Tag Archive | "Chief Justice"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 13th, …

Posted on 13 February 2012 by Tea Server

February 13th, 2012. Islamabad. For those of us still following the game of thrones taking place at the center, it appears that Prime Minister Gilani is running out of road. He’s taking a long walk off a short pier. Insert your own cliché here. The debate has overtaken the Prime Minister, the discussion is now focused on what Pakistan must do, post-Gilani. To write the letter or not? Will Senate elections go ahead or not? Will the PPP spin this ungraceful end to a five year term as a victory, will Gilani go back to Multan a living shaheed? Pity the constituency whose only claim to a fruitful five year term is a representative with a knack for getting stabbed in the stomach and making it look like he meant to fall on his sword. Gilani will end up being a sacrifice for an utterly worthless cause – twenty-eight million US dollars that will never be returned to the people of Pakistan. Ever.

The statute of limitations on the Swiss cases are rumored to be anywhere between April and August 2012. The time for reopening old cases is diminishing fast. Yet we insist that the court charade of the last few months was necessary – it’s not about the money, it’s about setting an institutional precedent.

It has been nearly two decades since our President and his late wife stole a mind-bubbling sum of money and squirreled it away into Swiss banks, mansions in Surrey, bank accounts in Dubai and trendy flats in London. Reading the famous 1998 New York Times article reinforces the idea that when politicians from very poor countries amass vast amounts of wealth, they are not likely to let go of it that easily. So forget fantasies of liquidating the Bhutto assets and paying off Pakistan’s international loans. The Pakistani Supreme Court can humiliate the Prime Minister, but it can’t overturn decades of sophisticated white collar crime, much of which takes place outside its judicial territory.

And surely impotence of this intensity is severely humiliating for Chief Justice Chaudhry himself. Having become the defacto arbitrator of every aggrieved party in Pakistan, he suddenly finds himself without any implementation power whatsoever. He is the supreme commander of a court system that is rotten at the foundation, fighting the country’s largest and most public corruption scandal while his own lower court clerks accept petty bribes to tie up litigation for years. His own middle-class biases against the landed elite of the PPP notwithstanding, Chaudhary now faces the task of living up to the dubious honor of being the sole institution in this country deemed impartial and uncorrupt. Which means that if he isn’t seen going after egregious acts of corruption, he will be immediately deemed implicit.

In the face of such impotence, charging and convicting a seated Prime Minister of contempt is a sufficiently bold task to secure Chaudhary’s tripod of potency: judicial independence, of having real power (as opposed to simply striking down the NRO and not being able to do a damn thing to implement it for a full two years), and of being a guardian of the people. Gilani’s removal, whenever it happens, will be sufficiently large to distract from the fact that the PM never stole the twenty-eight million. He never decided to write the letter, or not to write it, for that matter – any more than he decided to become Prime Minister. It will serve to silence those who suggest that post-reinstatement, the CJ has been “bought out” by the PPP, to outcry those who notice that investigations into sugar cartels, NILC, Hajj, Abbotabad,  and Karachi came to naught. It is eye candy for the myopic, a desperate sideshow to distract from a flaming circus of budget malfunctions, energy scams and policy fubars.

But lets not beat ourselves up too much. John Burns pointed out in 1998 that multilateral organizations such as the World Bank regularly support teetering Third World economies “bled dry” by corruption in exchange for weak promises of institutional reform. The last five years have been immensely lucrative for friends of the regime, for those individuals and institutions capable of buying out or bullying Mr. Hundered Percent. At last count, this included everyone from ARY Gold to the Pakistan Army, from AKD to NLC to the men who bring you fantastically overpriced imported cars at huge markups. Zardari did not invent corruption, but he’s a fine example (an institutional precedent, as it were) of just how successful some men and women become in countries with broken democratic systems. Where the Army can quietly wring the neck of anyone attempting to infringe on its economic and political territory. Where an entire Parliament – incumbent, opposition and all – routes all decision-making through the Supreme Court. Where a judge is deeply contemptuous of men who take advantage of their office for personal aggrandizement – and then goes and does exactly the same.

Syndicated from: Erum Haider

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pakistani Prime Minister Due in Court For Contempt Hearing

Posted on 13 February 2012 by Tea Server

As Reported by CNN

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan is due to appear Monday before the country’s Supreme Court, which plans to charge him with contempt in relation to a long-running struggle over old corruption cases.

Gilani is locked in a standoff with the Supreme Court justices, who are demanding that he ask the Swiss authorities to revive corruption charges from the previous decade against President Asif Ali Zardari and others.

Gilani has refused the court’s demands and could be jailed for six months if the justices find him in contempt. The court on Friday rejected an appeal by Gilani’s lawyers against the summons to face the contempt charge.

The lawyers have argued that the prime minister has not followed the court’s order because Zardari enjoys immunity in Pakistan and abroad as a president in office.

Gilani said in an interview over the weekend with the satellite news network Al Jazeera that he had an “extremely capable” lawyer and didn’t believe the court would jail him on the contempt charges.

If found guilty of contempt, the prime minister could be forced from office. But his lawyers have said he would keep his position unless electoral officials disqualified him.

Gilani served more than five years in prison between 2001 and 2006 on corruption charges brought by the previous military regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf — counts he said were also politically motivated.

The corruption cases that the Supreme Court now wants reopened stem from money-laundering charges against Zardari and his late wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. A Swiss court convicted them in absentia in 2003 of laundering millions of dollars.

After Musharraf granted a controversial amnesty in 2007 to Zardari, Bhutto, and thousands of other politicians and bureaucrats, Pakistan asked the Swiss authorities to drop the case. In 2009, the Pakistani Supreme Court ruled the amnesty was unconstitutional and called on the government to take steps to have the cases reopened.

The government has not done so, and the court apparently lost patience. Since Gilani is the head of the government, the court justices view him as responsible.

Filed under: Democracy, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis Tagged: Benazir Bhutto, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Pakistan, Pakistan Supreme Court, Pervez Musharraf, President Asif Ali Zardari, Swiss Court, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani

Syndicated from: Pakistanis for Peace

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Does Supreme court hate prosperity?

Posted on 11 February 2012 by Tea Server

10th February 2012, a Friday morning. You would think that Chief Justice Iftikar Mohammed Chaudhry would take the day off and enjoy the pleasant weather we are experiencing. You would think wrong! He seeks to destabilize the country and cause tensions in socio-economic circles as well as politics. How you say? By rejecting PM Gilani’s [...]

Does Supreme court hate prosperity? is a post from: PakMediaBlog All Rights Reserved.



Syndicated from: PakMediaBlog

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Appointment of SAC Chief Judge challenged in Supreme Court

Posted on 07 February 2012 by Tea Server

Asim Iqbal Islamabad, February 6: The appointment of former judge of Lahore High Court, Rana Arshad Khan,cas Chief Judge of Supreme Appellate Court Giglgit-Baltistan has been challenged in yhr Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, Dr Ghulam Abbas, in his constitutional petition has prayed to the apex court to issue stay order agaist the appointment and restrain [...]

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ISLAMABAD TONIGHT JAN 24, 2012

Posted on 24 January 2012 by Tea Server

ISLAMABAD TONIGHT

Islamabad Tonight – 24th January 2012
Islamabad Tonight – 24th January 2012
Lt.Gen (R) Abdul Qadir Baloch PML-N, Senator Muhammad Ibrahim Khan JI, Senator Tariq Azeem …
Duration: 00:37:13 |
Rating: RatingRatingRatingRatingRating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_X0NFtCIsEY

NADEEM MALIK
میمو ایک غبارہ تھا جس میں سے ہوا نکل چکی ہے۔ شرجیل میمن
منصور اعجاز کے پاکستان نہ آنے کے پیچھے شاید کوئی کہانی ہے۔ طارق عظیم
ہمارا مسئلہ صرف میمو پر کمشن بنوانا تھا اس کو حل کروانا ہمارا مسئلہ نہیں۔ عبدالقادر بلوچ
حقانی خود تو اپنے خلاف ثبوت نہیں دے گا منصور اعجاز کو پاکستان آنا پڑے گا۔ جسٹس طارق محمود
اس وقت فوج میمو کیس کو اہمیت نہیں دے رہی اور گواہ بھی نہیں آ رہا۔ پروفیسر ابراہیم
… لگتا ہے کہ پردے کے پیچھے کوئی کہانی ہے ورنہ آرمی چیف نے اپنا دستخط کیا ہوا بیان میمو کشن میں داخل کیا تھا۔طارق عظیم
میمو کیس میں حقیقی مدعی فوج ہے جو اب دلچسپی نہیں لے رہی۔ پروفیسر ابراہیم
اس سال اکتوبر یا نومبر میں الیکش ہونے کا امکان ہے۔ پروفیسر ابراہیم
نواز شریف اور عمران خان قبل از وقت الیکشن چاہتے ہیں اس سال الیکشن کا امکان موجود ہے۔ طارق عظیم
صدر اپنی پارٹیوں کے سربراہ ہیں ان کی جگہ بھی عبوری عہدیدار آنے چاہییں۔ پروفیسر ابراہیم
عجیب صورت حال ہے کہ سپریم کورٹ اور الیکشن کمشن آمنے سامنے کھڑے ہیں۔ پروفیسر ابراہیم

Islamabad tonight on aaj news – 24th january 2012
www.zemtv.comمیمو ایک غبارہ تھا جس میں سے ہوا نکل چکی ہے۔ شرجیل میمن منصور اعجاز کے پاکستان نہ آنے کے پیچھے شاید کوئی کہانی ہے۔ طارق عظیم ہمارا مسئلہ صرف میمو پر کمشن بنوانا تھا اس کو حل کروانا ہمارا مسئلہ نہیں۔ عبدالقادر بلوچ حقانی خود تو اپنے خلاف ثبوت نہیں دے گا منصور اعجاز کو پاکستان آنا پڑے گا۔ جسٹس طارق مح…

Share ·

NadeemMalikLive

Islamabad Tonight with Nadeem Malik 24th January 2012 -1

www.friendskorner.com

FriendsKorner129 views

NadeemMalikLive said:

میمو کیس میں حقیقی مدعی فوج ہے جو اب دلچسپی نہیں لے رہی۔ پروفیسر ابراہیم
اس سال اکتوبر یا نومبر میں الیکش ہونے کا امکان ہے۔ پروفیسر ابراہیم
میمو ایک غبارہ تھا جس میں سے ہوا نکل چکی ہے۔ شرجیل میمن
منصور اعجاز کے پاکستان نہ آنے کے پیچھے شاید کوئی کہانی ہے۔ طارق عظیم
ہمارا مسئلہ صرف میمو پر کمش…

remove

Islamabad Tonight with Nadeem Malik 24th January 2012 -2

Islamabad Tonight with Nadeem Malik 24th January 2012 -3

FriendsKorner1215 views

NadeemMalikLive said:

میمو ایک غبارہ تھا جس میں سے ہوا نکل چکی ہے۔ شرجیل میمن
منصور اعجاز کے پاکستان نہ آنے کے پیچھے شاید کوئی کہانی ہے۔ طارق عظیم
ہمارا مسئلہ صرف میمو پر کمشن بنوانا تھا اس کو حل کروانا ہمارا مسئلہ نہیں۔ عبدالقادر بلوچ
حقانی خود تو اپنے خلاف ثبوت نہیں دے گا منصور اعجاز کو پاکستان آنا پڑے گا۔ جسٹس …

Islamabad Tonight – 23rd January 2012

Justice (R) Shaiq Usmani Former Chief Justice of Sindh High Court, Justice (R) Saeed uz Zaman Siddiqui Former Chief Justice of Pakistan and Afaq Ah…

Islamabad tonight – 23rd january 2012 part 1

zemtv.com

hadiqas1786 views

NadeemMalikLive said:

میمو کے پیچھے کون لوگ ہیں تحقیقاتی کمشن کو پتہ لگانا چاہئیے۔ آفاق احمد
منصور اعجاز کے بارے میں حکومتی بیانات ایسے تھے کہ انہوں نے پاکستان نہ آنے کا فیصلہ کیا۔ شائق عثمانی
ہو سکتا ہے کہ منصور اعجاز پاکستان آتے تو ان کے ساتھ سلمان تاثیر والا سلوک کیا جاتا۔شائق عثمانی
منصور اعجاز کا بیان ویڈیو کانف..

remove

32:09Add to Islamabad Tonight – 19th January 2012Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan Advocate in an Exclusive Interview With Nadeem Malik in fresh episode of Islamabad Tonight on Aaj Tv. http://www.awaz.tvAwazAaj2,377 views NadeemMalikLive said: میرے خیال میں امکان ہے کہ سینٹ کے الیکشن کے بعد ملک میں عام انتخابات ہو جائیں۔ اعتزاز احسن میں کئیر ٹیکر حکومت میں کسی عہدے کا امیدوار نہیں عبوری حکومت صرف تین ماہ کے لئیے ہوتی ہے۔ مسلم لیگ ن کے اسمبلیوں سے استعفے دینے سے سینٹ کے الیکشن نہیں رک سکتے۔ فیصلہ وزیراعظم کے خلاف بھی ہو گیا تو اپیل کی …

Filed under: CURRENT AFFAIRS

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Predictions for 2012

Posted on 22 January 2012 by Tea Server

Ten Predictions for 2012 :
Pakistan is one of the most complicated places of the world , You can never contemplate when change is in the air and within seconds situations completely change .Whether it be the 1999 coup , Rise of the Chief Justice , Zia’s plane crash , one must wonder that the people of Pakistan has borne it all  but how wrong can we get. With the country looming in major crises, I would love to voice my opinion regarding its future which honestly is not that bright. 
Ten Preditions for 2012:
  1. Gillani will keep his seat : Yes I said it , and how much you hate for me this , but reality won’t change , Gillani will survive the ordeals of the supreme court, unlike musharaff he is a politician and not an administrator. Though how much we wish he would have been an effective administrator but he is an effective politician. Sidelining sovereignty , Aspirations of the common man  , Gillani rides on a strong and contend parliament and will need some miracle to knock him off his perch.
  2. Inflation will rise : Yes I don’t know the stats , but I know our rulers well enough. Inflation will increase despite some good economic conditions emerging. How will you expect the government to lower prices at the expense of their own prado’s etc ( Gillani I still remember that you promised to use a cultux and then later u went for a corolla but you never mentioned land Cruiser ).
  3. Hina Rabbani Khar will succeed where others failed : Khar is talented , there is no doubt about that. Though she lacks the persona of Qureshi and his precedents , she brings the women edge to the table. Her Russia visit will succeed and ties with India will gradually improve. Though a slight problem might be her carelessness to the issue of sovereignty.
  4. Imran the game changer : Now this is the most difficult to predict. Imran’s khan rise to fame has left many in the parliament wondering about their future. Especially after the inclusion of hashmi , Tahreek e Insaf has emerged as a big party . But with only Imran taking the top most position with no family members , one must wonder about the loyality of Qureshi , Swati , Tareen and other . For 2012 , I predict a huge sponsored propaganda against Imran on the media . However, if khan shows patience and some political instincts , he is well placed at the top slot for the PM position next elections .
  5.  Qadri will be freed : As grim as it may look to the liberals , I also don’t want this to happen. Though I am not a huge fan of Taseer and blame him and his party for the current state of affairs , but I have no proof of blasphemy on him and neither will the court. However , some sponsored elements will ensure that Qadri survives . I am not against Qadri , had Qadri killed for the love of Prophet , then he did one of the most noble things (sorry liberals ) but I have no proof against Taseer. Qadri should die for some and shaheed for others . Let Allah decide his fate and same goes for Taseer.
  6. Shahbaz Taseer / Shehrbano Taseer will enter Punjab Politics : PPP is in deep troubles and they need a savior and what better than those teary Shehrbano eyes. And as her tears flows , so will the hearts of the common man in Lahore and some name saving for PPPP atleast.
  7. Musharraf will return to realize he is Mr. Who : As angry as it may make the APML workers , but the reality is whenever Musharraf returns he will be disappointed . Though he was an amazing administrator but his shortcomings on political front especially on Laal Masjid issue,Supreme court and that ridiculous NRO will hurt him deeply. My advice to Mushi , stay there bro J
  8. Misbah- The Man : Yes I said it to all the afridi fanatics , Misbah is and will be the king . This year expect more stability more wins and more ‘TUKS’ from Misbah as he cruises Pakistani Cricket team to the number one spot . Do expect a couple of resignations as well .
  9. One more Pakistani will break the Olevels / Alevels record : I never get the fascination of giving ridiculous amount of Alevels Olevels Papers . Seriously , what does one achieve ,  ultimately a good student and one with 24 – 25 As end up in the same university . Oh sorry I forgot Unless you are Mr. Ali Moeen  Nawazish , you will be paid to represent the youth which despises you for increasing their parents expectation .suddenly 9 As in Olevels isn’t good enough
  10. And Lastly ; this is not a prediction this is a fact that  I know , Fawad Khan , that famous husband in the slowest soap opera of all time will emerge as a major star of Pakistani Industry , By 2013, Pakistan will have its own Shahrukh Khan .
Syndicated from: Pakistan Zindabad

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CONTEMPT NOTICE TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN

Posted on 19 January 2012 by Tea Server

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has issued a notice to the PrimeMinister of Pakistan asking him to show-cause as to why contempt of courtproceedings may not be initiated against him. (Contrary to what the media, bothprint and electronic, has been saying this does not amountto an initiation of contempt proceedings and the court cannot sentence the PrimeMinister when he appears in response to the notice) This action has been takenon account of the ire expressed by the court on the 16th of January,when the Attorney General told the court that he had not received anyinstructions from any “of those concerned” as stated by the court in its orderof January 10, 2012. Before dilating further it would be of benefit if therelevant paragraph of the order is quoted in full;
“6.The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan is hereby put on notice to addressarguments before this Court on the next date of hearing, after obtaininginstructions from those concerned, as to why any of the above mentioned optionsmay not be exercised by us in these matters. It goes without saying that anyperson likely to be affected by exercise of the above mentioned options mayappear before this Court on the next date of hearing and address this Court inthe relevant regard so that he may not be able to complain in future that hehad been condemned by this Court unheard. The learned Attorney-General forPakistan is directed to inform all such persons mentioned above about thepassage of this order and also about the next date of hearing.”
It seems to a bit odd that the highest court of the land is warningnot anyone in particular but ‘those concerned’ and goes on to state thatthis warning is being issued so that “he may not be able to complain infuture that he had been condemned by this Court unheard.” Such a warning iscertainly strange if not unheard of.
On the 16th the Attorney General pleaded ‘noinstructions’ and therefore the court exercised Option No. 2 as enunciated inits order of the 10th of January, 2012. It also went on to declarethat the perceived inaction on the part of the Prime Minister in implementingits orders in the NRO case “reflects, at least prima facie, that he may notbe an “honest” person on account of his not being honest to the oath of hisoffice and seemingly he may not be an“ameen” due to his persistent betrayal ofthe trust reposed in him as a person responsible for preserving, protecting anddefending the Constitution and also on account of allowing his personalpolitical interest to influence his official conduct and decisions.”
The Supreme Court is of course hearing the now infamous NationalReconciliation Ordinance (NRO) case which, to the credit of the ‘media cell’set up by the Chief Justice, has hardly been out of the news-headlines sincethe day it was instituted. In this case the Supreme Court has shown efficiency whichhas sadly been lacking in other instances. The importance of the NRO casecannot be overemphasized. However one is amazed to see orders in this case beingreserved and then announced within hours. And then the orders are not shortorders but detailed ones covering several vital legal issues which take days toargue and contain references to cases from the US Supreme Court, Britain andeven India. The cases quoted, only to read, would take more time than the timetaken to announce these orders. One is tempted to ask: Do the judges come tocourt having already made up their minds and are the orders already draftedeven before the hearing begins?
It seems to have escaped many of our ‘expert’ analysts that animportant aspect of the case has not been addressed by the court at all untilnow; a detailed interpretation of Article 248 of the Constitution and itsimpact. This seems to have been acknowledged by the court itself in its orderof the 10th of January 2012 when it puts out Option No. 4 and says;
“OptionNo. 4: Although in the present proceedings nobody has so far raised theissue pertaining to the protections contemplated by Article 248 of theConstitution yet if anybody likely to be affected by exercise of these optionsby this Court wishes to be heard on that question then an opportunity may beafforded to him in that respect before exercise of any of these options.”
Here again, for some strange reason, the court is not addressinganyone in particular but ‘anybody’ who claims protection of Article 248 and islikely to be affected by the decision of the Court even though it is quiteapparent whom the Supreme Court is referring to. It is important to note thatthe Supreme Court itself admits that ‘nobody has so far raised the issuepertaining to the protections contemplated by Article 248”.
Article 248 (2) which needs to be interpreted reads as under;
“248 (2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted orcontinued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term inoffice.”
It is being suggested by some that Article 248 is presumed to havebeen considered by the Court as it has not been said that the Presidentialimmunity extends to the present case. Others are suggesting that if thePresident is seeking immunity he must appear before the Court and claim it assuch and the Court would not by itself grant him immunity.
The fact that the Supreme Court has not addressed the question ofimmunity in detail has been acknowledged by the Court itself as stated above. TheSupreme Court is the final court (at least in this mortal world of ours) and isexpected to decide cases not only in the present time frame but for the futuretoo. It is therefore bound to take into consideration the entire gamut of laweven if a point has not been pleaded before it. There have been occasions wherethe Court has decided a point of law in such a way that it resulted in aninjustice to the litigant before it but to give another interpretation to thelaw would have lead to injustice in the future. In the NRO case the SupremeCourt should have taken up the immunity granted to the President both under ourConstitution and international law and given a decision one way or the other.To say that anyone claiming immunity should come and ask for it only shows thatthe court has made it a matter of its ego even though there is a presumptionthat immunity exists and the onus to prove otherwise is on the one claiming thecontrary. Immunity granted to the President under Article 248 of theConstitution is not unique to our Constitution. Similar provisions exist inmany other countries and there have also been several cases under Internationallaw. The Swiss authorities have made it obvious that they feel that thePresident enjoys immunity under International law also needs also to be takeninto consideration.
One only hopes that saner counsel would prevail and the Supreme Courtwould exercise restraint and not become a vehicle for derailing democracy forwhich the people of Pakistan have shed their blood.
Syndicated from: Thy Hand, Great Anarch!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Writing letter to Swiss authorities useless: Aitzaz

Posted on 19 January 2012 by Tea Server

ISLAMABAD: Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan on Wednesday said that judiciary has always played an important role in promoting democracy in the country. He said that Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had stated that there would be no more martial laws in the country. He said that President Asif Ali Zardari enjoys complete immunity in Pakistan as [...]

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

India-Pakistan prisoners – fishermen, POWs, and more

Posted on 18 January 2012 by Tea Server

Indian fishermen released from Pakistani prisons, waiting to go back

Below, my article on the India-Pakistan prisoners issue published in Aman ki Asha on Jan 11, 2012, followed by a correction from Sen. Iqbal Haider and further clarification from B.M. Kutty. Also please do read Shivam Vij’s thought-provoking and thorough report ‘Why is Gopal Das free and not Dr Chishty?‘, published in Aman ki Asha, and Anahita Mukherji’s report in The Sunday Times of India about how the Indian prisoners were treated in Pakistan (surprisingly well) - Warm memories of time in Pak jail.

Looking a New Year gift horse in the mouth

Pakistan’s release of 183 Indian prisoners on Jan 7, 2012 is a welcome step but it also highlights the ongoing issues faced by cross-border prisoners

By Beena Sarwar

On January 8, 2012, 183 Indians crossed the Wagah border from Lahore, bundled up against the bitter cold, many in shawls gifted to them in Pakistan, eager to return home after being released from Pakistani prisons.

Much hard work, persistence and the humanitarian view taken by the Lahore High Court lie behind their release, termed “a New Year gift” from Pakistan to India.

The story of this particular prisoner repatriation started in October 2011, when advocate Awais Sheikh filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court seeking the release of two Indians, Satinder Paul and Karale Bhanudas, who remained in Pakistani prisons despite having completed their sentence.

On the Lahore High Court’s order to provide details on foreign nationals held in Pakistani prisons, Superintendent Jail submitted a list of 74 foreign nationals in prison, including 33 Indians, who had completed their terms of imprisonment.

Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court Ijaz Ahmed Choudry in his order of Nov 14, 2011, directed the release the two prisoners on whose case the petition was based, as well as all foreign prisoners who had completed their terms.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign affairs cleared six Indian civilian prisoners for release. However, two of them, Sakhi Muhammad and Bhavesh Kanti Parmar, were not released for “unknown reasons”, says Awais Sheikh.

Released Indian prisoners waiting to complete formalities at Wagah. Photo: TOI

On Jan 7, 2012, Pakistan released 183 Indian prisoners, including Satinder Paul Singh, Sanjeet Kumar, Nasim and Sama Yousaf, and 179 Indian fishermen. They were brought to Wagah border on Jan 8th morning. The First Secretary of Indian High Commission along with three other ICH officers and an officer of Pakistan’s Interior Ministry, Islamabad, were also present.

It took them five hours at Wagah to complete the legal formalities at Customs, during which time advocate Awais Sheikh also remained with them. They finally crossed the border at 6.00 p.m.

“It was an unforgettable scene,” says Sheikh. “I bid them a hearty farewell with my best wishes. My apologies to them all for being kept in jails even after the completion of awarded sentence. I wish that sanity would prevail and I pray that my voice reaches the governments of both countries”.

Justice delayed

There are still 276 Indian fishermen in Pakistani jails. “Of these, 83 have already served their sentence but cannot be released because Indian authorities have not confirmed their nationality,” explains Justice Zahid. Foreign prisoners can only be freed after respective embassies confirm their identity.

This is also the case in India, which currently has 440 Pakistani fishermen in custody, according to former Pakistan law minister Iqbal Haider. He says that the nationalities of 285 of these prisoners have been determined, but “no assistance can be provided to the remaining 164 until their citizenship is established.”

Officials at India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) say that India and Pakistan don’t want to detain fishermen from the other country. “Once they cross the border, the legal process begins. The process of verifying nationalities involves visiting a fisherman’s village to confirm his identity. Often the addresses given are incomplete or very remote. It may take a long time to get there,” said an MEA official.

But rights activists say that this verification process, which takes six months to a year, only starts after the prisoners have completed their terms.

The process of verifying a prisoner’s nationality should begin the moment he is arrested by India or Pakistan. “The process should be complete at the time of a prisoner’s release so he does not remain in jail after serving his sentence,” says Jatin Desai.

Justice Zahid blames both countries for the delay in releasing innocent fishermen who inadvertently cross national borders while fishing. “These fishermen are usually given a six-month to a year’s jail sentence. By the time they are sentenced, they have already served the term,” he maintains. “If both governments show interest, the process could be completed in less than a month.”

Both the Indian and the Pakistani Supreme Courts have ruled that keeping a prisoner even for a day after he completes his jail term is illegal.

Iqbal Haider has appealed to the Pakistani and Indian governments to release all foreign prisoners over 60 years of age, and to expedite their respective trials by providing them with legal facilities.

Until such steps are not implemented, the issue of cross-border prisoners will remain unresolved. In humanity’s name, if not to gain the goodwill of thousands of affected people, both governments must cut the bureaucratic red tape and existing, outdated protocols – the sooner the better.

Fishy business

Indian fishermen at Wagah border, bundled up against the cold they're unused to, in their native Gujarat. Photo: Times of India

Both countries routinely arrest each other’s fishermen for transgressing maritime boundaries. Released fishermen are routinely repatriated via Wagah border, from where they have to make the tedious overland journey home.

“Gujarat and Karachi are so close to each other, and yet Gujarati fishermen released in Karachi have to travel all the way to Wagah border, and then from Amritsar to Gujarat. Many are from remote villages, and it takes even longer to reach,” says senior Mumbai-based journalist Jatin Desai, who is joint secretary, Pakistan India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy. “Why should they not be sent back by sea, along with their boats?”

Around 481 Indian fishing boats lie rotting in Karachi harbour. “Each boat costs around 30-40 lakh Indian rupees. Most fishermen are very poor and an entire fishing village chips in to buy a boat,” observes retired Supreme Court of Pakistan Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid.

Justice Zahid, chairman of the Committee for Welfare of Prisoners and a member of the Indo-Pak Joint Judicial Committee comprising eight retired judges – four each from India and Pakistan examining the issue of cross-border prisoners – points out that “even if both countries release all the captive fisherfolk, others will continue to be arrested.”

He suggests setting up a joint committee of officials from India and Pakistan stationed aboard a ship between the two countries to decide cases of fishermen accidentally straying across the maritime border. “The matter can be settled in the sea itself.”

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum President Muhammad Ali Shah, hoping that India will also release the Pakistani fishermen in Indian jails, suggests that both countries should allow each other’s fishermen to catch fish at a small scale in 50 nautical miles in other’s waters, rather than criminalising this transgression.

A year ago, India and Pakistan agreed to set up a task force with two members each from Pakistan and India to improve the situation. “Pakistan has already nominated its members but India is yet to do so,” says Jatin Desai.

Indian and Pakistani peace activists in a joint press statement of October 2011 had urged their governments to release the fishermen and their boats. Both governments “need to recognise the fact that these traditional fishermen go to the mid-sea for their livelihood. Arresting them and confiscating their boats means depriving their families from the livelihood, and causing them extreme distress,” said the statement… “The issue of fishermen needs to be seen from the humanitarian, not security angle.”

The POWS issue

Not included in the list of prisoners to be released were the two Sikh prisoners. One of them is Sarabjit Singh convicted for bomb blasts in Pakistan in 1990 even though the FIR does not mention his name but that of a Manjeet Singh (Surjit Singh says he is the victim of a mistaken identity; see report ‘Why is Gopal Das free and not Dr Chishty?’ by Shivam Vij). The other prisoner, who has languished for four decadese, is Surjit Singh, a jawan of India’s Border Security Force (BSF), taken prisoner of war in 1971 and given up for dead in 1974. In April 2011, he was found to be alive, in Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore, after Khushi Mohammad, an Indian prisoner released by Pakistan on his return mentioned the names of some of his compatriots still in Pakistani prisons.

Both Sarabjit and Surjit have now spent decades in prison, far beyond life imprisonment terms. Pakistan must repatriate them immediately, as human rights activists and lawyers on both sides are demanding.

In addition, both countries must look into the issue of the ‘forgotten’ prisoners of war.

In June 2011, Brian MacMahon, a former master mariner from India, now based in Australia, appealed to the Presidents of India and Pakistan to make efforts to locate and release the POWs on either side, and if they were no longer living, to provide information and their remains to their families in order to get some closure on their missing loved ones.

He cited the example of Australia, which has brought home the remains of every one of its servicemen missing in action 38 years after the conflict in Vietnam (which ended in 1971).

‘Missing’ Indian POWs who have been ‘sighted’ in Pakistan over the years include Major S. P. S. Waraich , Capt Kamal Bakshi, Subedar Assa Singh, and Wing Commander H. S. Gill. The ‘discovery’ of Surjit Singh ignites hope that they and their other colleagues may similarly be alive and undocumented in a Pakistani prison.

In September 2004, then Defence Minister of India, Pranab Mukherjee told reporters that an estimated “17 army officers, two junior commissioned officers and 19 other rank officers are currently in Pakistani jails.”

There are Pakistani POWs in India too. In June 2010, The Daily Mail Today, New Delhi, reported that 18 Pakistan Army personnel taken as prisoners of war in 1965 and 1971 were still in Indian custody, as confirmed by the Indian Ministry of Defence. This is “contrary to all norms of humanity as well in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention… these POWs also include two Majors who went missing during the wars” (June 24, 2010).

Given the number of cases where missing presumed dead armed forces personnel have been found alive in one prison or another, isn’t it time for both countries to make concerted efforts to get these men back – if for no other reason, then in the name of humanity?

Update – with apologies for the oversight, which was entirely inadvertent – I wrote the piece using the most recent accounts  at hand.

Jan 14, 2012: From Senator (R) Iqbal Haider, Senior Advocate Supreme Court

Dear Beena,

I hope you would not mind, my adding to your information that it was in pursuance of the Orders passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Constitution Petition No.48/2010 filed and conducted by me, “pro bono”, on or about 30th July 2010, on behalf of Pakistan Fisherfolks Forum and PILER that the Supreme Court had ordered that all cases of fishermen crossing the border should be heard expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks and that all the prisoners under the Foreigners Act should be released and repatriated forthwith, if they have completed their sentences. In pursuance of these Orders of the Supreme Court more than 442 Indian fishermen prisoners were released and repatriated in one go.

This has started the process of further release of large number of Indian prisoners from Pakistan and Pakistani prisoners from India.

When our delegation comprising Mr. Kuldip Nayar, Mr. Mahesh Bhatt and Mr. Jatin Desai from India and Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mr. Karamat Ali and the undersigned from Pakistan were received by Mrs. Soniya Gandhi, the Head of Ruling Congress Party, on or about 9th September 2010, to reciprocate our efforts for release of Indian fishermen, Mrs. Gandhi was kind enough to immediately order release of all Pakistani Prisoners who have completed their sentences and if their nationalities have been identified. As a result hundreds of more prisoners of the two countries have been released since then.

The recent release of 179 Indian Fishermen from Malir Jail Karachi was consistently pursued with Pakistani authorities by our team of Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mr. Karamat Ali, Mr. Mohammad Ali Shah of Fisherfolk and the undersigned. It was due to the consistent efforts of this team that these prisoners were finally released on 7th January’ 12 from Malir Jail Karachi. Any proceedings in the Lahore High Court were not instrumental in release of these Indian Fishermen from Malir Jail Karachi.

I do sincerely appreciate and admire efforts of all members of the Bar or members of the civil society for putting hard work persistently for release of the prisoners as well as for much needed improvements in the relations between our two countries. Warm, cordial, peaceful and open border relations between Pakistan and India is the need of the people of this subcontinent.

The aforesaid is just to put the record straight.

Jan 14, 2012: From B.M.Kutty, Secretary General, Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC), PILER Center, Karachi:

Dear Iqbal Haider Saheb,

Thank you very much for clarifying how the process of release of India-Pakistan fishermen by the two governments started and how it is still going on, thanks to the untiring efforts of rights activsts like you, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Muhammad Ali Shah, Karamat Ali and others. . Let us also remind ourselves of the fact that  PILER and PFF had been involved in it since 1997 when the first batch of about 500 plus fishermen were released from both sides. Unfortunately, the seemingly unstoppable exercise of arrest and release of poor fishermen on both sides goes on and on. God save the fishermen!!


Syndicated from: Journeys to democracy

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pakistan High Court Launches Contempt Case Against Prime Minister

Posted on 17 January 2012 by Tea Server

By Alex Rodriguez for The Los Angeles Times

Dealing a heavy blow to Pakistan’s embattled government, the Supreme Court on Monday initiated contempt proceedings against Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for refusing to revive a long-standing corruption case against the nation’s president.

Gilani, a top ally of President Asif Ali Zardari in the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, must appear before the court Thursday, when the justices will listen to his explanation for not going ahead with the case.

If the court moves forward with the contempt proceedings and Gilani is convicted, he could be disqualified from office and forced to step down. He also could be forced to serve up to six months in jail.

Zardari’s government is locked in battles with the Supreme Court and Pakistan’s powerful military, both of which have had an acrimonious relationship with the president since he took office in 2008. The crisis has stirred talk of the government’s possible ouster, though experts say it probably would happen through legal action taken by the high court rather than a military coup.

The military has ousted civilian leaders in coups four times in Pakistan’s 65-year history, but military generals have said they have no plans to mount a takeover.

Nevertheless, they were deeply angered by an unsigned memo that a Pakistani American businessman contends was engineered by a top Zardari ally to seek Washington’s help in preventing a military coup last spring. In exchange, the memo offered several concessions, including the elimination of a wing of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency that maintains links with Afghan insurgent groups.

The businessman, Mansoor Ijaz, says the then-ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, approached him with the idea. Haqqani, who was forced to resign after the allegations surfaced, denies any involvement in the creation or conveyance of the memo. A Supreme Court commission is investigating the case, and on Monday it ordered Ijaz to come to Pakistan and appear before the panel Jan. 24.

The high court’s move to start contempt proceedings against Gilani involves money-laundering charges in Switzerland that Zardari was convicted of in absentia in 2003. The case was appealed by Zardari and his late wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and was later dropped at the request of the Pakistani government in 2008.

Since 2009, Pakistan’s high court has repeatedly ordered the government to write a letter to Swiss authorities asking that the case be reopened. Gilani and government lawyers have refused, arguing that as president, Zardari enjoys constitutional immunity from prosecution.

Last week, the court warned Gilani that it could remove him from office if he did not abide by its demand. Government lawyers were supposed to appear in court Monday and explain why Gilani’s administration had ignored the court.

Instead, Atty. Gen. Maulvi Anwarul Haq appeared before a packed courtroom and told a high court panel that the government had not given him any instructions about what to say in court. The head of the panel, Justice Nasir Mulk, said Gilani’s inaction gave the court no recourse but to pursue a contempt case against him.

Outside the courtroom, Haq said that if the court eventually issues a contempt finding against Gilani, “this conviction has ramifications…. Under the constitution, with a conviction it’s disqualification from office.”

Before the court issues its findings, it probably would hold evidentiary hearings, Haq said. If Gilani on Thursday tells the court he will ask Swiss authorities to reopen the corruption case, the justices probably would consider dropping the contempt proceeding, said Tariq Mehmood, a lawyer and retired judge.

Gilani has given no indication he plans to give in. He will, however, appear in court Thursday to explain the government’s rationale, he told parliament late Monday. “We have always respected the courts,” he said. “The court has summoned me, and in respect of the court I will go there on Jan. 19.”

Zardari’s administration hopes to become the first civilian government to finish out its term, which ends in 2013. The political turmoil may thwart that plan, as opposition leaders increasingly push harder for early elections. Though Zardari is widely criticized in Pakistan for failing to revive the country’s moribund economy and tackle corruption, his party remains confident that it can weather the storm and retain power for a second term.

Even if Gilani is removed from office, Zardari continues to hold together a coalition that controls parliament’s lower house, which elects the prime minister. On Monday, however, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, a staunch ally of the president, doubted it would come to that.

“The prime minister will stay,” Malik told reporters outside parliament. “The government is in command. Our flight may be a little bumpy, but God willing, we will have a smooth landing in 2013.”

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Husain Haqqani, Mansoor Ijaz, Pakistan, Pakistan Peoples Party, Pakistan Supreme Court, PPP, Yousuf Raza Gilani

Syndicated from: Pakistanis for Peace

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bhutto’s Gallows Revisited

Posted on 15 January 2012 by Tea Server

President Asif Ali Zardari has made a reference to the Supreme Court of Pakistan to revisit the case in which Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was sentenced to death on the charge of ordering the murder of an innocent man Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan Kasuri. Interestingly enough the parliament has already prejudiced the case by passing a resolution in its initial session declaring the execution of Mr. Bhutto a ‘judicial murder.’

 In this background, the reference really is a request to determine whether or not the national assembly resolution had any merit or whether it was a contempt of court. The reference also establishes the principle that the judgment of the Supreme Court has greater meaning and weight than a resolution of the national assembly. In order to understand the case it is important to know the background.

Here are some clippings from Nation and Express newspapers and Wikipedia:
Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan, Kasuri’s father, was killed in 1974. Kasuri himself was the complainant for the murder case registered against Bhutto, who was eventually hanged in 1979. In April this year, 32 years after Bhutto’s death, President Asif Zardari filed a reference under Article 186 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court to reopen the murder trial.
Bhutto was convicted in a murder case and sentenced to death by the Lahore High Court (LHC) in 1979 during the dictatorship of the then army chief General Ziaul Haq. He was executed on April 4, 1979 by then military dictatorship.

A five-member bench of the LHC, headed by Maulvi Mushtaq Ahmad, had held the Bhutto trial for five months and awarded death sentence to him on March 18, 1978. The Bhutto family had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. A seven-member bench upheld his death sentence in its February 6, 1979, verdict with a bare 4-to-3 majority. His review petition was also dismissed on March 24, 1979. Bhutto was hanged at the Central Jail, Rawalpindi, on April 4, 1979.

Sheikh Anwarul Haq is a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan [September 23, 1977 - March 25, 1981]. He is often considered ‘ill-famed’ for giving legitimacy to General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq’s martial law and for upholding the decision of the Lahore High Court which sentenced Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to death for the authorization of the murder of a political opponent. Four Supreme Court judges headed by Chief Justice Anwarul Haq upheld the murder conviction of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. On 25 March 1981, S. Anwarul Haq became the first Justice and only Chief Justice to refuse taking the oath under the military imposed PCO and resigned on conscientious grounds.

Prime Minister Bhutto began facing considerable criticism and increasing unpopularity as his term progressed, the democratic socialists alliance who had previously allied with Bhutto began to diminish as time progresses. Initially targeting leader of the opposition Vali Khan and his opposition National Awami Party (NAP), also a socialist party. Despite the ideological similarity of the two parties, the clash of egos both inside and outside the National Assembly became increasingly fierce, starting with the Federal government’s decision to oust the NAP provincial government in Balochistan Province for alleged secessionist activities and culminating in the banning of the party and arrest of much of its leadership after the death of a close lieutenant of Bhutto’s, Hayat Sherpao, in a bomb blast in the frontier town of Peshawar.

Dissidence also increased within the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and the murder of a leading dissident Ahmed Raza Kasuri‘s father led to public outrage and intra-party hostility as Bhutto was accused of masterminding the crime. Powerful PPP leaders such as Ghulam Mustafa Khar openly condemned Bhutto and called for protests against his regime. The political crisis in the NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and Balochistan intensified as civil liberties remained suspended, and an estimated 100,000 troops deployed there were accused of abusing human rights and killing large numbers of civilians.

On January 8, 1977 a large number of opposition political parties grouped to form the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA). Bhutto called fresh elections, and PNA participated fully in those elections. They managed to contest the elections jointly even though there were grave splits on opinions and views within the party. The PNA faced defeat but did not accept the results, alleging that the election was rigged. They proceeded to boycott the provincial elections. Despite this, there was a high voter turnout in the national elections; however, as provincial elections were held amidst low voter turnout and an opposition boycott, the PNA declared the newly-elected Bhutto government as illegitimate.

All the opposition leaders called for the overthrow of Bhutto’s regime. Political and civil disorder intensified, which led to more unrest. Bhutto imposed martial law in major cities including Karachi, Lahore and Hyderabad. However, Mr. Bhutto accepted that there were major irregularities in the election in a number of constituencies and a compromise agreement between Bhutto and opposition to hold fresh election in some constituencies was ultimately reported. This compromise theory was however probably a later day addition as a major PPP armed rally was in the offing.

Zia planned a the Coup d’état carefully as he knew Bhutto had integral intelligence in the Pakistan Armed Forces, and many officers, including Chief of Air Staff General Zulfiqar Ali Khan and Major-General Tajammul Hussain Malik, GOC of 23rd Mountain Division, Major-General Naseerullah Babar, DG of Directorate-General for the Military Intelligence (DGMO) and Vice-Admiral Syed Mohammad Ahsan, were loyal to Bhutto.

To remove this intelligence, Zia secretly contracted with the active duty British SAS army officers to maintain a staff course for the Army personnel while Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Mohammad Shariff quietly removed naval personnel loyal to Bhutto and his government from the Navy’s active duty. Zia ordered Bhutto’s loyal officers to attend a staff and command course and none of the officers were allowed to leave the course until the midnight. Meanwhile, Zia with his close officers, including Admiral Mohammad Shariff, then-Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, arranged the coup in the evening. On July 5, 1977, before the announcement of any agreement, Bhutto and members of his cabinet were arrested by troops of Military Police under the order of Zia by the evening.

Bhutto’s last personal appearance and utterances in the supreme court were not merely a long defence of his conduct he also made some matters clear. He mentioned the words of “heir” for his son “Mir Murtaza Bhutto”. He made some remark which indicated that he has views similar to a Sunni, though he was Shia albeit a non-practicing one. He also effectively cast doubt on the reliability of star witnesses against him i.e. Masood Mahmood who was a UK-trained lawyer and not merely a police officer and FSF chief. He mentioned repeatedly Lahori Ahmedi connection of Masood Mahmood in his testimony. He repeatedly brought the subject of his maltreatment in the death cell. Bhutto made it abundantly clear, even though indirectly that he wanted either freedom or death, not something in between, and appreciated Khar and his lawyer Yahya Bakhtiar.

While witnessing the dramatic fall of Bhutto, one U.S. diplomat in American Embassy in Islamabad wrote that:

During Bhutto’s five years in Pakistan’s helm, Bhutto had retained an emotional hold on the poor masses who had voted him overwhelmingly in 1970s general elections. At the same time, however, Bhutto had many enemies. The [socialist economics] and nationalization of major private industries during his first two years on office had badly upsets the Business circles… An ill-considered decision to take over the wheat-milling, rice-husking, sugar mills, and cotton-ginning, industries in July of 1976 had angered the small business owners and traders. Both leftists— socialists and communists, intellectuals, students, and trade unionists— felt betrayed by Bhutto’s shift to centre-right wing conservative economics policies and by his growing collaboration with powerful feudal lords, Pakistan’s traditional power brokers. After 1976, Bhutto’s aggressive authoritarian personal style and often high-handed way of dealing with political rivals, dissidents, and opponents had also alienated many….

U.S. Embassy, Pakistan, U.S. commenting of Bhutto’s fate,



                                                                    

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Text of SC order in NRO case

Posted on 13 January 2012 by Tea Server

From the Newspaper:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed Mr. Justice Muhammad Ather Saeed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 486 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2002 AND Adnan A. Khawaja … Appellant versus The State … Respondent Suo Moto Case No. 4 of 2010 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1080 of 2010 AND Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 1238 and 1239 of 2010 (Suo Moto action regarding appointment of convicted person namely Ahmed Riaz Sheikh (NRO Beneficiary), as Additional Director General, Federal Investigation Agency Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1253 of 2010 in Suo Moto Case No. 4 of 2010 (Report submitted in Court by AttorneyGeneral regarding Facts Finding Inquiry in the case of Missing Letter No. PS/DG/FIA/ 2009/504749 dated 17.11.2009) Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1254 of 2010 in Suo Moto Case No. 4 of 2010 AND (Additional Documents comprising of Interim Report filed by Secretary Law dated 04.04.2010, pointes formulated by Secretary for Hon`ble Court, Advice of Former Attorney-General and Authorization letter in favour of Mr. Hassan Wasim Afzal, Joint Secretary of Ehtisab Bureau dated 20.05.1998) Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1082 of 2010 (Report/Minutes of Hon`ble Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Lahore) For Federation: Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Attorney General for Pakistan On behalf of National Accountability Bureau: Mr. K.K. Agha, Prosecutor-General National Accountability Bureau Mr. Fasih A. Bokhari, Chairman National Accountability Bureau Mr. Akbar Tarar, Addl. PG. NAB Mr. Fauzi Zafar, Addl. PG. NAB Sheikh Muhammad Shoaib, Assistant Director, NAB Mr. Mohsin Ali Khan, Assistant Director, NAB In attendance: Mr. Ahsan Raja, Ex. Additional Secretary Ministry of Interior along with his counsel Raja Zulgarnain, ASC For Ahmad Riaz Sheikh: Dr. A. Basit, Sr. ASC On behalf of Secretary Law: Nemo Date of hearing: 10.01.2012 ORDER Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: This order may be read in continuation of the order passed by this Court on the last date of hearing, i.e. 03.01.2012.

2. We have heard the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and the learned Prosecutor-General Accountability and have been dismayed by the fact no progress worth any mention has been made by all concerned in the matters mentioned in the order dated 03.01.2012. The learned Prosecutor-General Accountability has submitted and read out two reports dated 09.01.2012 wherein it has categorically been concluded that the National Accountability Bureau has decided not to proceed in the matters of Mr.

Adnan Khawaja and Mr. Ahmad Riaz Sheikh despite clear directions issued by this Court in those regards earlier on. The said reports have been found by us to be utterly unsatisfactory and we find that an attempt has been made through the said reports to screen, shield and protect all those in public offices who were involved in appointments/promotion of the said convicted persons. Upon our query the learned ProsecutorGeneral Accountability has confirmed the fact that in the reports mentioned above a clear conclusion about lack of criminal intent of all concerned and involved has been recorded without even holding a formal inquiry or investigation, which we have found to be strange and unusual.

The learned Prosecutor-General Accountability has gone on to submit that even in the matter of proceeding against Malik Muhammad Qayyum, a former Attorney-General for Pakistan, a decisionhas been taken by the National Accountability Bureau not to initiate or take any proceeding despite a clear direction having been issued by this Court in that respect.

The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau has not only owned the above mentioned reports but has adopted a defiant attitude by stating before us that the decision whether to proceed against any person under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 or not is a decision which falls within his exclusive jurisdiction and he has decided not to proceed against any person in the matters of Mr. Adnan Khawaja, Mr.

Ahmad Riaz Sheikh and Malik Muhammad Qayyum. He has stated before us in most categorical terms that no inquiry or investigation is warranted in those matters and he has stated so in contemptuous disregard of the fact that this Court has already passed an order for taking proceedings in those matters.

We have particularly noticed the defiant posture and position adopted by the Chairman and have been struck by his willful disobedience to the earlier directions issued by this Court. It appears that instead of obeying the directions of this Court he (chairman, NAB) has decided to take this Court head on, which attitude we find to be contumacious, to say the least.

The Federal Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division was absent from this Court on the last date of hearing on account of being abroad and even today he has failed to appear and we have been informed that he is unwell and is receiving medical treatment but nothing has been produced before us to substantiate the same. It appears that he prefers foreign sojourns upon his commitments before the highest Court of the country. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan has stated that there is no change in the situation since the last date of hearing and no step in furtherance of this Court`s earlier directions has been taken by anybody during the interregnum. We have also heard Mr. Ahsan Raja who has tried to convince us that he had no malicious intent in the matter of promotion of Mr. Ahmad Riaz Sheikh.

3. The judgment in the case of Dr; Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265) had been passed by this Court way back on 16.12.2009 and in that judgment this Court had issued some very clear and specific directions tothe Federal Government and others which were required by the Court to be implemented and executed immediately. Later on a review petition filed against that judgment was dismissed by this Court and orders were again issued to the Federal Government and others to carry out the directions of this Court without any further loss of time. However, various interim orders passed by this Court in the present and other proceedings bear ample testimony to the unfortunate fact that over the last about two years the Federal Government has demonstrated no interest in carrying out some of the directions of this Court. It isquite clear to us by now that the Federal Government and the National Accountability Bureau are not serious in the matter at all and those concerned are only interested in delaying and prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. On the last date of hearing it had been made clear to all concerned that they were being given the last and final opportunity till today and it appears that they have consciously decided to defy and disobey this Court.

This Court has already shown a lot of grace and magnanimity in the matter and has demonstrated a lot of patience and restraint in this regard over the last about two years but in the present dismal and most unfortunate state of affairs the Court is left with no other option but to, as warned in categorical terms on the last date of hearing, take appropriate actions in order to uphold and maintain the dignity of this Court and to salvage and restore the delicately poised constitutional balance in accord with the norms of constitutional democracy. [ We are conscious that the actions we propose to take are quite unpleasant but maintaining the necessary constitutional poise and balance is a part of our duties, ....] particularly when we have made an oath before Allah Almighty to `preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan` and to `in all circumstances do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will`.

4. When the Objectives Resolution of 1949,made a substantive part of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by Article 2A thereof, mandates that `the independence of the Judiciary shall be fully secured` and when Article 37(d) of the Constitution stipulates it as a Principle of Policy that the State shall `ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice` the Constitution does not contemplate an `independent` judiciary whose decisions may be flouted with impunity or implementation of whose judgments may be left to the whims or caprice of an indifferent Executive.

Likewise, when Article 189 of the Constitution gives the decisions of the Supreme Court `binding` effect and when Article 190 of the Constitution commands in no uncertain terms that `All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court` the Constitution does not envision an Executive professing only `respect` towards the decisions of the Supreme Court but at the same time derisively or disdainfully paying little or no heed to implementation or execution of such decisions. [Obedience to the command of a court, and that too of the Apex Court of the country, is not a game of chess or a game of hide and seek.] It is, of course, a serious busi-ness and governance of the State and maintaining the constitutional balance and equilibrium cannot be allowed to be held hostage to political tomfoolery or shenanigans. Article 5 of the Constitution declares in most unambiguous terms that `(1) Loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen. (2) Obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligationof every citizen ` In a recent interview with Mr. Hamid Mir on Geo Television the CoChairperson of the major political party in the ruling coalition at the federal level, who also happens to be the President of Pakistan, has categorically stated that under his CoChairpersonship his political party has taken a political decision not to obey some part of the judgment handed down by this Court in the case of Dr Mobashir Hassan (supra). Even the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights Division have been harping on the same theme for quitesome time on different occasions through speeches made on the floors of the National Assembly and the Senate and also through print and electronic media. Their conduct in the matter also goes a long way in confirming what they have been proclaiming. [Such an attitude, approach and conduct prima facie shows that the Co-Chairperson of the said political party, the Prime Minister and the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights Division have allowed loyalty to a political party and its decisions to outweigh and outrun their loyalty to the State and their `inviolable obligation` to obey the Constitution and all its commands.] We may unhesitatingly observe that in our country governed by a Constitution political loyalty cannot be accepted as stronger than loyalty to the State and dictates of a political master or party cannot be allowed to be put up as a defence to failure to obey the Constitution. The old sage Aristotle had once observed that `When laws do not rule, there is no Constitution`. Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court had observed in the case of Olmstead v. United States (227 U.S. 438, 485) that `In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

As already observed above, we the Judges of the Supreme Court have made an oath before Allah Almighty to `preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan` and, thus, it is our bounden duty to take appropriate action whenever we find that the Constitution is not being obeyed or its express commands are, wittingly or otherwise, being disregarded. Let nobody forget that in the not too distant past we stuck to our commitment to the Constitution and constitutionalism and were not shy of giving personal sacrifices for fulfillment of that commitment.

5. This brings us to the actions we may take against willful disobedience to and non-compliance of some parts of the judgment rendered and some of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr Mobashir Hassan (supra). This Co urt has inter alia the following options available with it in this regard: Option No. 1: [In such a case of a brazen and blatant failure or refusal of the Federal Government to obey and execute the relevant judgment and directions of this Court the buck stops at the office of the Chief Executive of the Federation, i.e. the Prime Minister.] At the time of entering upon his exalted office the Prime Minister had made an oath that ` I am a Muslim and believe in the Unity and Oneness of Almighty Allah, the Books of Allah, the Holy Quran being the last of them, the Day of Judgment, and all the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran and Sunnah`. He had fur-ther sworn before Allah Almighty that `as Prime Minister of Pakistan, I will discharge my duties, and perform my functions, honestly, to the best of my ability, faithfully in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the law` and that `I will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official decisions`While invoking the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful, and also seeking His help and guidance, the Prime Minister had also made an oath that `I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan`. It is evident that in his oath the Prime Minister had made an unambiguous commitment with Allah Almighty not only to conduct himself completely in accord with the commands and requirements of the Constitution, including those of Articles 2A, 37(d), 189 and 190 thereof, but also totally in sync with the requirements and teachings of the Holy Quran. In the matter of making of oaths the Holy Quran has inter alia ordained as follows: `And make not Allah`s name an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; For Allah is One who heareth and knoweth all things. Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your heart; And He is oft-forgiving, most forbearing.` (S. II: 224-225) `Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: But keep to your oaths. Thus Allah makes clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.` `And take not your oaths, to practise deception between yourselves, with the result that somebody`s foot may slip after it was firmly planted, and ye may have to taste the evil consequences of having hindered men from the path of Allah, and a mighty wrath descend on you.` (S. XVI: 94) `They swear their strongest oaths by Allah that, if only thou wouldst command them, they would leave their homes.

Say: Swear ye not; Obedience is more reasonable;Verily Allah is well acquainted with all ye do.` (S.

XXIV: 53) `God has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and God is your protector, and He is full of knowledge and wisdom.` (S. LXVI: 2) `Heed not the type of despicable man, -ready with oaths` (S. LXVIII: 10) According to clause (f) of Article 62(1) of the Constitution `A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there beine no declaration to the contrary by a court of law` (underlining has been supplied for emphasis). By virtue of Article 113 of the Constitution the same qualifications are also required for election to or being chosen as a member of a Provincial Assembly. In the above mentioned backdrop the apparent persistent, obstinate and contumacious resistance, failure or refusal of the Chief Executive of the Federation, i.e. the Prime Minister to completely obey, carry out or execute the directions issued by this Court in the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan (supra) reflects, at least prima facie, that he may not be an `hon-est` person on account of his not being honest to the oath of his office and seemingly he may not be an `ameen` due to his persistent betrayal of the trust reposed in him as a person responsible for preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and also on account of allowing his personal political interest to influence his official conduct and decisions. According to the Preamble to the Constitution `sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust` and `the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people`. [A chosen representative of the people deliberately violating such a sacred trust and disregarding his commitment in that regard with Allah Almighty may hardly qualify to be accepted as `ameen`.] In the circumstances of this case mentioned above this Court has an option to record a finding in the above mentioned regards and it may hand down a declaration to that effect in terms of clause (f) of Article 62(1) of the Constitution which finding or declaration may have the effect of a permanent clog on the Prime Minister`s qualification for election to or being chosen as a member of MajliseShoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly.

Somewhat similar oaths had also been made by the Co-Chairperson of the relevant political party before entering upon the office of the President of Pakistan and by the Federal Minister for Law,Justice and Human Rights Division before entering upon the office of a Federal Minister and apparent breaches of their oaths may also entail the same consequences.

Option No. 2: Proceedings may be initiated against the Chief Executive of the Federation, i.e.

the Prime Minister, the Federal Minister for Law, Justice and Human Rights Division and the Federal Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division for committing contempt of this Court by persistently, obstinately and contumaciously resisting, failing or refusing to implement or execute in full the directions issued by this Court in its judgment delivered in the case of Dr Mobashir Hassan (supra). It may not be lost sight of that, apart from the other consequences, by virtue of the provisions of clauses (g) and (h) of Article 63(1) read with Article 113 of the Constitution a possible conviction on such a charge may entail a disqualification from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly for at least a period of five years.

Option No. 3: In exercise of its powers under Article 187 of the Constitution read with Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and all other enabling provisions this Court may appoint a Commission to execute the relevant parts of the judgment passed and directions issued in the case of Dr Mobashir Hassan (supra).

Option No. 4: Although in the present proceedings nobody has so far raised the issue pertaining to the protections contemplated by Article 248 of the Constitution yet if anybody likely to be affected by exercise of these options by this Court wishes to be heard on that question then an opportunity may be afforded to him in that respect before exercise of any of these options.

Option No. 5: It is a statutory duty of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to proceed against any person prima facie involved in misuse of authority while holding a public office. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 03.01.2012 this Court had directed the Chairman to attend to the matters of appointment of Mr. Adnan Khawaja as Managing Director of the Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) against merit and appointment/promotion of Mr.

Ahmed Riaz Sheikh as Additional Director, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) at a time when both of them were convicted persons and to proceed against all those who were responsible for such appointments/promotion. The Chairman has also failed so far to initiate any action against Malik Muhammad Qayyum, former AttorneyGeneral for Pakistan, in view of the direction issued in that regard in the judgment passed in the case of Dr Mobashir Hassan (supra), as modified in review to his extent. Today the Chairman has appeared before this Court in person and he has not only failed to advance any satisfactory explanation for his inaction in the above mentioned regards but has also manifested defiance towards this Court by categorically refusing to carry out the earlier directions issued by this Court qua proceeding in the matter of the above mentioned persons. Such inaction on his part in derogation of his statutory duty prima facie amounts to misconduct attracting the last part of section 6(b)(i) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 dealing with removal of the Chairman from his office. Apart from that we have gathered an impression that he has attempted to screen, shield and protect the relevant persons from criminal charges which may attract consequences in some criminal and other laws. In these circumstances appropriate recommendations or directions may be made or issued by this Court in such regards.Option No. 6: The constitutional balance vis-àvis trichotomy and separation of powers between the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive is very delicately poised and if in a given situation the Executive is bent upon defying a final judicial verdict and is ready to go to any limit in such defiance then instead of insisting upon the Executive to implement the judicial verdict and thereby running the risk of bringing down the constitutional structure itself this Court may exercise judicial restraint and leave the matter to the better judgment of the people of the country or their representatives in the Parliament to appropriately deal with the delinquent. After all the ultimate ownership of the Constitution and of its organs, institutions, mechanisms and processes rests with the people of the country and there may be situations where the people themselves may be better suited to force a recalcitrant to obey the Constitution. It may be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973: `we, the people of Pakistan Do hereby, through our representatives in theNational Assembly, adopt, enact and give to ourselves, this Constitution` 6. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan is hereby put on notice to address arguments before this Court on the next date of hearing, after obtaining instructions from those concerned, as to why any of the above mentioned options may not be exercised by us in these matters. It goes without saying that any person likely to be affected by exercise of the above mentioned options may appear before this Court on the next date of hearing and address this Court in the relevant regard so that he may not be able to complain in future that he had been condemned by this Court unheard. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan is directed to inform all such persons mentioned above about the passage of this order and also about the next date of hearing.

7. On account of constitutional importance of these matters the Honourable Chief Justice is requested to consider the desirability of hearing of these matters on the next date of hearing by a Larger Bench of this Court.

8. Adjourned to 16.01.2012 on which date the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, the Federal Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, the Chairman National Accountability Bureau and the learned Prosecutor-General Accountability shall appear before this Court in person.

Islamabad 10.01.2012

Syndicated from: Pak Tea House

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NRO Verdict: To be or not to be?

Posted on 11 January 2012 by Tea Server



I still fondly remember the debates which used to rage in our English class when Hamlets beautiful soliloquy was discussed. It’s probably one of the most famous pieces of writing in English literature, being a masterpiece depiction of the inner turmoil one feels when faced with the ultimate choice, life or death.

While I would always enjoy the good humored arguments, I would also wonder how Shakespeare managed to confront poor Hamlet with such a number of moral dilemmas, and us readers with the number of possible interpretations. To choose a life with dishonor, or to fight back and risk death, with the subtle comfort of it being an honorable one? ‘To be’, meaning life, and ‘not to be’, death. Or vice versa? Or is it about bravery or cowardice?

I must now thank the honorable justices for their judgment, if that’s what it can be called, in the NRO implementation case. They have made modern day Hamlets out of all of us by gifting us a judgment which is now our sorry lot to figure out.

Given that the facts of the case were simple enough, this judgment is also a masterpiece, though more of a farcical kind. The government had refused over the past two years or so, to implement or follow in spirit, a single order of the Supreme Court regarding the NRO. Not only that, but both Messrs Zardari and Gillani had been issuing extremely controversial statements about this sub-judice case. And in the meantime senior civil servants were actively encouraged to adopt a very negative attitude towards the whole proceedings.

It would be hard to find a more clear case of contempt of court since the merry commando had troops storm the Supreme Court. Or going a little further back, when dear Nawaz Sharif had his PML goons attacked the Supreme Court building.

However our honorable justices have handed down a judgment which has made Shakespeare look positively amateurish. It’s not so much a judgment as a multiple choice examination of our cumulative legal knowledge! Instead of getting a firm judgment we have been presented with not one or two but six choices or options which these learned Judges or more of their ilk may choose from on a future date.

These range from threatening both the Prime Minister and President, options 1 & 2 as they have been naughty children, to # 3 which deals with the setting up of another commission to implement the relevant parts of this judgment! Thank you, your honors, option 3 is definitely not on. Along with the fact that your performance has almost guaranteed Shariah courts for all of us in the future, it seems to have escaped your notice that nobody could possibly understand the first judgment itself, therefore finding the relevant parts in this is likely to be an impossible task.

Option # 4, then goes and offers any of us a chance, if we happen to feel that these options impinge on any of our rights, to appear before the honorable justices. Thank you again, your honors; we, or rather our insulted intelligences, would like to let bygones be bygones. Please let us be.

Option # 5, addresses the Chairman NAB, accuses him of all manner of crimes, and then it reminds him that the commission may take action against him. May! Yes, you read right. I hope that it’s a typo in the original judgment. I also have a feeling that at least we have now one future dead duck in the shape of the Chairman NAB. Good enough of a ritual sacrifice, if you ask me.

But the best has been left to the last. Option # 6, actually informs all of us that if the bad guys, (read Messrs Zardari and Gillani) refuse to accept the courts judgment whatever it is, then in interests of not creating any undue tensions between various organs (pun unintended) of the state, the matter may be left to the discretion of the ordinary citizens i.e. you and me!

Now, my lords, this is being cheeky. Not all of us are Taliban. You cannot simply keep beating up the little boys and passing us the real big daddy. Have a heart please, and perhaps a muscle.

But the icing on the cake is at the end of the judgment. The Chief Justice has been requested to increase the number of judges hearing this case by the time of the next hearing!

I honestly think that instead of this case being heard in the court we should have handed over this whole matter to a traditional jirga or panchayat, with the honorable Chaudhry Shujat being the surpunch. I could guarantee you that with a few underage girls being married off as a token of goodwill, delivery on spot of course, along with a few billions in compensation for all those lost sugary kickbacks rights, both Zardari and Gillani would have cheerfully resigned.

This judgment is going to have very far reaching dire consequences. It has weakened the case against both the esteemed gentlemen, has opened the door for appointments in the superior judiciary itself being questioned, has further delayed the announcement of the first clear legal verdict on the whole issue, and the worst of all, has again raised the specter of nazria e zaroorat (doctrine of necessity).

When is our judiciary ever going to learn that it is there to enforce the law not dispense what it perceives as justice for all. The role of the judge is to pronounce a verdict. Its then up to the executive to enforce it or the parliament to pass appropriate legislation if they are in disagreement with either of the two. What possible ill could have arisen from pronouncing a guilty or not guilty verdict at this point of time?

Where have the justices of the caliber of Rasheed, Kiyani, Cornelius and Samdani gone? Why have we become masters of camouflaging our lack of character behind meaningless self invented and self serving philosophies?

I pity you, my lords, because you have chosen to pass the buck, whereas a little more of spine and moral courage now, would have given all of us so much more hope. I wish you all the luck, and hope that you continue to sleep well while hiding behind obscure legal precedences and taking refuge under the comfortable covers of imagined desires to do what is best for the country.

I am angry but I do understand what drove you to this. It’s a brave man or woman indeed who creates precedence. You see, the other lines from that soliloquy also now seem to have clearer meanings for me.

But that the dread of something after death,

the undiscovered country,

from whose bourn no traveler returns,

puzzles the will,

and makes us rather bear those ills we have,

then fly to others that we know not of.

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.

Shakespeare could sure spot a coward. So can an ordinary Pakistani, unfortunately for you, Your honors.

pic02

Syndicated from: Borderline Green

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pakistani Judges Press Premier to Defy President

Posted on 11 January 2012 by Tea Server

By Salman Masood and Ismail Khan for The New York Times

The political and legal crisis in Pakistan took a new turn on Tuesday when the Supreme Court threatened to dismiss Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani for failing to comply with court orders to reopen corruption cases against his political boss: President Asif Ali Zardari.

The latest pressure from the court compounds the problems of the governing Pakistan Peoples Party, already facing a political crisis over a controversial memo that sought United States support in thwarting a feared military coup.

Adding to the government’s troubles is a steep increase in terrorist attacks. Another attack occurred early Tuesday, a truck bombing that the authorities said killed more than 25 people, including women and children, in northwestern Pakistan. A senior government official said the bombing appeared to be in retaliation for the recent killing of a militant leader.

Since December 2009, when the Supreme Court struck down an amnesty that nullified corruption charges against thousands of politicians, the court has insisted that the government reopen corruption cases against Mr. Zardari.

But the government has resisted court orders, and Mr. Zardari said last week that, “come what may,” officials from his party would not reopen the graft cases filed against him and his wife, Benazir Bhutto, in Switzerland. Ms. Bhutto was assassinated in 2007.

On Tuesday, a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, ruled that the government was guilty of “willful disobedience” and said that Mr. Gilani was “dishonest” for failing to carry out the earlier court orders.

The judges laid out six options — including initiating contempt of court charges, dismissing the prime minister, forming a judicial commission and taking action against the president for violating his constitutional oath — and ordered the attorney general to explain the government’s position in court on Monday.

A three-member judicial commission that is investigating the controversial memo is scheduled to resume its hearing the same day. Apart from having an acrimonious relationship with the judiciary, the government has an uneasy relationship with the country’s top generals.

Mr. Zardari, who spent 11 years in prison on unproved corruption charges, says the corruption cases against him and Ms. Bhutto that date to the 1990s were politically motivated.

In an interview last week with GEO TV, a news network, Mr. Zardari said reopening those cases would be tantamount to “a trial of the grave” of his wife.

Mr. Zardari also claims immunity as president, but the judiciary, led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, has resisted that claim and has aggressively pursued cases against Mr. Zardari’s party, leading many government officials to speculate that the judiciary was being used by the country’s powerful military to dismiss the government before the March elections for the Senate, in which the Pakistan Peoples Party is expected to win a majority.

Political analysts said the fate of Mr. Gilani, the prime minister, was in peril.

Mr. Zardari called a meeting of his party officials and coalition partners on Tuesday evening to chart strategy, and he was expected to get a statement of support from his allies.

“The situation is fast moving towards a head-on confrontation,” said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a political and military analyst based in Lahore. “It depends on what options are exercised by the Supreme Court.”

According to the Pakistani Constitution, a prime minister can be removed only by the Parliament, and the Supreme Court can disqualify the prime minister only indirectly, Mr. Rizvi said.

“If the court disqualifies the prime minister and the prime minister continues to enjoy the support of the Parliament, then the stage is set for a very dangerous confrontation,” he said.

The legal standoff is forcing the government to defer issues of greater importance, like rescuing a failing economy and fighting Taliban insurgents, as it focuses on its political survival, Mr. Rizvi said.

“The court, the military and the executive are trying to assert themselves,” he said. “It has become a free-for-all.”

There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the bombing on Tuesday, but it appeared to have been carried out by Tehrik-i-Taliban, an umbrella organization of Pakistani militant groups, against the Zakhakhel tribe, which has formed a militia in support of the government, said Mutahir Zeb, administrator for the Khyber tribal region.

Mr. Zeb said the Tehrik-i-Taliban sought to avenge the killing of Qari Kamran, a local Taliban commander, by security forces last week in an area occupied by the Zakhakhel.

Mr. Zeb said a pickup truck exploded in the middle of a bus terminal used by the Zakhakhel in the town of Jamrud.

The bomb destroyed several vehicles, damaged a nearby gasoline pump and shattered windows in the area. In addition to those killed, 27 people were reported wounded in the bombing and were taken to hospitals in Peshawar.

“I was on duty at the nearby checkpoint when I heard a big bang,” said Mir Gul, a security guard. “I rushed toward the spot and saw bodies lying around while the injured cried for help. It was devastating. There was blood everywhere.”

Pakistanis for Peace Editor’s Note-
The Pakistani people deserve better than this. The only solution to EVERYTHING that ails Pakistan is a true and long lasting peace with India. The sooner this dream becomes a reality, the sooner grim news of extremism and its grip on Pakistan will go away~

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Freedoms, homegrown terror, India, Mumbai, Mumbai Attacks, Nuclear, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistani Taliban, Pakistanis, Peace, SAARC, Taliban, Tehrik-i-Taliban, terrorism Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, Benair Bhutto, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Pakistan Peoples Party, PPP, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani

Syndicated from: Pakistanis for Peace

Comments (0)

Register your blog:

Enter your blog address below to become a part of the TeaBreak network.

About TeaBreak:

TeaBreak.pk is a blog aggregator that syndicates pakistani blogs and categorizes them appropriately. Our mission is to give our readers a break from work and let them enjoy their blog time. And we are doing this by bringing all the popular blogs of Pakistan on one platform.