-2008
to
16-7-2008

(3) Last date for filing of appeals against decisions of the Returning Officer rejecting/accepting the nomination papers

19-7-2008

(4)
Last date for deciding appeals by the Tribunal
24-7-2008
(5)
Last date for withdrawal of candidature
25-7-2008
(6)
Publication of revised list of candidates
26-7-2008
(7)
Polling day
11-8-2008

ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
********
PRESS RELEASE

Islamabad the 16th August, 2008 :- The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan has published the name of the candidate returned to the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab as a result of Bye-Election from the under mentioned Constituency:

No. and Name of Constituency Name Father’s Name Address
1 2 3 4

PP-10 Rawalpindi –X Malik Iftikhar Ahmed Malik Ghulam Sarwar H. No. 534, Main Baazar Mohallah Nasirabad, Rawalpindi.

2. The result shall be subject to the final decision of Writ Petitions No. 9255/2008, 9254/2008, 7606/2008, 7606/2008 titled “Shahid Orakzai Vs Kanwar Muhammad Dilshad etc.”
These notifications clearly show that Shahbaz Sharif had contested the election on PP-10 while he was already member of the assembly from PP-42 and the notification of his winning PP-10 was issued on June 21, 2008 and in accordance with article 223, PP-42 fell vacant. His choice of retaining PP-42 is unconstitutional.
I wonder what the Independent Judiciary is doing in the case. Have they forgotten their oath of safeguarding the constitution?

Shahbaz warns of long march on NAB chief appointment
LAHORE: Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif on Sunday warned the federal government of a long march against the latter’s “obstinate behaviour” regarding the appointment of the chief of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), television reports said.

“I have no personal grudge with the newly appointed NAB chairman Justice (Rtd) Deedar Hussain Shah, but here the matter is of accountability and justice,” he said.

Shahbaz wondered how a loyalist of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) would act with regard to the Swiss cases against Asif Ali Zardari
Mr. Shahbaz Sharif has come out of his skin by expressing his feelings about appointment of Mr. Deedar Hussain Shah as Chairman NAB.
He has threatened the Federal Govt. of another Long March if Mr. Shah is not removed. The people of Pakistan have been suffering with numerous kinds of calamities one of them is Sharif Family itself. Shahbaz Sharif is questioning the integrity of Mr. Shah only because he has been a PPP MNA in the past. His unblemished record of imparting justice has not washed the “SCAR” he earned by being a PPP man. This statement of Shabaz Sharif reminds me of the elder brother’s famous words”my blood boils with the mere mention of PPP” It seems signing of COD by these hate carriers was a drama. If even a man who has remained CJ of a provincial court after relinquishing his political affiliations cannot wash his “sins” how can the arch enemy of Shaheed BB be considered to have forgotten his past feelings against BB.
THe two brothers have benefitted a lot with the assassination of BB. The elder brother has gained the top slot in popularity. The party which was considered to be too weak to earn 25 NA seats in 2008 election actually won more than 80 seats after Mohtarma’s assassination.the same is true with Punjab assembly results. Had BB been alive these CIA agents could not muster enough seats in Punjab assembly to get even the leader of opposition.in that assembly.
Considering the revelations of Khalid Khawaja about Nawaz hatching conspiracy to kill BB in 1993 before the then elections, his taking money from Osama bin laden to topple BB in 1990, Khalid Khawaja’s subsequent murder at the hand of an unknown group Asian Tiger and hencesuccessfully stopping him from further revelations,, his pressurising Malik Qayyum to convct BB in 1999, his love with Rana Maqbool who is accused of murder attempt on Mr. Zardari in Jail during his Premiership, shedding of crocodile tears outside RGH on 27 Dec. 2007 but not attending her funeral, letting the crowd cross Punjab Governer House wall while Zardari was inside may well be a basis of his implication in BB’s murder.

Can Someone help me uploading a poster, I have created in response of Geo Ad against President Zardari. I don’t know how to upload that file in LUBS. Thanks
my email is [email protected]

Mr. Asif Ali zardari has said that the courts have never impart justice to PPP
I want to tell a gory tail of injustice to Mr. asif Zardari by the courts including the apex court and the present Chief Justice was one of those judges. It is the same SGS case which had been sent for retrial by a full bench of Supreme Court in 2001. I am hereby reproducing the verdict of the Supreme Court. The case was picked by TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL as an example of JUDICIAL CORRUPTION in a document “Cases and Materials Relating to Corruption Issue 3 – May 2003”.
The link is: http://www.cvc.nic.in/Vol%201%20Issue%203%202003.pdf

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is repeatedly asking the Govt. to write a letter withdrawing the previous one by Malik Qayyum in which he had told the Swiss authorities that Pakistan Govt. was not interested in continuation of investigation in SGS-Cotecna case. At that time the accused BB had already been killed and the other accused Mr. Asif Ali Zardari was an ordinary man. He had not been President of Pakistan at that time. The Swiss authorities and the Swiss Department of Justice closed the case as decided “Withdrawn by the Prosecution”
This case which continued in investigation phase for Nine Years in Geneva has a Pakistani version as well. This case was filed in Ehtesab Bench of Lahore High Court on 14 March, 1998. The reference was sent before a division bench at Lahore comprising Malik Mohammad Qayyum JJ and Najam Ul Hassan Kazmi JJ. The allegations on the accused Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Mr. Asif Ali Zardari was that they got kickbacks on awarding pre-shipment inspection contract to MS. SGS in 1994. After the objection from the accused on the bench in Lahore was sustained by SCP which ordered hearing at Rawalpindi instead of sending the reference to Rawapindi Ehtesab bench both the judges were assigned to take up the case at Rawalpindi with all TA/Da on each hearing. The bench headed by Malik Qayyum announced its verdict on 15 April 1999 and sentenced both the accused to five years imprisonment, a fine of $ 8.6 Million to each and disqualified them from holding public office.
Appeal against the verdict was filed in the Supreme Court. Appeal of BB was not entertained by the Supreme Court redistrar on the plea that BB had not surrendered herself. On a short order from a Judge that if sentence count be awarded in the absence of BB why not her appeal be entertained. The appellants had taken the plea that
i. the senior judge was biased against them
ii. the trial was conducted in a hostile atmosphere
iii. the sewnior judge had close links with the then PM
iv. a number of defence witnesses were not allowed to give their statements.
v. BB’s statement was not recorded in violation of a Supreme Court order
vi. Mr. Zardari wanted to cross examine a prosecution witness but was not allowed
Many other loopholes were also pointed out and the accused requested for AQUITTAL.
Judgement on the appeal has been taken from the above mentioned Transparency International report which is in PDF but I have converted it in MS word since the full document contains many other cases from across the world. Following is the text of the report pertaining to this case and has full text of the SCP judgement.

The issue of judicial corruption arises in the case of Zardari and Bhutto v The State. Here the validity of the conviction of a former Pakistan Prime Minister and her spouse on corruption charges was in issue. The Supreme Court of Pakistan undertakes an exhaustive examination of the circumstances in which the decision of the lower court was reached and in particular examines the meaning and scope of judicial “bias”. As the Court notes (in para.29), the evidence:

“not only goes a long way to suggest that Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. [one of
the two trial judges] had acquired a personal interest in the case by deriving an
out of the way favour of the grant of diplomatic passports to him and his wife but
also divulges a close liaison between the learned Judge, Senator Saifur Rehman
and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister whose political
rivalry with Ms. Benazir Bhutto appellant is a matter of common knowledge”.
The case also illustrates the danger of undue influence by a senior judge upon a fellow, more junior, judge. As the Supreme Court notes (in para.43)
“It appears from the record that Malik Muhammad Qayyum J. being the senior member of the Bench had exerted his influence on the second member S. Najamul Hassan Kazmi J. who being an unconfirmed Judge of the Lahore High Court was sweating for confirmation”.
Overall, the decision is a salutory reminder of the need for judges to observe the rules of natural justice and to maintain their independence and emphasises the importance of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, noted earlier in the Bulletin.
Note: The Ehtesab (Accountability) Act assigns the responsibility of conducting an enquiry into corruption and corrupt practices to an Ehtesab (Accountability) Cell. This reports to the Chief Ehtesab (Accountability) Commissioner. A Reference against an accused is initiated by the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner.

ZARDARI AND BHUTTO v THE STATE

Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Mr. Justice Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri.; Mr. Justice Sh. Riaz Ahmad; Mr. Justice Munir A. Sheikh; Mr. Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui; Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary; Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq; Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar.
April 6th 2001
The facts appear in paragraph 6 of the judgment

Cases referred to:
Anwar and Another v The Crown PLD 1955 FC 185
Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan and Another 1992 SCMR 140 Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. The State PLD 1999 SC 937
Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, Leader of the Opposition, Bilawal House, Clifton, Karachi,
and another v. The State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, Islamabad 1999 SCMR
759
Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto, M.N.A, and another v. The State PLD 2000 SC 795 Khairdi Khan v Crown PLD 1953 FC 223
Machia and 2 others v. The State PLD 1976 SC 695,
Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.), Ltd. v. Lannon and Others [1968] 3 All ER 304 R v Sussex Justices, ex p. McCarthy [1923] 1 KB 256
Shahadat Khan and another v Home Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1969 SC 158
For the Appellants:
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Sr.ASC
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa, Sr. ASC
Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr.ASC
For the respondent/State:
Mr M Zahoorul Haq, ASC
Mr Ali Sabtain Fazli, ASC
Ch. Fazal-I-Hussain, AOR
For the Federation of Pakistan:
Attorney General of Pakistan

MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J. (gave the judgment of the Court)
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals bearing No.102 and 127 of 1999, both of which are directed against the judgment dated 15th April, 1999 of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court.
2. The appeals were heard by a larger Bench of seven Judges with effect from 26th
February to 3rd April, 2001. The two appellants were tried by the learned Ehtesab Bench
of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, on its original side on receipt of Ehtesab
Reference No. 30 of 1998 from the then learned Chief Ehtesab Commissioner filed
under section 15(1) of the Ehtesab Act (IX of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
against as many as 12 accused including the two convict-appellants before us.

3. Facts of the case, according to the prosecution, are that by his letter dated 14th
March, 1998 the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner made a Reference under section 15 of
the Act to the Lahore High Court, Lahore. This Reference was registered as ER
No.30/98. The learned Chief Justice of Lahore High Court constituted a Bench

comprising Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, JJ. in terms
of section 2(f) read with section 10 of the Act. The Reference comprised the letter
referred to above and the interim report referred to in paragraph 13 thereof. The gist of
the allegations as set out in the Reference were that Ms. Benazir Bhutto, ex-Prime
Minister of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, ex-Federal Minister/ Ms. Benazir Bhutto’s spouse,
appellants and A.R.Siddiqui, ex-Chairman, CBR by abusing their authority as holders of
public office in collusion with each other and with M/s Societe General De Surveillance
SA (“SGS”) as well as Jens Schlegelmilch, and Directors of M/s. SGS awarded a
contract for pre-shipment inspection to M/s SGS. This had allegedly been done for
illegal gratification in the form of kickbacks and commissions resulting in loss to the
public revenue. The Reference also set out the various dates on which various alleged
events took place. It was supported by an interim report in the form of a Reference
spreading over pages 1-257 which had been submitted by the Ehtesab Bureau to the
Chief Ehtesab Commissioner under section 15(6) of the Act. The reference made by the
Chief Ehtesab Commissioner alleged commission of offences of corruption and corrupt
practices within the meanings of section 3 read with section 4(2) of the Act.

4. Having taken cognizance of the offences under the Act alleged to have been committed, the Bench finding that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case, issued summonses to the persons named as the appellants in the Reference. It may be mentioned here that at a later stage, the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner also forwarded a supplementary Reference on 20th August, 1998, in which another person, Hans Fischer, was added as an accused.
Supplementary Reference.
5. According to Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Sr.ASC for Asif Ali Zardari appellant,
a Supplementary Reference under section 15(1) of the Act was “purportedly filed by the
Chief Ehtesab Commissioner before the learned Ehtesab Bench, Lahore High Court,
against the appellant on 20th August, 1998”. In the said Reference the name of Hans
Fischer, Vice President of SGS, was added as an accused person and it was alleged
that as a result of a further probe in the on-going investigation, additional cogent
material and documentary evidence had been collected against the accused persons,
mostly through the Swiss authorities and certain documents were annexed thereto in
which it was stated that at the request of the Government of Pakistan under the Protocol
for Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Judge Michelle, Canton of Geneva, ordered
the seizure of the documents from the possession of SGS and Cotecna relating to the
contract entered into with the Government of Pakistan and thereafter Judge Daniel
Devaud vide order dated 24th June, 1998 ruled that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan be
admitted as a damaged party. It was further alleged in the said Supplementary
Reference that the judicial office of the Examining Magistrate in Switzerland after having
inculpated the appellants, issued an International “Letter Rogatory“ which was handed
over to the Ehtesab Bureau, Government of Pakistan by the Swiss Embassy in Pakistan
through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for service on the appellants who refused to
accept the same. It was also stated in the Supplementary Reference that “the
documents received from the Swiss authorities further revealed that subsequent to the
issuance of a letter dated 29th June, 1994 by Cotecna, whereby they had promised to
pay 6% of the receipts from the Government of Pakistan to Mariston Securities Inc, the name of Bomer Finance Inc was substituted on 24th May, 1995, thereby indicating that the said 6% would be paid to Bomer Finance Inc and not Mariston Securities Inc. It is further alleged that Jens Schlegelmilch, one of the accused, visited Pakistan and stayed as a guest of the then Prime Minister on various occasions which fact established his relationship with the then Prime Minister and Asif Ali Zardari.

Short Order
6. The short order dated 15th April, 1999 convicting the appellants is reproduced
hereunder:-
The Chief Ehtesab Commissioner has referred to this Court under
section 15(1) of the Ehtesab Act, 1997 the above Reference against
Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan and a
Member of the National Assembly and her husband Senator Asif Ali
Zardari for trial under sections 3 and 4 of the Ehtesab Act, 1997. After
summoning the accused, we framed the following charges against
them:
Charges against Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto
“You as Prime Minister of Pakistan from 16.11.1993 to 5.11.1996 along
with your spouse Asif Ali Zardari in exercise of your official functions
and by abuse of your position as a holder of public office as defined in
sub-para (ii) of section 2 of the Act, with the abetment, assistance and
aid of other co-accused dishonestly and through corrupt and illegal
means ordered the grant of a ‘pre-shipment inspection contract’ dated
29-9-1994 to M/s Societe Generale De Surveillance (SGS) in
consideration of illegal gratification, pecuniary advantages, commission and kick-backs, earlier agreed upon which were paid by SGS and contained and received in Bank accounts of off-shore companies operated by Jens Schlegelmilch namely Bomer Finance Inc., Mariston Securities Inc. and Nassam Overseas Inc. of which you and your spouse and others are beneficiaries.
Your above acts constitute the offence of corruption and corrupt
practices under section 3(1)(a), 3(1)(d) and 4(2) of the Act which is
triable by this Court, we hereby direct that you be tried on the said
charges.”
Charges Against Asif Ali Zardari Accused No.2
“You as a holder of public office as defined in sub-para (ii) of section 2
of the Act along with your spouse Ms.Benazir Bhutto in exercise of your
official functions and by abuse of your position as a holder of public
office, with the abetment, assistance and aid of others, dishonestly and
through corrupt and illegal means secured the award of pre-shipment
inspection contract dated 29.9.1994 for M/s Societe Generale De

Surveillance S.A, (SGS) in consideration of illegal gratification,
pecuniary advantages, commission and kick-backs, earlier agreed upon
which were paid by SGS and were obtained and received in bank
accounts of off-shore companies operated by Jens Schlegelmilch,
namely, Bomer Finance Inc., Mariaton Securities Inc. and Nassam
Overseas Inc. of which you and your spouse and other are beneficiaries.
Your above acts constitute the offence of corruption and corrupt
practices under section 3(1)(a), 3(1)(d) and 4(2) of the Act which is
triable by us. We hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges”.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and
also produced 385 documents which were duly exhibited. In defence the
only witness examined by Mr. Asif Ali Zardari was Mr. Nawaz Hussain,
Superintendent Landhi Jail, Karachi as DW.1. We have heard the
learned counsel for the parties at great length. For detailed reasons to
be recorded later, we have reached the following conclusion:-

i) That the evidence comprising of Pakistani documents, documents
sent along with letter rogatory, as also documents sent by the Swiss
Judge, Daniel Devaud, duly stamped and signed by him, are admissible
in evidence being certified copies of public documents and have been
duly proved;
ii) That the pre-shipment inspection contract in question was awarded to
M/s SGS by the former Prime Minister, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto alone
and the so-called presentation [to] the Committee set up by her was
merely an eyewash at the behest of and in abetment with Mr. Asif Ali
Zardari;

iii) That the contract was awarded for the reason that M/s SGS had, on 11th March, 1994, promised to pay 6% (six percent) of the fee received by it to Bomer Finance Inc. Bomer Finance was a company wholly and beneficially owned by Mr. Asif Ali Zardari;
iv) That the payment of kickbacks was made in the account of Bomer Finance Inc. which it was maintaining with Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva, which bears the account No. 552343. In addition to Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto also had access to this account and she had paid £92,000 out of the aforesaid account as the price payable in respect of the necklace purchased by her for £117,000;

v) That this Court had validly appointed Mr. Moazzam Hayat, Registrar
of this Court as a Commission in order to compare the certified copies
procured in evidence by the prosecution with the documents in the

original record, collected by Judge Daniel Devaud and also to verify the authentication of certified copies;
vi) That the award of the contract resulted in the payment of US $137,492 million by the Government to M/s SGS which has further claimed US$13 million out of the above commission amounting to US$4.3 million was paid by SGS to Mr. Asif Ali Zardari of which Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto was also a beneficiary;

vii) That the trial of the respondents is not hit by Article 12 of the
Constitution which has no applicability to the facts of the case.
It follows from the above that the prosecution has proved its case
against Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Senator Asif Ali Zardari beyond
any reasonable shadow of doubt. They are, therefore, guilty of having
committed corruption and corrupt practices within the meaning of
section 3 (1)(a), section 3(1)(d) and section 4(2) of the Ehtesab Act,
1997.
Accordingly, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Senator Asif Ali Zardari are
convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years imprisonment each and to
pay a fine of US$8.6 million or equivalent amount in the Pakistani
currency. They are further disqualified under section 9 of the Ehtesab
Act, 1997 from holding any public office. Their property shall also be
confiscated.

Evidence
7. In this case the prosecution in order to bring home charges to the appellants placed reliance on [the evidence of a series of witnesses and documentary evidence] ….
8. Hassan Waseem Afzal (PW14) was appointed as Joint Secretary in Ehtesab Bureau
on 9th April 1997 and was a member of the Ehtesab Bureau, Islamabad. During the
course of his duty, various matters relating to corruption and corrupt practices came to
his notice including matters relating to Ms. Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari appellants
and some of the bureaucrats and tax-evaders. According to him, the Ehtesab
Reference in which the two appellants were involved was sent to the Chief Ehtesab
Commissioner by the Ehtesab Bureau. He also coordinated and assisted the
prosecution in the preparation of these cases particularly relating to the overseas
aspect. In September, 1997, according to Hassan Waseem Afzal, the Attorney General
for Pakistan had contacted Mr. Beat Frey, the Chief of Swiss Police, under
international mutual legal assistance arrangements, seeking assistance relating to the
detection of corruption and corrupt practices and in that process he had obtained
certified copies of the documents from the Swiss Police. According to Hassan Waseem
Afzal, the original documents were produced before another Ehtesab Bench (ER 26 of
1998) comprising of Ehsanul Haq Chaudhary and Raja Muhammad Khurshid, JJ. In this process, the Attorney General for Pakistan, added Hassan Waseem Afzal as a
witness [and] obtained attested copies of documents from his office. Hassan Waseem
Afzal also stated that he appeared before the Ehtesab Bench comprising of Ishan ul
Haq Chaudhary and Raja Muhammad Khurshid, JJ and submitted the documents to
the Bench and then obtained copies thereof from the Lahore High Court and produced
the same in this case as Ex.PW-14/1 to 152. He has also claimed to have visited
Geneva as Coordinator of the affairs of the Ehtesab Bureau and met his lawyers in

Geneva [and] that the Swiss Government had ordered the raids on the offices of Jens
Schlegelmilch and Didier Plantim. According to him the same Judge had ordered the
search of Offices of SGS and Cotecna and had summoned various bank managers,
recorded their statements and took records into his possession. According to him while
carrying on these proceedings, the Swiss Judge blocked the accounts of Ms. Benazir
Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari appellants and Ms. Nusrat Bhutto. Thereafter the said
Judge pronounced indictment orders against the President of SGS Hens Fischer,
President of Cotecna and then Jens Schlegelmilch, Asif Ali Zardari and Ms.Benazir
Bhutto appellants. He produced these documents as Ex.PW-14/153 and 154. Hassan
Waseem Afzal further stated that the Letter Rogatory was received through the
diplomatic channel along with the documents Ex.P-14/155 to 319. According to him,
during the coordination proceedings, he had learnt that 19 offshore companies had
been established by the appellants. He further stated that he obtained the original
documents which had been submitted in the Court of Ehtesab Bench comprising
Ihsanul Haq Chaudhary and Raja Muhammad Khurshid, JJ and produced attested
copies thereof as PW-14/320 to 338.
9. Mr.Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Sr. ASC representing Asif Ali Zardari, inter alia,
contended that the learned Ehtesab Bench while recording the impugned judgment was
completely biased, was the victim of malice, misconduct and had failed to observe
procedural propriety. The learned counsel also pleaded that we should take judicial
notice under Articles 111 and 112 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 of the press
clipping dated 16th August, 1991 of the Daily “News” under the caption “PPP paving way
for martial law” attributed to Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister of
Pakistan. The excerpt from the press clipping aforesaid reads as under:

“My blood boils when the name of PPP is mentioned to me and I
feel like cutting it into pieces as this is the party responsible for the
division of the country into two parts and now once again it is
creating hurdles in the way of the country’s progress and
development.”
10. Learned counsel went on to say that “Saliva that dripped from the mouth of the man was law”.

Contentions on the Question of Bias Raised on Behalf of the Appellants.
11. The contentions of Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned ASC for the appellants, primarily are as under:-

a) That in Reference No. 26/1998 the learned Bench had
ordered the freezing of all the assets, bank accounts and the
properties of the two appellants situated inside and outside
Pakistan, vide order dated 27th April, 1997. In this context, it
was pointed out that Reference No. 26/98 appears to have
been made over to the Bench headed by Malik Muhammad
Qayyum J. temporarily for the sole purpose of securing the
order of freezing of assets etc. and in lieu thereof diplomatic
passports were granted to Malik Muhammad Qayyum J. and
his wife, notwithstanding the serious objection raised by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the judges of the High Courts
and the Supreme Court of Pakistan are not entitled to the
grant of this category of passport. It was thus urged that the
grant of diplomatic passports to Mr. Justice Malik
Muhammad Qayyum and his wife was a favour and from that
point of time onwards bias became evident on the part of
Malik Muhammad Qayyum J.
b) That on 28th September, 1998 the trial of the appellants from
that of ten other co-accused was separated in order to use against the appellants the statement purportedly made by one of the co-accused, namely Jens Schlegelmilch, during the investigative process carried out in Geneva.
c) That Reference No.30/98 was pending at the principal seat
of the Lahore High Court from where it was transferred by
the order of this Court dated 14th December, 1998 in the
case reported as Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, Leader of the
Opposition, Bilawal House, Clifton, Karachi, and another v.
The State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner, Islamabad
(1999 SCMR 759), to the Rawalpindi Bench where another
Ehtesab Bench being seized of other Ehtesab References
was available to hear this Reference also. Malik Muhammad
Qayyum J. travelled all the way from Lahore to Rawalpindi
which was described as the “chasing” of the above
Reference filed against the appellants to achieve the desired
result.
d). That on 2nd April, 1999 this Court in the case of Mohtarma
Benazir Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1999 SC 937 at page 989) authored by Irshad Hasan Khan, J. as his Lordship then was, held that “the controversy raised in these appeals, in substance revolves around the admissibility of the documents in dispute”. [He continued]

“Without expressing any opinion on the above controversial
issues, we are of the view that for doing complete justice
between the parties and to avoid protracted litigation, it
would be expedient if the Ehtesab Bench, before
consideration of and placing reliance upon the report of the
Commissioner, shall provide adequate opportunity to the
parties to raise any objection against the report including the
question of admissibility of the documents in dispute which
were sent to Switzerland through the Commission for the
purpose of verifying the genuineness and authenticity of the
said documents, before finally disposing of the Reference,
without prejudice to any observation made in the impugned
order or the leave granting order and in the light of the
judgments rendered by this Court in Mohtarma Benazir
Bhutto v The State (Criminal Appeals Nos. 62 and 63 of
1999) and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. The State (Criminal
Petition No.208/1998)”.

12. It was further emphasized in the case of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto (above) that
“On conclusion of the defence evidence as aforesaid, the
arguments on the main case as well as on the
applications filed under section 265-K [Criminal Procedure
Code] may be heard by the Hon Ehtesab Bench
simultaneously. However, consideration of objections
raised to the admissibility of documents by the appellants
at the time of their production in evidence before the
Court, [must] be attended to in precedence to other
contentions in the case…”

In consequence of the non-compliance of the above direction the appellants were deprived of a substantial right of appeal recognized in law.

e) That the learned Ehtesab Bench directed Dr.Z.Babar Awan,
learned ASC for Ms. Benazir Bhutto appellant to record his
statement on behalf of Ms. Benazir Bhutto appellant on 22nd
February, 1999 which he was reluctantly constrained to
comply with. Ms. Benazir Bhutto, however, later submitted
her statement in writing but it was spurned and not made
part of the record.

f) That on the same day i.e. on 22nd April, 1998 the statement
of Mr. Ali Sabtain Fazli, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor, closing his side was dictated by the Bench
giving up important witnesses including V.A. Jafri, Talat Javed, Khalil Ahmad etc. and he was directed by the learned
Bench to sign it, as owned by the learned Special Prosecutor
himself in Court before us, with a view to conclude the trial at
the earliest.

g) That an application under section 476 Cr.P.C./195 PPC read
with section 193 PPC was moved by Dr. Z. Babar Awan,
learned counsel for Ms. Benazir Bhutto appellant for initiating
action regarding fabrication of documents, wherein instead
of requiring reply thereto and disposing it of, the learned
Ehtesab Bench appointed Mr. Mozzam Hayat, the then
Registrar, Lahore High Court, as Commission for
ascertaining the authenticity of the Swiss documents and
that too without notice to the appellants and without their
participation in those proceedings at Geneva. The
methodology was adopted to strengthen the case of the
prosecution.

h) That later, on 3rd September, 1998 Mr. Moazzam Hayat, the
then Registrar, issued notice to Ms Benazir Bhutto and her
counsel apprising them of his appointment as Commission to
ascertain the authenticity of the aforesaid documents. It was
further averred that on 5th March 1999, the appellants were
not issued any notice for execution of the Commission to be
carried out in the Chambers of Judge Daniel Davoud at
Geneva. It was next urged that in this behalf an appeal was
filed by the appellants in this Court on 4th March, 1999. This
Court suspended the operation of the aforesaid order till 8th
March, 1999. It appears that on 8th March, 1999 order of
suspension passed by this Court was recalled and the
Commission completed the proceedings on the following day
without notifying the appellants and also without associating
them with the process.

i) That the appellants felt aggrieved of the order of the learned
Ehtesab Bench closing the defence evidence of the
appellants, and challenged it before this Court. This Court in
the precedent of Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto, M.N.A,. and
another v. The State (PLD 2000 SC 795), inter alia, ordered
that “the application dated 1-3-1999 filed by Ms. Benazir
Bhutto and the application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.
filed by Asif Ali Zardari for summoning of witnesses or any
other application for summoning of the witnesses filed by
the two appellants which is pending on the record before
the Ehtesab Bench may be taken up by the Hon Ehtesab
Bench, after completion of the statement of Ms. Benazir

Bhutto under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. either on 22-3-1999
or on such other date convenient to Court and will be disposed of in accordance with the law” but this order of the apex Court was completely ignored.

j) That Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Sr.ASC moved
Crl. M. A. No. 64 of 2001 in Criminal Appeal No.102/98
under Order XXXIII rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules,
1980 seeking a direction from this Court that “the audio
tapes and their transcripts be made part of the Court record
and/or pass such other order as it deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case”. In this context pointed
reference was made to the taped conversations between
Senator Saifur Rehman and Malik Muhammad Qayyum J:
“We will find some solution” “Find some short cut now to by
pass things” “I am trying my best”.

k) That the arguments of Mr. Ali Sabtain Fazli, learned Special
Public Prosecutor were partly heard on 8th April, 1999 with
the direction to him to complete his arguments on the
following day at 10.30 a.m. On 9th April,1999 the learned
Special Public Prosecutor concluded his arguments. The
arguments of Dr. Z. Babar Awan were heard for one hour
after 10.30 a.m. as it was Friday and, therefore, the case
was adjourned to 12th April, 1999, on which date when Mr.
Farooq H.Naek, learned ASC, who had replaced Dr. Z.
Babar Awan as counsel for Ms. Benazir Bhutto, opened his
arguments. He was, however, ordered by the learned
Ehtesab Bench to complete his arguments by 10.30 a.m. on
the same day. The grievance made by the learned counsel
for the appellant was peremptorily rejected. At this stage,
according to Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, he got up to
intervene “as a friend of the Court and not as a counsel for
the parties and stated that he had never experienced such
an oppressive atmosphere in Court proceedings”. He urged
the Court “for the sake of integrity of the Institution to give
one more day to Mr. Farooq H. Naek, learned ASC to
complete his submissions”. Consequently, the learned
Ehtesab Bench reluctantly directed Mr. Farooq H. Naek,
learned ASC, to conclude his arguments by 12.00 noon the
following day. It was next submitted that Ms. Benazir
Bhutto’s counsel concluded his arguments by 12.00 noon
with the assurance by Malik Muhammad Qayyum J. that he
was permitted to give full written submissions and that the
learned Bench would hear him again if clarifications were
needed.

l) That on 14th April, 1998, the appellants’ counsel had partly
argued on his Application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C.
Malik Muhammad Qayyum J., however, “made a personal
request to Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Sr.ASC, to
finish his arguments ‘tomorrow’ since he was not well and
needed to go abroad for ‘treatment’”. The learned counsel
for the appellant in support of his submissions, referred to
the following conversations which had been tape-recorded
and transcript whereof had been made available along with
Crl.M.A.64 of 2001.
Taped conversation between CJ Rashid Aziz Khan and Qayyum J.
“He is going to issue warrants for both of us”- Rashid Aziz CJ. “I have already written the short order”- Qayyum J.

Conversation between Saifur Rehman and Qayyum, J.
“He (Nawaz) wants 101% confirmation”
“Give them full dose” Saifur Rehman
“After the interval at 11 a.m., even if they disagree we will not care”. Qayyum J.
“So after half an hour we will come back and announce it” “It will be 3 or 4 page judgment”. Qayyum J.
Saifur Rehman “Today I have to fight with you”.
Qayyum J “Why for what reason”.
Saifur Rehman “You were supposed to do it today”. Qayyum J “It will be done in a day or so”.
Saifur Rehman “What can I tell you”.
Qayyum J “For your sake I had to beg his lawyer. I told him that I have to go abroad, I am not feeling well but I have to finish it first”.
Saifur Rehman “Hoo”
Qayyum J “I have asked Pirzada to finish it for my sake and he has acceded to my request. Now tell me about me. Will he be happy with me. When it will be done this time. Mian Sahib will also be happy”.
Saifur Rehman “You should have done it today”.
Qayyum J “What does it matter in one or two days. Now it will
be done gracefully which is very good. The people in Supreme
Court are saying something, others are saying something”.
Saifur Rehman “I will try to control and handle him”.
Qayyum J “Handle him as you are my lawyer there”.
Saifur Rehman “Yes I am and you don’t know it only God
knows”.
Qayyum J. “No”.
Saifur Rehman “I only fight for you”. Qayyum J “Tell me one thing”.
Saifur Rehman “Yes”
Qayyum J “By the grace of God this will be done and then both of us will go to him and seek forgiveness”.

m) That on 17th March, 1999 Ms. Benazir Bhutto appellant
moved Criminal Misc. Application No.40 of 1999 under
Sections 556 and 561-A Cr.P.C. mentioning therein that the
learned Bench headed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum J.
should not hear the Reference as he was biased against
her as is evident from his conduct noted above and further
that his father late Malik Muhammad Akram J. was one of
those Judges of this Court who had confirmed the death
sentence awarded to her father the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
and that he would convict her also. The grievance made
was that the learned Bench dismissed this application as
well without hearing her counsel.
n) That the short order was announced on 15th April, 1999,
before providing an opportunity to the appellants to pursue
their objections on the report of the Commission and
conclusion of the arguments. The short order had been
prepared on 14th April, 1999 and announced on 15th April,
1999. The learned Ehtesab Bench being conscious of the
imbroglio corrected the date of announcement of the short
order describing it as a typographical mistake. The short
order was at variance with the detailed judgment inasmuch
as the issue regarding the confiscation of the necklace did
not figure in the former while in the latter it was made part
thereof.
o). That after the statement of Mr. Moazzam Hayat was
recorded as a court witness, the incriminating parts of his
statement as also his report were not put to the appellants
by recording their further statements under Section 342
Cr.P.C. which was mandatory.

Contentions on the Question of Bias Raised on Behalf of the State.

13. In response to the above contentions, the learned Sr.ASCs for the State
submitted –
i) That the assets of the appellants were ordered to be frozen in Ehtesab
Reference No. 26 of 1998, which was temporarily entrusted to the
Ehtesab Bench headed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum J., and not in

Reference No.30 of 1998. Besides, before framing of charge in the titled Ehtesab Reference No.30, the appellants’ counsel had categorically stated that their application for defreezing of assets had already become infructuous as their assets had been defrozen. It was however conceded by Mr. S.M. Zafar, Sr.ASC that the diplomatic passports were granted to Malik Muhammad Qayyum J. and his wife.
ii) That in view of the law declared by this Court in Shahadat Khan and
another v Home Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan and
others (PLD 1969 SC 158) and Machia and 2 others v. The State (PLD
1976 SC 695), there was no compulsion on the Bench to try all the
accused persons together of the same offences. The trial was separated
on 28th September, 1998 and at the time of the framing of the charge on
5th October, 1998, there were only two accused persons facing trial.
Hence the provisions of section 239 Cr.P.C. were not attracted. The
remaining accused were not available and the learned Ehtesab Bench
was required under the Act to complete the proceedings within a period
of 60 days as per section 10 of the Act.
iii) That the learned Ehtesab Bench having been constituted for this
particular case by the order of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court
dated 3rd July, 1998 was bound to conduct the case at Rawalpindi. The
appellants never raised any objection in this regard till March 1999.
Moreover, the learned Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, vide
notifications of different dates commencing from 10th December, 1998 to
8th April, 1999, ordered that two Judges i.e. Malik Muhammad Qayyum
and Najmul Hassan Kazmi JJ. shall work at the Rawalpindi Bench from
time to time, details whereof are mentioned in those notifications.

iv) That it was evident from para 56 of the impugned judgment that in
compliance with the order of this Court, the learned Ehtesab Bench had attended to the question of admissibility of documents first and given findings on the other questions involved thereafter.

v) That the statement of Ms. Benazir Bhutto under section 342 Cr.P.C. was
recorded through her counsel Dr. Z. Babar Awan who was authorised in
this behalf on account of her exemption from personal appearance in the
Court on acceptance of Crl. Misc. Application No. 18 of 1998. By virtue
of her application dated 23rd February, 1999 Ms. Benazir Bhutto had not
only accepted her statement recorded through Dr. Z.Babar Awan but
also supplemented the same by her own statement in writing.

vi) That Mr. Ali Sabtain Fazli, learned Special Public Prosecutor had closed
the prosecution side of his own free will and accord.

vii) That the Commission was appointed in order to set at rest the
controversy raised by the learned counsel for Ms. Benazir Bhutto in an
application moved under section 476 Cr.P.C. challenging the authenticity
of the documents which were presented before the Ehtesab Bench. The
arguments on the application were heard in presence of the learned
counsel for the parties but the order was announced later on. The
Commission was thus not appointed at the back of the appellants. In any
case the appellants had brought the matter of appointment of
Commission to this Court and were given ample opportunity to raise
objections to the report of the Commission as well as to cross-examine
Mr. Moazzam Hayat.
viii) That the learned counsel for the appellants had the knowledge of
appointment of the Commission throughout, therefore, non-issuance of notice of proceedings in the Chambers of Judge Daniel Devaud could not be blown out of proportion.

ix) That the evidence of the appellants was closed on 15th March, 1999
after passing a detailed order that they had failed to produce either their
witnesses or to get the summonses issued in their names in spite of
three opportunities granted to them. In any case this Court had dealt
with the matter in Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto v The State (above) and
disposed it of in the terms that Ms. Benazir Bhutto will be afforded an
opportunity to examine herself under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. as her own
witness in the case on 22nd March, 1999, or on such other date
convenient to the Court and allowed a fair opportunity to examine the witnesses in her defence within the bounds of law. The learned counsel for the appellants were provided ample opportunity to put forth their point of view and this fact was borne out by the findings recorded in the short as well as in the detailed orders.
x) That the ground of bias set up by the appellants that the father of the
learned Senior Judge was one of the Judges who had confirmed death sentence awarded to the father of Ms Benazir Bhutto was no ground at all for bias as in fact the appellant might have a bias against the learned senior member and his father.

xi) That the short order was no doubt silent about the necklace but in the
detailed order the confiscation of the necklace did figure with the explanation that the necklace was ordered to be forfeited in lieu of nonpayment of the fine of U.S $ 8.6 million.

xii) That the short order was prepared and announced on 15th April, 1999,
and the date initially mentioned therein was a typographical error pure and simple which was duly rectified.

(xiii) That mere fact that a judge has dealt with another matter earlier in
respect of a party to the legal proceedings before him or has given
certain decisions against such a party upon interlocutory applications in
the proceedings before him will not render him disqualified from hearing
the case.

(xiv) That bias in a judge is to be shown as a matter of fact and not merely as
a matter of opinion….

(xv) That “mere suspicion of bias even if it is not unreasonable is not
sufficient to render a decision void. A real likelihood of bias must be
established”. A mere apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he may
not get justice, such as based on influence from circumstances is not
sufficient.
14. In support of the last three submissions, reliance was placed on Benazir Bhutto
v. President of Pakistan and Another (1992 SCMR 140).

15. Learned counsel for the State also referred to the distinction drawn between the
case of bias of a judge of a subordinate court and that of a superior court inasmuch as
in the latter case, the judges of the superior courts were held to have a “judicial
conscience”.
16. Mr.Aziz A.Munshi, learned Attorney General for Pakistan defended the impugned
order and also controverted the element of any bias of the learned senior member of
the Bench on the grounds pressed into service by Mr. S.M. Zafar, learned Sr.ASC and
additionally opposed Crl.Misc. Applications No.50 and 64 of 2001 by filing a detailed
reply.

FINDINGS
17. Since the main plank of the case of the learned counsel for both the appellants
is the ‘bias’ of Malik Muhammad Qayyum J. senior member of the Ehtesab Bench
against the appellants, we have decided to examine it at the outset.
18. The foremost question is what is ‘bias’. Bias has been described in Corpus Juris
Secundum, Volume X pp. 354 and 355 as under:

“BIAS. Primarily, a diagonal or slant, especially of a seam, cut, or line
across a fabric; and so derivatively, a leaning of the mind; a mental
predilection or prejudice; anything which turns a man to a particular
course; a particular influential power which sways the judgment; a
preconceived opinion; a sort of emotion constituting untrustworthy
partiality; bent, inclination, prepossession, propension, or tendency,
which sways the mind toward one opinion rather than another;
propensity toward an object, not leaving the mind indifferent. ‘Bias’ has

been held synonymous with ‘partiality’ and strictly to be distinguished
from ‘prejudice’. Under particular circumstances, the word has been
described as a condition of mind; and has been held to refer, not to
views entertained regarding a particular subject matter, but to the mental
attitude or disposition toward a particular person, and to cover all
varieties of personal hostility or prejudice against him. (Emphasis
provided).
Garner on Administrative Law, 4th edition at page 122 has also attempted to define bias as a disqualification and in such context observed as follows:
“Not only is a person affected by an administrative decision entitled to
have his case heard by the agency seized with its determination, but he
may also insist on his case being heard by a fair Judge, one free from
bias. Bias in this context has usually meant that the adjudicator must
have no financial interest in the matter under dispute, but it is not
necessarily so limited, and allegations of bias have been upheld in
circumstances where there was no question of any financial interest.”
19. In this context, the following observations of Lord Denning M.R. in Metropolitan
Properties Co. (F.G.C.), Ltd. v. Lannon and Others [1968] 3 All E.R. 304 would be
relevant:-
“A man may be disqualified from sitting in a judicial capacity on one of two grounds. First, a ‘direct pecuniary interest’ in the subject-matter. Second, ‘bias’ in favour of one side against the other.

So far as ‘pecuniary interest’ is concerned, I agree with the Divisional
Court that there is no evidence that Mr. John Lannon had any direct
pecuniary interest in the suit. He had no interest in any of the flats in
Oakwood Court. The only possible interest was his father’s interest in
having the rent of 55 Regency Lodge reduced. It was put in this way: if
the committee reduced the rents of Oakwood Court, those rents would
be used as ‘comparable’ for Regency Lodge, and might influence their
being put lower than they otherwise would be. Even if we identify the
son’s interest with the father’s, I think that this is too remote. It is
neither direct nor certain. It is indirect and uncertain.

So far as bias is concerned, it was acknowledged that there was no actual bias on the part of Mr. Lannon, and no want of good faith. But it was said that there was, albeit unconscious, an area of likelihood of bias. This is a matter on which the law is not altogether clear; but I start with the oft-repeated saying of Lord Hewart, C.J., in R v Sussex Justices, ex p. McCarthy:

‘… it is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance, that justice should both be done and be manifestly seen to be done’.”

20. In our own context, the Code of Conduct framed by the Supreme Judicial Council
under Article 128(4) of the erstwhile Constitution of Pakistan, 1962 for the
Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in Pakistan provides in Article IV as under:-

“A Judge must decline resolutely to act in a case involving his own interest, including those of persons whom he regards and treats as near relatives or close friends.

A Judge must refuse to deal with any case in which he has a connection with one party or its lawyer more than the other, or even with both parties and their lawyers.

To ensure that justice is not only done, but is also seen to be done, a Judge must avoid all possibility of his opinion or action in any case being swayed by any consideration of personal advantage, either direct or indirect”

21. In reaching the conclusion that Mr. John Lannon was biased Lord Denning
employed the following terse phraseology:-
“It brings home this point; in considering whether there was a
real likelihood of bias, the Court does not look at the mind of the
justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or
whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not
look to see if there was a real likelihood that he should, or did, in
fact favour one side at the expense of the other. The court looks
at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if
he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless, if right-minded
persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real
likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he
does sit, his decision cannot stand.

There must be circumstances from which a reasonable man
would think it likely or probable that the justice, or chairman, as
the case may be, would, or did, favour one side unfairly at the
expense of the other. The Court will not enquire whether he did,
in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people
might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be
rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-
minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased.’”
(emphasis provided).
Applying these principles, I ask myself: Ought Mr. John Lannon
to have sat? I think not. If he was himself a tenant in difference
with his landlord about the rent of his flat, he clearly ought not to
sit on a case against the selfsame landlord, also about the rent
of a flat, albeit another flat. In this case he was not a tenant, but
the son of a tenant; but that makes no difference. No reasonable

man would draw any distinction between him and his father,
seeing that he was living with him and assisting him with his
case. Test it quite simply: if Mr. John Lannon were to have asked
any of his friends: ‘I have been asked to preside in a case about
the rents charged by the Freshwater Group of Companies at
Oakwood Court. But I am already assisting my father in his case
against them, about the rent of his flat in Regency Lodge, where
I am living with him. Do you think I can properly sit?’ The answer
of any of his good friends would surely have been: ‘No, you
should not sit. You are already acting, or as good as acting,
against them. You should not, at the same time, sit in judgment
on them’. No man can be an advocate for or against a party in
one proceeding. Everyone would agree that judge, or a barrister
or solicitor (when he sits ad hoc as a member of a tribunal)
should not sit on a case to which a near relative or a close friend
is a party. So, also, a barrister or solicitor should not sit on a
case to which one of his clients is a party; nor on a case where
he is already acting against one of the parties. Inevitably people
would think he would be biased.

I hold, therefore, that Mr. John Lannon ought not to have sat on
this rent assessment committee. The decision is violable on that
account and should be avoided. Although we are differing from
the Divisional Court, I would like to say that we have had a good
deal more information than that court had. In particular, we have
seen a letter of Jan 13, 1967, and other things not before them
when they gave their ruling. Otherwise I would not have thought
it right to interfere. I would allow the appeal and remit the case
to another rent assessment committee. Let it be heard again as
soon as may be” (emphasis provided).

22. The element of bias in a judge was considered by the Federal Court of Pakistan
in the case of Anwar and Another v The Crown PLD 1955 FC 185. ln that case, the
Federal Court had the occasion to reconsider an earlier case of Khairdi Khan v Crown
(PLD 1953 FC 223). In the former case, the case of Khairdi Khan (supra) was
reconsidered by the Federal Court in which an appeal had been allowed because the
High Court in its revisional jurisdiction had arrived at a definite finding of fact while
ordering the retrial after setting aside an acquittal. In the latter case of Khairdi Khan,
the late Abdul Rashid, CJ. inferred that the sessions judge who tried the case would
not be able to deliver an unbiased judgment for the reason of observations made by the High Court. But the late Muhammad Munir, CJ. disagreed with the judgment in Khairdi Khan’s case and held as under:-

“We are, therefore, perfectly entitled to hold, as we do in this case after a
full argument that the rule laid down in Khairdi Khan’s case that bias
vitiated all judgments and all orders made by a Judge are void is
incorrect and should no longer form part of the law of Pakistan.”

23. Nonetheless the late Muhammad Munir, Chief Justice, was constrained to hold
that the accused has a right of a fair trial by a judicial minded person, not functioning
under an influence which might paralyse his judicial faculties as to result in the absence of a fair trial. The learned Chief Justice also held that bias may be caused by a judgment, order or observation of a superior Court or it may spring from personal, political, religious, communal, racial, commercial or economic considerations. The other conclusion recorded by the Chief Justice is that bias would vitiate judicial proceedings if such circumstances are created or brought about by the Judge as would rob him of the confidence that a litigant may have in the Judge. We can do no better than reproduce as under the observations of late Munir, CJ:-
“Thus no Judge can be a Judge in his own cause, or in a case in which he is personally interested, not because his decision must invariably be in his own favour but on the principle that justice must not only be done but see[n] to be done, and however right the Judge deciding a cause in his own favour may be, neither the public nor the aggrieved party will be satisfied with the adjudication, and its result will be vacated by the Court of Appeal at the instance of the dissatisfied party.”
24. It may be added at this juncture that the consideration of bias is a branch of the
principles of natural justice. It is now agreed on all hands that there are certain broad
principles of natural justice deducible from two Latin maxims firstly, Nemo Debet Esse
Judex in Propria Sua Causa which formed the foundation of the doctrine firstly, that no
one can be a judge in his own cause which in a wide application means that a judicial or
quasi-judicial authority not only himself [must] not be a party but must also not be
interested as a party in the subject-matter of the dispute which he has to decide and; the
second principle is Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side). Bias is said to be of three
different kinds:

(a) A Judge may have a bias in the subject-matter which means that he is himself a party or has direct connection with the litigation, so as to constitute a legal interest. A ‘legal interest’ means that the Judge is ‘in such a position that a bias must be assumed’.
(b) A pecuniary interest in the cause, however, slight, will disqualify the
Judge, even though it is not proved that the decision has in fact been affected by reason of such interest. For this reason, where a person
having such interest sits as one of the Judges the decision is vitiated
.

there is any allegation of personal bias, the question which should be
satisfied is: “Is there in the mind of the litigant a reasonable
apprehension that he would not get a fair trial?” The test is whether
there is a “real likelihood of prejudice”, but it does not require certainty.
“Real likelihood” is the apprehension of a reasonable man apprised of
the facts and not the suspicion of fools or “capricious persons”.
(emphasis provided).

25. No doubt, the judges of the superior courts are blessed with a judicial conscience
but the question nonetheless is whether a particular judge of the subordinate or the
superior judiciary against whom the allegation of bias is alleged is possessed of judicial
conscience. This litmus test is indeed very difficult but certainly not impossible. The
circumstances of a particular case wherein bias of a judge is alleged would themselves
speak volumes for the same. In other words, the principle is well settled that a judge of
the Superior Court is a keeper of his own conscious and it is for him to decide to hear or
not to hear a matter before him. However, in the present case we are not inclined to
adhere to the said settled principle because bias is floating on the surface of the record.
26. Admittedly, the assets etc of the two appellants were frozen by the Bench
headed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. in Ehtesab Reference No. 26/1998 on 27th
April, 1998. This fact also stands admitted that Ehtesab Reference No. 26/1998 was
temporarily entrusted to the Bench headed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. The
undisputed material made available on the record makes it manifest that Malik
Muhammad Qayyum, J. had already moved an application for the grant of a
diplomatic passport for himself and his wife which had reached the Prime Minister
Secretariat on the 17th April, 1998, along with the following summary:-

“SECRET
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SUMMARY FOR THE PRIME MINISTER
Subject: Request for Issuance of Diplomatic Passports to
Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Judge Lahore High Court and his Wife.
1. The Ministry of Law has requested for grant of diplomatic passports to Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Judge Lahore High Court and his wife.

affected by reason of such interest. For this reason, where a person
having such interest sits as one of the Judges the decision is vitiated.
(c) A Judge may have a personal bias towards a party owing to
relationship and the like or he may be personally hostile to a party as a

result of events happening either before or during the trial. Whenever
there is any allegation of personal bias, the question which should be
satisfied is: “Is there in the mind of the litigant a reasonable
apprehension that he would not get a fair trial?” The test is whether
there is a “real likelihood of prejudice”, but it does not require certainty.
“Real likelihood” is the apprehension of a reasonable man apprised of
the facts and not the suspicion of fools or “capricious persons”.
(emphasis provided).

25. No doubt, the judges of the superior courts are blessed with a judicial conscience
but the question nonetheless is whether a particular judge of the subordinate or the
superior judiciary against whom the allegation of bias is alleged is possessed of judicial
conscience. This litmus test is indeed very difficult but certainly not impossible. The
circumstances of a particular case wherein bias of a judge is alleged would themselves
speak volumes for the same. In other words, the principle is well settled that a judge of
the Superior Court is a keeper of his own conscious and it is for him to decide to hear or
not to hear a matter before him. However, in the present case we are not inclined to
adhere to the said settled principle because bias is floating on the surface of the record.
26. Admittedly, the assets etc of the two appellants were frozen by the Bench
headed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. in Ehtesab Reference No. 26/1998 on 27th
April, 1998. This fact also stands admitted that Ehtesab Reference No. 26/1998 was
temporarily entrusted to the Bench headed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. The
undisputed material made available on the record makes it manifest that Malik
Muhammad Qayyum, J. had already moved an application for the grant of a
diplomatic passport for himself and his wife which had reached the Prime Minister
Secretariat on the 17th April, 1998, along with the following summary:-

“SECRET
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SUMMARY FOR THE PRIME MINISTER
Subject: Request for Issuance of Diplomatic Passports to
Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Judge Lahore High Court and his Wife.
1. The Ministry of Law has requested for grant of diplomatic passports to Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Judge Lahore High Court and his wife.

2. According to the rules covering the issuance of diplomatic passports, Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum and his wife are not entitled to hold a diplomatic passport. It may further be noted that Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court are not entitled to the grant of diplomatic passports. If an exception is made in one case, other members of the Judiciary are likely to ask for similar privileges. This Ministry is, therefore, not in favour of making an exception in the case.
3. The Prime Minister’s kind orders are nevertheless solicited on Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum’s request.
4. The Foreign Minister has seen and approved the Summary.
Sd/-
(Anwar Kemal)
Acting Foreign Secretary

Prime Minister’s Secretariat (Mr.Tauqir Hassain, Additional
Secretary (FA), Islamabad).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs U.O.No.S/FS/AD 56/98 dated 17-3-
1998.

Prime Minister has been pleased to approve Para 1 above: grant of diplomatic passports to Mr. Justice Malik M. Qayyum, Judge, Lahore High Court and his wife.

Sd/-
Secretary, Foreign Affairs 30-041998”

27. It is noteworthy that on the same summary the following direction was given by Senator Saifur Rehman, who was then in charge of Ehtesab Cell, to one of his subordinate Officers:-

“Mr.Sami Khilji please have it delivered to Justice Qayyum”

Regards Sd/-
Saif

28. The order with regard to the freezing of properties and assets etc. of the appellants
was passed on 27th April, 1998 while on 30th April, 1998, the Prime Minister approved
the grant of diplomatic passports to the learned Judge and his wife ignoring the
formidable objection raised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was candidly conceded
by the learned Attorney General for Pakistan that no Judge of the Superior Courts is
entitled to grant of a diplomatic passport except the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

29. The unchallenged document in respect of the grant of diplomatic passports not only
goes a long way to suggest that Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. had acquired a
personal interest in the case by deriving an out of the way favour of the grant of
diplomatic passports to him and his wife but also divulges a close liaison between the
learned Judge, Senator Saifur Rehman and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the then
Prime Minister whose political rivalry with Ms. Benazir Bhutto appellant is a matter of
common knowledge.
30. There is yet another undisputed circumstance, highlighted by Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, from which inference of partiality of the learned Judge and liaison with the then Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif can be safely drawn. It is that Malik Parvez, real brother of Malik Muhammad Qayyum J., was a sitting Member National Assembly of PML (N) having been elected unopposed through a bye-election against a seat vacated by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.
31. The order of defreezing of the assets of the appellants passed by another Bench seized of Reference No.26 of 1998 was not produced before us. Be that as it may, the order appears to have aggravated and not diminished the personal interest of Malik Muhammad Qayyum J. in the case whose link with Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, who was diametrically opposed to Ms. Benazir Bhutto appellant cannot be denied. This conclusion of ours gets complete support from the principle enunciated in para 22 of the judgment in the case of Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 140 that “there seems to be judicial consensus that a Judge having pecuniary or proprietary interest or any other personal interest in the subject matter of a case before him cannot hear the case (emphasis provided).

32. Initially Ehtesab Reference No. 30/1998 was pending at Lahore from where it was
transferred by this Court on 14th December, 1998 to Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High
Court vide judgment in the case of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto supra (1999 SCMR 759).
At that time an Ehtesab Bench comprising Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Sheikh
Amjad Ali, JJ. was already functioning and was seized of, inter alia, another Ehtesab
Reference No.31/1998 pending decision against Ms. Benazir Bhutto. Notwithstanding
the ratio of the judgment of Mohtar

To the utter surprise of all, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs on Tuesday unanimously passed the drafts of Reformed General Sales Tax (RGST) Bill and Flood Surcharge Bill with all diehard opponents – both in ruling alliance and Opposition – keeping complete mum except making a few recommendations to be incorporated in the aforementioned drafts.
The Committee met under the chair of Senator Islamuddin Shaikh. The Committee Chairman Senator Ahmed Ali, an MQM MNA and a strong opponent of RGST, was not present in the two-day meeting. The Committee did not face any hurdle in the passage of the drafts of these bills, as neither opposition party nor the coalition partners opposed them.
The Committee members suggested giving tax exemptions to all food items whether they were packed/ canned or open commodities. Similarly they demanded that the Government should also exempt all types of locally produced medicines and stationary items including books from taxes.
Talking about Flood Surcharge Bill, the Senators suggested that minimum level for this tax should be enhanced to Rs 0.5 million instead of Rs 0.3 million. These recommendations would be presented in the Upper House of the Parliament in the next couple of days, which would then refer them to the Lower House.
The Committee approved increase in Special Excise Duty from one to two per cent.
Earlier talking in the meeting, Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh said, “We have no other option but to introduce RGST in the country for revenue generation.” He was of the view that prices of those items would go up which were still exempted from the taxes, while prices of some commodities would come down, as the GST percentage would be reduced to 15 percent from 17 per cent in RGST, he added.

dear chairman sahib.ppp aik nuzriati jamat hai aur aaj 44 saal ki history shuhdas ki qurbanion se bhari pari hai kionkay iski bunyad shaheed bhutto ne rukhi thi.aaj tareekh ka aik siah din hai jub bhutto k qatal zia ul haq k staff officer jo bhutto sahib ki shahdat k waqat zia ul haq k deputy military secretary tha colonel mohammad aziz khan aur bhutto sahib ki shahdat pay inki begum shamshad aziz ne begum shafiqa zia ko mithai laa k dee thi aur puray army house mai baanti thi.iskay baad aziz gen zia k sath as brigadier military secretary raha aur benazir shaheed k ghar major qayum jo k aziz khan ka punjab regiment ka dost tha benazir ko budnaam kurnay bb k ghar bhaija k meray bb se najaiz taluqat hain.zia ul haq ki ibrat naq moat k waqat uss waqat brigadier aziz aur uski biwi shamshad aziz ne jinaza k tamam intzamat kiay thay iska saboot uss waqat ki pictures se daikh lain.phir 1996 mai major gen aziz ne isi mai reh k taliban bunai aur uss waqat afghan leaders aur farooq leghari ko gen hamifd gul k sath mil kur convince kya k bb aur zardari islam aur pakistan k liay security risk hain.phir ye he general aziz thay jinhun ne farooq leghari ko colonel rafiq leghari k through paigham bhijwaya k zardari aapki beti ki blue movies release kur raha hai.baad mai gen mushraaf k sath nawaz sharif ki hakumat khatam kurnay k baad gen aziz ne he faisal saleh hayat ko bulwa kur patriot group bunwaya tha aur baad mai zardari sahib ko lahore mai b tung kurwaya 2004 mai.2008 mai inkay baitay weaqas ki shadi k moqa pur lahore se special bhand bulwa kur zardari sb aur bb k khilaf parody mehndi pay sub ko sunwai.aaj yehi general aziz ki begum jo k bb ko budkirdar aur zardari sb ko mr 90 percent kehtay thay sabiq wazeer azam ajk haji yaqub k sath mil kur kul pallandri mai ppp join kurnay ka ailan kya ha.haji yaqub ko begun shamshad ne yaqeen dilwaya hai k wo isko fauj ki support dilwaingi aur next pm bunwaingi jubkay khud begun shamshad ladies seat pur assembly mai aingi.kya aaj ppp pay itna bura waqat aa gya ha k bhutto sahib kay qatil ppp mai shamil ho rahay hain aur mithai baantunai walay jo zardari choar k naray lugatay thay aaj ppp mai aa rahay hain.nab mai inki beti hina ka susar major mashood lodhi hotay thay aur unhun ne wahan se billions se ziada ki corruption ki aur red handed pukray gai aur aaj b jail mai hai aur mirzai b hai.agar ppp ne in loagun ko rukha tu HUM ZARDARI KO CHOAR KEHNAY WALY AUR MR 90 PERCENT KEHNAY WALAY GENERAL AZIZ AUR ISKI BIVI KO KUBHI BURDASHAT NAHI KURAINGAY BULKAY APNA VOTE PML N KO DAI DAINGAY WO BHUTTO KAY QATIL AUR ZARDARI KO LAST 30 YEARS SE CHOAR TU NAHI KEHTAY RAHAY.GEN AZIZ AUR ISKI BIVI NE GEN ZIA K REFERENDUM AUR USKAY BAAD EJAZ UL HAQ KI TAMAM ELECTION COMPAIGNS CHULAIN AUR 2008 ELECTIONS MAI ZAMURAD KHAN K KHILAF EJAZ UL HAQ AUR HANIF ABBASI KI SUPPORT KI THI AUR PML N K SUPPORTER HAIN

Cold war between PML-N and MQM has a long history since 1990s and due to their ongoing war sometimes nation faces something very unpleasant, as they did some days back in the end of december which was very ashamed for both parties, such abusing and irreverent words were uttered on both sides which is unthinkable for their voters; dirty politics of these political rivalaries is damaging already tinted image of politicians. Both parties represent urban areas of Pakistan but their leaders have got wisdom not more than a coward of a populous village of the rural areas. Intense war of words seemed to be non-stop at one stage meanwhile PPP’s central information secretary Fauzia wahab called for cease their unethical warfare of words, she used to play constructive role and always good statements are given whenever such political imbroglio is surfaced. She has represented her party very best since her appointment as Central information secretary and now she has become face of PPP. She used to discourage divide and rule policy infact she acts as mediator to shun the differences among all political groups. Talking to media she said that political leaders must not use abusing language against each other and their inappropriate manners would make worst current political stand-off. Then the father figure of this political setup president asif ali zardari also stressed both parties heads to rein in thier leaders, and eventually matter was settled when rival groups’ heads intervened upto now there is pin drop silence in the atmosphere but what will happen next is again unpredictable.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/11/court-convicts-imam-and-son-for-blasphemy.html now mullah isnt safe of blesphemy laws…nice news…

پنجاب میں ایم کیو ایم کا مقدمہ
ارشد سلہری
\ ایم کیو ایم کی پنجاب میں آمد خوش آئندہ امر ہی۔پنجاب میں ایم کیو ایم کو کھلے دل سے عوام نے خوش آمدید کہاہی۔ گزشتہ سال راقم کو پنجاب کے مختلف شہروں گوجرانوالہ،سیالکوٹ مرید کے ، نارووال ،لاہور جانے کا اتفاق ہوا ،یہاں بڑی تعداد میں ایم کیو ایم کے دفاتر نظر آئے اور ایم کیو ایم کے جھنڈے اور الطاف حسین کی تصاویر آویزاں نظر آئیں۔ مناظر بہت اچھے تھی،گزشتہ روز ایم کیو ایم نے لاہور قذافی سٹیڈیم کے فٹ بال گرائونڈ میں جلسہ کا انعقاد کیا اور پاور شو کرنے کی کوشش کی ہی۔جلسہ کی حاضری کیا تھی۔ شرکاء کی تعداد اور لوگوں کی ایم کیو ایم میں دلچسپی میرا موضووع نہیں ہے کیونکہ جلسوں میں شرکاء کی تعداد اور جلسوں کے حجم سے کسی بھی سیاسی جماعت کی عوامی مقبولیت اور سیاسی قد کا ٹھ کا اندازہ لگانا درست نہیں ہی۔ جماعت اسلامی اور جماعت دعوہ کے جلسے بھی بڑے بڑے ہوتے ہیں لیکن پنجاب کی عوام بالخصوص ووٹ ڈالتے ہوئے کسی اور کا انتخاب کرتی ہی۔ میرا مو ضوع عوام کی مایوسی، دکھ،تکالیف،مہنگائی،بے روزگاری ہے کہ آیا ایم کیو ایم مذکورہ مسائل کے حل کیلئے کوئی واضح روڈ میپ، لائحہ عمل کوئی پروگرام دے رہی ہی۔ جس کی بنا پر عوام ایم کیو ایم کا انتخاب کررہے ہیں۔ اور اگر ایسا ہی ہے تو اس وقت عوام مسلم لیگوں،پیپلز پارٹی اور مذہبی جماعتوں سے مایوس ہیں، ایک بڑا خلا ہی۔ قیادت کا شدید بحران ہی۔ یہاں یہ سوال پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ ایم کیو ایم میں ایسی کوئی صلاحیت ہی؟ کہ وہ اپنے سیاسی فلسفہ ، اپنے سابقہ ریکارڈ،سیاسی نظریات یا پروگرام کے ذ ریعے پنجاب کی عوا م کو جیت لے گی؟ اس سوال کا جواب نہیں مل رہا ہی۔جو کہ اصل مسئلہ ہے اور ایم کیو ایم شاید اس سوال کا جواب دے بھی نہ سکی، راقم کی حاصل کردہ معلومات اور ذاتی مشاہدات کے مطابق پنجاب میں ایم کیو ایم کے اب تک کے زیادہ تر ذمہ داران اپنے حلقہ اور علاقے میں اچھی شہرت کے حامل نہیں ہیں۔ اکثریت نوسربازوں اورجرائم پیشہ ذہنیت، آوارہ گردوں اور سیاسی اپروچ سے عاری افراد ہیں، جو ایم کیو ایم کے تحصیل اور صوبائی سطح پر عہدوں اور ذمہ داریوں پر بر جمان ہیں اور وہ ایم کیو ایم میں اپنے خاص عزائم اور مقاصد کیلئے شامل ہوئے ہیں۔ اس کے علاوہ ماسوائے چند ایک کے کوئی بھی سنجیدہ شخص تاحال ایم کیو ایم میں شامل نہیں ہوا اور یہ ایک ایسی حقیقت ہے کہ جس سے کوئی بھی انکار نہیں کرسکتا ہی۔یہی ایک ایسی وجہ ہے کہ جس کے باعث پنجاب میں ایم کیو ایم کی پہلے دن سے کوئی حیثیت نہیں رہی ہے اور ایم کیو ایم کے بارے میں جورائے عامہ تھی اس پر مہر تصدیق ثبت ہوگئی ہے کہ ایم کیو ایم’’بدمعاش‘‘(معذرت کے ساتھ) جماعت ہی۔ پنجاب میں عام آدمی ایم کیو ایم کو سیاسی جماعت کی بجائے دوسری حیثیت دے رہے ہیں۔ اور شہروں میں ایم کیو ایم کے نئے بنائے جانیوالے ذ مہ داران اپنا پہلا فرض اپنی دہشت بنانا ادا کرتے ہوئے نظر آتے ہیں۔ کہ ؟؟تمہیں معلوم نہیں میں ایم کیوایم کا فلاح ہوں’’ اگر میری بات نہ مانی گئی تو ایک منٹ میں شہر کی اینٹ سے اینٹ بجا سکتا ہوںوغیرہ وغیرہ۔ بعض کو ان کی ایسی حرکات کی وجہ سے منہ کی بھی کھانا پڑی ہے اور بعض حوالات کی سیر تک بھی جا چکے ہیں۔پہلا امیج تو ایم کیو ایم کا یہ ہے ۔ پنجاب میں اگر ہم دوسری جانب دیکھیں تو ایم کیو ایم پنجاب کے عوام سمیت پاکستان بھر میں کوئی واضح سیاسی پروگرام نہیں دے پائی ہے اور نہ وہی واضح نظریات نظر آتے ہیں۔ قائد تحریک الطاف حسین انقلاب کی بات کرتے ہیں۔نعرے لگاتے ہیں وہ کبھی انقلاب فرانس کی مثال دیتے ہیں اور مڈل طبقے کی بات کرتے ہیں، جس کا حقیقی معانوں میں کوئی وجود ہی نہیں ہی۔انقلاب کی کوئی واضح سمت نظر نہیں آتی ہے ۔جس کے باعث جو باشعور نوجوان،طالب علم،محنت کش ہیں ۔ایم کیو ایم کی جانب جانے سے ہچکچاتے ہیں۔ایم کیو ایم میں الطاف بھائی کی پوجا پاٹ ہی۔ نظریات کی تعلیم یا تربیت نہیں ہے ۔شخصیت پر ستی کی انتہا ہی۔ جس کے باعث ا یک خاص قسم کاماحول اور صورتحال ہے ۔ جس میں کام کرنا ہر شخص کیلئے آسان نہیں ہوتا ہی۔ پنجاب میں ایم کیو ایم کے شور شرابے سے ایک بات ضرور ہے کہ عوام میں انقلاب کی بازگشت کو تقویت ملی ہے اور کھلے عام انقلاب کا نعرہ لگایا جانے لگا ہے اور ایک ہلچل کی سی کیفیت پیدا ہوتی ہوئی نظر آتی ہی۔ اس سارے عمل میں مسلم لیگ(ن) ہی واحد جماعت ہی۔ جس کیلئے کچھ پریشانی ہوسکتی ہے ۔باقی ایم کیو ا یم سے کسی بھی جماعت کو کوئی خاص فرق نہیں پڑنے والا ہی۔ مسلم لیگ ن کو اس لئے کہ مسلم لیگ ن میں جاگیر دارانہ، اجارہ دارانہ اور سرمایہ دارانہ سوچ پائی جاتی ہی۔مسلم لیگ ن کا کا رکن اس ح حوالے سے اپنی سیاسی وابستگی پر نظر ثانی کر سکتا ہے ۔مسلم لیگ ن کو نقصان ہوگا اور وہ بھی معمولی نوعیت کا ہی ہوگا۔ اس کے علاوہ ایم کیو ا یم پنجاب میں زیادہ اثر انداز ہوتی ہوئی نظر نہیں آتی ہی۔ پنجاب کے عوام روایت پسند ہیں۔پاکستان بھر سمیت پنجاب کے عوام کی روایت بھی پیپلز پارٹی ہے ۔ک جس کی روایت ذوالفقاعلی بھٹو کی قائم کردہ ہے ۔اس روایت کو توڑنا اور اس کی جگہ نئی روایات کو قائم کرنا کم از کم جناب الطاف حسین اور ایم کیو ا یم کے بس کی بات نہیں ہے کہ وہ پرانی روایات کو توڑ کرنئی راویات کو رواج دیں ۔ ایسا ہوتا ہوا آئندہ00 سال میں بھی نظر نہیں آرہا ہے ۔ایم کیو ایم یا الطاف حسین اس کو توڑ نہیں سکتے ہیں۔’’ مزدور کا بھٹو آج بھی زندہ ہی۔ یہ میں نہیں کہہ رہا ہوں۔ اگر کسی کو شک وشبہ ہے تو مزدورں کے پاس جا کر دیکھ لی۔ کسی غریب کی جھونپڑی میں جھانک کر دیکھ لی۔ غریبوں، ہاریوں ،کسانوں اور محنت کشوں کا بھٹو زندہ ہے اور جب تک محنت کشوں، ہاریوں ،کسانوں اور غریب کا بھٹو زند ہ ہے ، تب تک کوئی دوسرا کسے پنپ سکتا ہے ہاں بھٹو کی جگہ کوئی دوسرا لایا جائے ،تو پھر بات بن سکتی ہی۔ جس کا امکان ابھی تک نظر نہیں آرہا ہی۔ اور ایم کیو ایم اس کی اہلیت،صلاحیت نہیں رکھتی ہے کہ وہ پنجاب میں متبادل کے طور پر اپنا آپ منوا سکے اور عوام کے دلوں کو جیت سکی۔

It would have been better if there is statement on first page that it belongs to PPP then they have right to say things about ISI Army and other political parties, otherwise it is not appropriate to make blogs which looks like independent but are not [Don’t take it in negative sense when ISI can make propaganda against PPP then why they CAN NOT :)].

I have taken the liberty of using one of your photographs (the durgah of Data Ganj Baksh) for my blog. Please let me know if it is o.k. with you, otherwise I shall remove it from my blog.
Thanks in advance.

SUPPORT DEMOCRACY,
NOT DEMONCRACY

BY JAVED ZAHEER, FREE EXPRESSION AWARD WINNER

TORONTO: Because of the guidance, blessings and protection by The Almighty I am alive and whatever I have—contentment, peace, respect and success—and am today— professional journalist.
My passion, commitment and love for writing and to serve humanity gave me the tremendous strength to remain part of the journalism profession since 1974, despite extremely difficult times and tough challenges including attempts on my life. They only increased my determination to face them more strongly and fiercely.
The writing for living was just a part but mainly it was for a cause since the beginning. The sacred cause is to serve humanity in whatever ways possible. Even fear of death in worst health conditions and challenging situations could not scare and stop me from writing and serving. I just enjoy my professional and humanity work and derive great satisfaction from them. These become the best parts of my life.
In Canada, I am writing since my arrival in 1999. My position remains the same—honorary basis and freelance journalist. I am serving the people worldwide through many electronic and print media platforms. The Almighty has blessed me with great success and respect.
In Canada also, if I was not working on Honorary Basis, I would have been FIRED from my job and STOPPED from using many media platforms. Such was the intense pressure on people managing English Weekly Pakistan Abroad, where I am serving as Honorary Editor.
The team of `Pakistan Abroad’ is very much intact and more determined to serve the people and promote love, peace, awareness, understanding, good people and true leadership. Adventures, threats and dangers are part of our lives and professional duties and responsibilities.
The bitter truth of parties and leaders brought before the readers are meant to expose those playing with the lives, fate and hard earned money of the people. We are for real democracy and not evil demoncracy. This is the simple difference between us and others. As Canadians, we cannot allow any harm to the people, system or Canada. This is what we try to do.
It is hoped that all leaders and parties will understand and appreciate our policies and performance and support us in practically serving the people, Canada and the country of origin—our Pakistan and of all others.
When we write about our country of origin, we try to help the people and country. We have nothing against the land and the people. We very much love both of them and get disturbed when see them in hardship, difficulty, danger, pain and trouble.
Our struggle and fight is against all those harming the people and the country—corrupt ones and traitors. We are not helpless and just cannot see people suffering and dying whether in Pakistan, Canada or anywhere. No threats or dangers can scare or stop us from helping, supporting, protecting and serving the people.
I do receive `suggestions’ from Pakistan as well not to write openly and fiercely about the situation and happenings in Pakistan. Thanks to the freedom of expression in Canada that I am able to serve in the best possible ways through writing. Canada gave me the best opportunities and rights and I am fully benefiting and enjoying them.
If I was in Pakistan, I too would have been brutally tortured and mercilessly killed either by the extremists or agencies. This is because I cannot stop myself from writing for the people, country and humanity. This has become a crime in Pakistan. The corrupt ones and traitors cannot tolerate this. This is against their vested interests.
People know very well that some journalists in Pakistan are on the payroll of the foreign agencies including CIA, Mossad and RAW and are working against the people and Pakistan. They are busy collecting secrets and passing them to their foreign masters. The military and civil agencies keep monitoring them. When they become a real threat, they are stopped or eliminated. This is done in the interest of Pakistan and the people.
But the scaring and killing of all journalists busy in performance of their professional duties and responsibilities should be condemned in the strongest words. Nobody is above the law and all those involved in such heinous crimes must be exposed, stopped and severely punished whether they are extremists or agencies.
We must fully support the journalist community in Pakistan so that they can be protected and allowed to perform their duties fearlessly and professionally.
The black sheep in the journalist community and their partners and supporters, who are on payrolls and involved in espionage and harm to the people and Pakistan, must be exposed and punished.
This cannot be allowed at any cost. We cannot allow any harm to the people and land whether it is Pakistan or Canada. Both the countries and their people are very much dear to us.
—Javed Zaheer (JAZA/JAYZEE/JZEE), Free Expression Award Winner, Desi Idol Recognition Award Winner, Member/Honorary Director of NEPMCC, Veteran Active Member (VAM) of Toronto Press Club, Ex-Member of The National Club and The Ontario Club, Honorary Editor of English Weekly `Pakistan Abroad’, ex-Chief Editor (Honorary) of English Weekly `The Ambassador’, ex-Senior Sub-Editor of English Daily DAWN, Pakistan, Chairman, CANOPI, and Director, Canpak Camber of Commerce, is contributing purely on Voluntary and Honorary Basis in order to serve all people and communities. Contact: (416)696-0981/ [email protected].
To read more JZ’s exclusive articles, please visit the following websites: http://www.letstree.com (Pressing needs of the world section), nepmcc.ca and
nationalethnicpress.com (Home Pages & Editorial Sections. Scan years from 2004 to 2010), pakistanabroad.ca (Issues) and caribbeanbusinessmagazine.ca.
NOTE: PLEASE READ AND FORWARD TO ALL CONTACTS/GROUPS SO THAT MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE/ COMMUNITIES ANYWHERE COULD BENEFIT. LET’S HELP BUILD BRIDGES AND LIVE & WORK TOGETHER FOR SUCCESS AND PROGRESS.
BEST REGARDS: JAVED ZAHEER, CANADIAN OF PAKISTANI ORIGIN.
DEDICATED TO SERVE, CREATE LOVE, AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING

میں یہ کہوں گا کہ سیاسی بلاگز میں ایل یو بی پی کا اب تک کوئی ثانی نہیں ہے۔ گو میں رائٹ ونگ کا آدمی ہوں اور لیفٹ اور پیپلز پارٹی کی بہت سے نظریات سے مجھے اختلاف ہے لیکن چند چیزوں پر ایل یو بی پی کے مستقل بلاگرز اور میرا اتفاق جیسے اینٹی فوجی اسٹبلشمیٹ ہونا اور بلوچستان کے لوگوں کی بات کرنا وغیرہ

it is now very clear that ppp is the victim of judicial activism. even the people like Muhammad Malik and Raja salman admit the fact. watch today’s program LAKIN of SANA BUCHA on geo tv. i dont have time or the resources to publish it. watch it urself

Trial or Wrath of Allah!

By: Zubair Khan

For many years now Pakistan seems to be engulfed with ever increasing internal/external disturbances, turmoil and natural calamities. These internal/external disturbances, turmoil and natural calamities jolt the country either in the shape of terrorist attacks, sectarian based killings or in the form of earthquakes and floods. Same time armed gangs belonging to various Islamic, ethnical and ideological groups have hijacked the whole nation. Disappearance of human beings, belonging to rival religious belief and ideology groups, and later discovery of their distorted and degenerated bodies have become a daily phenomenon in various parts of the country. Kidnapping of wealthy and influential to demand ransom is a lucrative business these days. Electricity, CNG load shedding, corruption and bad governance in each department of life have further added to the miseries of ordinary Pakistani. Various activities of military brass, judiciary and civil elite to down grade each other dragging the country in to further deeper waters and heading for dire consequences. Without exception each Pakistani seems to have lost the characteristic of patience and even on petty matters all keep on fighting with each other. Almost all consider their life in hell on this part of the planet. Such continued pathetic state of affairs surprises many analysts and force them to ponder for a deeper research to find out the reasons.
Sometimes ago Mr. Salim Safi, presenter of Geo TV program Jirgah, aired a program on the topic given as the title of this article. On telephone line, during the program, he connected live few Ulemas and other notables of the country. At least each “religious Aalim” of the country declined to accept the present pathetic state of the country as wrath of God rather termed it as trial for the nation to learn lesson and improve spiritual behavior. According to single argument of these religious Aalims the wrath of God targets a nation only when some messenger of God is sent and nation refuses to accept him. According to the interpretation of these religious Aalims, chapter of coming of any messenger of God has since been closed as such no chance for Pakistani nation to deny such messenger thus question of wrath of God on Pakistani nation is ruled out for ever. Someone attempted to bring in the concept of promised Imam Mehdi and Messiah. However in such programs since the control always remains with presenter as such this voice was pressed down.

Now here one very pertinent question arises. Throughout two centuries, whole Muslim Ummah was waiting for the prophesied Imam Mehdi and Messiah. Designated time line approached and passed. Meanwhile Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian claimed to be the promised Imam Mehdi and Messiah. Immediately hue and cry spread and the majority of Muslim Ummah threw him and his followers out of the pale of Islam. Till today the founder of Ahamdiyya Community is considered to be infidel and impostor. From the time the founder of Ahamdiyya Community made the claim, no other claimant came in the field. Rather now this chapter of Imam Mehdi and Messiah almost seems to have been closed and no one expects any heavenly entity anymore. However when we make comparison between Muslims of Pakistan relative to Ahamdiyya Community very distinguished facts reveal. In spite of opposition of whole Muslim Ummah this community is flourishing each day. It is most organized, disciplined and spirited community. In whole of the world community is in forefront for the construction of the mosques. The community has translated holy Quran in more than 50 languages. Community owns its television net work known as MTA (Muslim Television Ahamdiyya) broadcasting the Islamic programs round the clock in many famous languages of the world. These days, in many developed countries the community is taken as the sole representative of moderate and peaceful Islam. Community has openly claimed that in its history of 123 years, never ever any member of the community indulged in extremist or anti state activities. Community is led by a supreme head which is called Khalifa and all members offer unconditional allegiance to Khalifa and obey him in all good things.

Here now million dollar question arises. If the founder of Ahamdiyya community was infidel or impostor that too on the name of Allah and Islam, why then community is prospering every day? During 123 years of its history why any worldly power did not succeed destroy this movement. Rather there are obvious examples where many powerful entities perished when they tried to strangulate this community. Very openly supreme head of community is announcing the truth of founder of community as promised Imam Mehdi and Messiah and terming the miseries of Pakistan as wrath of God due to maltreatment of Ahamdiyya community in that country. Here one can say why to single out Pakistan while all other countries also did not accept this claimant. According to community members, Pakistan was the homeland to the community after partition of India as such ought to suffer directly for any wrong deeds done with the community. It is the Pakistan which is at fore front for anti Ahamdiyya activities and maximum anti- ahmadiyya atrocities are committed in this country. Further it is the only country where anti ahmadiyya legislation has been done and every day hundreds of thousands declare the founder of community as impostor.

Analysis of prevalent state of affairs in Pakistan apparently supports the claim of Ahamdiyya Community. Is there anyone who can ponder on this point so that Pakistani nation can be told about truth. Quran is full of incidents where nations were wiped out due to atrocities committed against the messengers of God and their followers. Lest it becomes too late to realize, nation and its religious experts should wake up to consider this point.

Makes me worry. The way Qadianis (Ahamdies) prsopering in the world speakes some thing special about them.

@Aamir Mughal

The same Qadiyani foreign Minister did not attended Quaid-e-Azam’s Nimaz e Janaza while being present on the occasions.

He said either He is Kafir FM of an Islamic country or Muslim FM of a kafir country….

In 1952 in Karachi Rally he declared Islam as dead religion and Qadiyaniat as alive….. I think history speaks for itself….

I just watched Dr. Oz talk about about tart cherry juice for gout pain. I Googled some from Traverse Bay Farms

Hi there just wanted to give you a quick heads up.
The words in your content seem to be running off the screen in Safari.

I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with browser compatibility but
I thought I’d post to let you know. The style and design look great though!
Hope you get the issue resolved soon. Kudos

Feel free to surf to my web-site: nike air max australia

It’s perfect time to make a few plans for the longer term and it’s time to be
happy. I have learn this submit and if I could I wish to recommend you few attention-grabbing
things or advice. Maybe you can write next articles relating to this article.
I wish to read more issues approximately it!

My page: nike air max 97

I think this is among the most vital information for me.
And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on few
general things, The web site style is great, the articles is really excellent :
D. Good job, cheers

Feel free to surf to my homepage :: Installaxy