The following are some of the killings which reportedly have been carried out by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi during 2012. I request all political parties, civil rights groups including lawyers’ groups/ associations, and journalists to email this to the Supeme Court of Pakistan Read more »
Published In The Express Tribune, June 23rd, 2012.
The brouhaha over the Dunya News video leak has shifted the spotlight from the real issue of accountability to the dark underbelly of the television news networks. Read more »
There have been calls for Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s resignation after his conviction by the Supreme Court. While Nawaz Sharif has demanded resignation, Imran Khan has threatened a tsunami march on Islamabad. Read more »
The following is the text of the statement released by the Human Rights Watch – a global human rights body.
January 30, 2012
The Pakistani government should redouble efforts to find the killers of the journalist Saleem Shahzad, following the failure of the judicial inquiry commission to identify those responsible, Human Rights Watch said today. Read more »
By Declan Walsh in Islamabad
guardian.co.uk, Monday 10 January 2011
News of the release of a militant suspect emerged the day after protests in Karachi opposing changes to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Read more »
Sometimes, you can only get so much upset. It has now got to the point where it is getting so ridiculous that one can laugh, albeit with tears. Pakistan’s political and governance landscape presents the picture of a bad drama Read more »
If there is one case which the Supreme Court (SC) of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry does not consider important or fit enough for a suo-moto action is the yet unresolved investigation of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. It is ironic that it was also the Supreme Court which was guilty of the judicial murder of her father. Some things never change in Pakistan. But did Iftikhar Chaudhry challenge Musharraf? Yes, but did he challenge the status-quo or the establishment? Let me define establishment. The core of the establishment is the Army GHQ and the intelligence services. Top civil bureaucrats and selected members of feudal and business families are members of the establishment. Due to Pakistan’s unique demographics, socio-economic conditions, and inter-marriages in the families of these elites, the establishment’s policies have been and continue to be greatly influenced and dominated by the interests of northern and central Punjab. Read more »
The Sunday Times
By Christina Lamb
Benazir Bhutto was brought back to Pakistan from exile as part of an international deal. Then she was killed — and all traces of evidence were immediately swept away. Our award-winning correspondent follows the clues to her killers in London, Karachi and Washington Read more »
It is time to reform the Army and the intelligence services
The UN report has some highly disturbing and incriminating pieces. Most importantly, they make it abundantly clear that it wasn’t just one individual or a few individuals who were part of what now appears to be a grand cover-up. The report incriminates not just Musharraf but the top guns of the ISI, MI, and the IB as well as the police and the interior ministry. For those who have always maintained that Army is a well disciplined and organised institution, it has become increasingly difficult to make the self-contradictory assertion that the series of acts, commissions and omissions, were just the acts of few individual officers. Read more »
239. (1) A Bill to amend the Constitution may originate in either House and when the Bill has been passed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House, it shall be transmitted to the other House.(2) If the Bill is passed without amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.
(3) If the Bill is passed with amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall be reconsidered by the House in which it had originated, and if the bill as amended by the former House is passed by the latter by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership it shall, subject to provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.
(4) A Bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a Province shall not be presented to the President for assent unless it has been passed by the Provincial Assembly of that Province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership.
(5) No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever.
(6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.
|
Originally published by Let US Build Pakistan Blog By Omar Khattab in Islamabad Suddenly the media has swept the entire nation into the vortex of an acrimonious debate between lawyers on the issue of the 18th constitutional amendment. Akram Sheikh, a Jamaat-e-Islami stalwart and an ISI-backed “leader” of the lawyer community, has been using extremely offensive language against the likes of Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmed Kurd. It appears that he has succeeded in enraging pro-18th Amendment people by making them use harsh language. Read more » |
The biggest conspiracy theory that I have come across in the recent years is that Benazir Bhutto fell victim to a terrorist attack. Ninety percent of our media analysts have been, deliberately or unconsciously, part of the larger conspiracy to lay the blame for most violence in Pakistan on terrorism and extremism or on the mullahs but do not have the guts to point to the root causes, the principal accused and the main culprit …. the military establishment. Read more »
The following is the executive summary of the report: Click here for the full report
Executive Summary Read more »
It will be late night or early morning in Pakistan when the much awaited United Nations report on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is released by the UN. There is a litmus test that will determine, for me at least, whether the report has any relevance or meaning. I will come to that later in this article. The United Nations commission was charged with examining the facts and circumstances behind the December 2007 assassination. The Commission is headed by Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz of Chile, and its other members are Marzuki Darusman, the former attorney-general of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, a veteran of the Irish National Police who has also served the UN in various roles. The UN fact-finders were asked to probe Ms. Bhutto’s assassination in a gun and bomb suicide attack in the closing days of Pakistan’s 2007 elections, as well as her narrow escape from a similar bombing two months earlier, when she paraded triumphantly through Karachi after returning home from eight years in exile. Read more »
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) warned the Chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) that he may be put behind bars if the judicial orders delivered on National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), were not implemented, Geo News reported Monday.Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday said in his remarks that it is unthinkable why the court order on the NRO is being criticized; though, the Parliament threw it away terming it ‘a stinking mouse’. Justice Ramday wondered what wrong was done in delivering the NRO verdict that a volley of invectives is being showered. A seven-member of the SC headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry heard the corruption case against Riaz Sheikh, FIA’s additional DG Finance. Read more »
Where are the political and media pundits who have prospered on the crumbs thrown at them by the establishment and its agencies? Why don’t we have a front page story from Ansar Abbasi that Nawaz Sharif is sabotaging the repeal of the 17th amendment? Why don’t the TV channels ask Nawaz Sharif why he is going back on the Charter of Democracy he signed with Benazir Bhutto? Where are the paid agents of the establishment like Dr Shahid Masood quiet on this? Why do the champions of the lawyers movement and the bar associations silent on what is literally an assault on the most serious and biggest attempt so far since 1977 to restore the constitution to its original shape? Read more »
March 17th, 2010 by
Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Justice Khawaja Sharif, has spoken once again, with the hate speech and prejudice which are his usual characteristics. Justice Sharif is notorious for his unflinching support for PML-N and Taliban and for his hostility towards liberal and secular sections of Pakistani society. Read more »
The government had to take a U-turn and not only had to withdraw the notification of the appointment of the judges but has also yielded to the blackmail. But that does not change basic facts. The position of the Supreme Court and the so-called constitutional experts is wrong and/or politically motivated.The constitutions and practices in the UK and India do not support the view that has been sold to the naive Pakistani public.The Indian President and the Lord Chancellor in the United Kingdom are supposed to consult with the Chief Justice but can reject the recommendation of the chief justice. But even from the standpoint of Pakistan’s law, the position taken by Iftikhar Chaudhry is just political power play and has nothing to do with the principles or 1973 Constitution.We feel that we must put the record straight. So please read the following carefully. Read more »
Comment by Yousuf Nazar
The report of the News (25th Feb. 2010) is reproduced below: Read more »
This DAWN report needs no comment
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan said on Friday it will not examine evidence against intelligence agencies in the missing persons’ case.
A written order released to the media states that evidence and allegations of involvement of intelligence agencies in abducting people will be examined by an ‘appropriate forum at the relevant time.’
The written orders were released a week after the last hearing in the case, which was conducted by Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Sair Ali and Justice Tariq Pervez.
The four-page order noted that police officials have expressed their inability to make further probes in certain cases regarding the missing persons’ due to alleged involvement of various intelligence agencies.
Over a thousand people have been missing for the last four years amid allegations of intelligence agencies kidnapping them as part of in relation to the war against terror. The Supreme Court took notice of the complaints and started a probe in 2006.
After assurance of progress from Attorney General Anwar Mansur Sohail, the apex court will now take up the case again next week. —DawnNews
First let me reproduce part of story published by The News International on February 15, 2010. The reporter is Rauf Klasra.
ISLAMABAD: Striking down his entire lot of nominees for appointment as judges of the Lahore High Court, the federal government has formally informed the Chief Justice, Justice Khwaja Sharif, that his list contained serious “flaws” and did not meet the set constitutional criteria. The government has also sent back a similar list, forwarded by the Sindh governor for his own province, it was reliably learnt. Though Punjab Governor Salman Taseer had recommended 19 of the original 28 nominees of the Chief Justice Lahore High Court, Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif, the federal government has, nevertheless, rejected all while citing different reasons.A source close to the Supreme Court, when contacted, said the matter of judges’ appointment is in court and soon everything will get crystal clear. He said whatever information about the nominees of judges was required under the Constitution was provided by the Lahore High Court chief justice. The criterion for selection of nominees for judges was also strictly followed. Whatever qualification the constitution provided for judges, such as competency, experience and good reputation, was ensured while finalising the list of nominees for judges.
SO far so good. But then the story goes on to quote the “SOURCE IN THE SUPREME COURT” to publish this highly political statement. This source should either come out openly and join politics. Or is it that the News publishes whatever it feels like and attributes it to sources. Now please read carefully the following part of the story.
He said in fact the government attitude towards judiciary was altogether changed after the announcement of Supreme Court verdict on NRO. Before this verdict, the government accepted all recommendations in a hope that the Supreme Court would feel obliged and show leniency on NRO. He said the Supreme Court, however, made the decision strictly according to law and constitution shattering the government hopes. Afterwards, he said, the government adopted attitude of non-cooperation and started objecting on every recommendation by the judiciary. He said the judiciary was offered by the government to induct 50 per cent of Jiala judges and 50 per cent of their own choice. “Be happy and make us happy” was what the government wanted from judiciary. He said whenever these objections were sent by the government, today, yesterday or some days before why it did not wait for the response from the chief justice. He said the government made the announcement before consultation, while it is not authorised under the constitution to act in this way.He said the PPP government wanted to induct Jiala judges in the judiciary and turn Pakistan’s justice system into topsy-turvy so that it could loot the national wealth with both hands. He said, according to his information, the agencies were pressurised to make false reports about the nominees for judges. He said the main problem is of one man that is President Zardari. And of Zardari’s corruption, he said, the main issue is of Swiss court cases. Attempts are being made to save Zardari from persecution in Swiss courts so that the looted money is not brought back and culprit is also not apprehended.
Who is this source? Is it in accordance with constitutional and legal norms that Supreme Court sources make political speeches and comments to newspapers? What business is it of a Chief Justice to go around the country (even after he had been restored) and address bars and meet delegations. Is there a limit to the nonsense that is being thrust upon the hapless people of Pakistan in the name of “independent judiciary”.
One former Chief Justice (Munir) killed the constitution of Pakistan. Another Chief Justice (Anwar ul Haq) was responsible for the murder of an elected Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and gave legal cover to Zia, the curse of Pakistan. Another Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry sold out his soul to Musharraf by becoming his chief justice only to later conspire against him with the help of the intelligence agencies. Why then we are expected to blindly follow and respect these lordships?
If they really care about justice, then why don’t they order all the generals, admirals and chaudhris of Punjab to disclose their wealth and return all loans that were written off? Why don’t they order Musharraf and all his collaborators to appear in the court and face trial under Article 6? That is the most serious crime that can be committed under the law of the land but Zardari hunting is the only job these Lordships have been assigned by their real masters in Pindi, and toady journalists are too happy to oblige!
Saturday, February 13 10:56 pm EST
Every objective analyst who follows Pakistan has come to the same conclusion – Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is becoming a serious threat not only to the country, but also to the entire democratic system that is already under tremendous stress. In fact, it is pretty much established that some behind the scene players in Pakistan are interested in seeing ‘favorable’ people take over the government and these forces are perhaps using the Chief Justice as a tool to achieve their nauseating objective. Read more »
Published in DAWN
The Supreme Court’s verdict on the NRO and the way it has been decided to enforce it leaves no doubt in my mind that the establishment is once again out to get the PPP and bring back its favourite civilians to power.
Familiar forces are once again trying to seize the initiative they lost after a decade-long military rule which gave us the ‘war on terror’ and has brought us to a state where Pakistan is bracketed with Afghanistan and is considered one of the hottest spots in the world that can explode anytime.
Never mind the blunders of the masters of ‘strategic lack of depth’ and architects of the policies that have turned Pakistan into a client state of America with few friends; they seem to have decided to strike back again.
Now faced with the question of how to justify this attempt to take back power, they seem to have decided to divert the public’s attention to an easy target and a handy dog to whip; the government of Asif Zardari. It is even speculated that the very reason why the establishment facilitated the entry of Zardari into the corridors of power was because he was considered so vulnerable that getting rid of him would be a piece of cake. Read more »
Taxation system is unjust and so is the oil pricing formula. However, that has been the case for a long time. Carbon tax is nothing but a new name given to Petroleum Development Levy (PDL). In fact, Rs10 is less than the PDL of Rs. 10.54 that was being charged on petrol in June. The net increase in the taxes (sales and carbon minus PDL) was just 28 paisas a litre while the freight, OMC, and petroleum dealer margin combined accounted for 96 paisas of the total increase of Rs 5.92. Therefore, out of the total increase of Rs 5.92 in the price of petrol, most of the increase was due to (besides the rise in international prices) higher commissions and charges paid to the oil companies and petroleum dealers as shown below:
The State shall exercise its powers and authority through chosen representatives of the people. [Preamble para 3]
The “State” means the Federal Government, Parliament, a Provincial Government, a Provincial Assembly, and such local or other institution or other authorities in Pakistan as are by law empowered to impose any tax or cess [Article 7]
Any Law, or any custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the (fundamental) rights conferred by Chapter 1, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. [Article 8]
No tax shall be levied for the purposes of the Federation except by or under the authority of Act of Parliament [Article 77]
Article 89 gives the President to promulgate ordinance and states that:
An ordinance promulgated under this article [89] shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament and shall be subject to like restrictions as the powers of Parliament to make law, but every such ordinance-
(a) shall be laid-
(i) before the National Assembly if it [contains provisions dealing with all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) of Article 73] and shall stand repealed at the expiration of four months from its promulgation or, if before the expiration of that period a resolution disapproving it is passed by the Assembly, upon the passing of that resolution.
Clause (2) of Article 73 relates to money bills including finance or budget.
In view of the above provisions of the Constitution, it is clear that only the State through the Parliament has the exclusive jurisdiction in matters of taxes and the Supreme Court can only interfere in accordance with Article 8.
The Mochi darwaza language of the remarks of the bench is highly inappropriate and politically motivated and has nothing to do with the fundamental rights contained in Chapter one of the constitution. Judges have no business meeting US diplomats and holding televised meetings, addressing conventions, and making rhetorical populist speeches. They must stick to the business of dispensing justice and speak only through their judgements.
Are some powers trying to build up judges so that they can serve in a future set up? If one looks at the usual indicators, the choice of cases, rhetoric from the bench, its support from quarters who have always been in the pay of agencies, the answer seems to be yes. Pakistanis, brace yourselves for President Iftikhar Chaudhry.
—————————————————————————————————————–
P.S. What has been the practice in the United States?
Quote from “The Taxing Power” by Professor Erik M. Jensen who is an academic and author:
In general (and to the dismay of some Supreme Court justices), the Court has bent over backwards not to challenge levies that Congress has characterized as taxes. In McCray v. United States (1903), the US Supreme Court considered federal taxes on margarine. In an 1886 act, Congress provided for taxing yellow margarine at ten cents per pound, while margarine of other colors was taxed at only one-quarter cent per pound. The purpose behind the taxes was clear – to make margarine less competitive with butter – but the Court refused to look beyond the form of the statue. The Court quoted an 1888 opinion to the effect that “[t]he judicial department cannot prescribe to the legislative department limitations upon the exercise of its acknowledged powers. The power to tax may be exercised oppressively upon persons; but the responsibility of the legislature is not to the courts, but to the people by whom its members are elected.”
I agree with Aitzaz Ahsan when he says a sovereign parliament can not be built on the debris of an independent judiciary but in the same token an independent judiciary can not be built with judges who violated article 6 of the constitution and Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry did precisely that when he took oath under the PCO in 2002. No institution, no individual, and no court in Pakistan has the authority to condone that. Let us get this straight: if one act of defiance is enough to wash one individual’s past sins, then both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zaradari have washed their past sins like the sins of Iftikhar Chaudhry were washed away (as his supporters claim) by his act of defiance on March 9, 2007. We can not have double standards and weak constitutional arguments just when they suit us. Read more »
It may sound blasphemous but I am not persuaded that the restoration of the judges alone will ensure the independence of the judiciary. The rot is too old, too dirty and too complicated for such a simplistic and naïve approach to work. More importantly, the conduct of the judges even after July 20, 2007 and more specifically their ”practical facilitation” of the re-election of Musharraf as ‘President’ through dismissal of petitions on September 28, 2007 does not provide grounds for “unconditional restoration”. These judges were very much part and parcel of the establishment and its conspiracies. It was the SC judges who allowed Musharraf to get ‘re-elected’ through the old parliament and it was Justice Chaudhry who refused to form a full court (despite pleas from Fakhruddin Ebrahim and Wajihuddin Ahmed) and constitutued a bench that gave that judgement. Their credibility is as suspect as that of Musharraf.
Before the murder of Benazir Bhutto, I favored the boycott of elections on the ground that November 3, 2007 actions were not constitutional. The conditions changed after her assassination and rigging became a highly risky proposition for the establishment which came under huge pressure from the top leadership of the US Democratic Party. Now we have an elected parliament which should be the only forum to debate and decide all matters.
The judges’ issue can not be resolved in isolation from the history of the judiciary and its shameful conduct including the murder of Zulfiqar Ali Bhuto and in the recent past, its collaborative role with the despicable figures like Ghulam Ishaq Khan, turncoats like Farooq Leghari, Bonapartists like Musharraf, and its past and present ties with the intelligence agencies. The restoration is not a just a constitutional or moral matter. It is a political issue as well as a proxy for power plays inside the establishment. Who can disagree that in 2000, it would have been impossible for any judge to make it to the Supreme Court bench without getting a clearance from the intelligence agencies and Justice Chaudhry was one of those judges. Yes, Justice Chaudhry showed defiance on March 9, 2007 but only when he was pushed to the wall and his own position was threatened. Also among the ‘judges’ is Justice Javed Iqbal whose conduct in the past has raised doubts about his impartiality and credibility. Justice Javed Iqbal was one of those 6 judges whose September 28, 2007 verdict, dismissing the petitions challenging the validity of presidential elections, enabled Musharraf to proceed with the charade of getting elected from the old parliament.
The head of the bench Justice Rana Bhagwandas and two other judges, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, dissented with the majority and held the petitions maintainable. Six other members of the bench — Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice Falak Sher and Justice M.Javed Buttar — held the petitions to be “not maintainable” under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. And it was Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry who had constituted the bench and did not entertain the plea from Justice (r) Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim, who had written a letter to the CJ, to form the full court and also invite the Chief Justices of High Courts to sit on the bench. This was the murkiest aspect of the whole saga. Justice Wajihuddin had publicly expressed reservations about the constitution of the bench. Why did Justice Chaudhry not form the full court? Even post July 20th, was Justice Chaudhry acting on some one’s bidding? Why did he deliberately constitute a bench that was almost certain to give judgement in Musharraf’s favour and included only three judges from the 13-member bench that had restored him? The constitution of the benches had been as follows in different cases:
1. The Bench that dismissed petitions against the dual offices as ‘non-maintainable’.
Six who gave the majority judgement: Justices Javed Iqbal, Abdul Hameed Dogar, Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi, Faqir Mohammad Khokhar, Falak Sher, and M. Javed Buttar. Three who dissented: Justices Bhagwan Das, Sardar Mohammad Raza Khan, and Mian Shakirullah Jan.
2. The bench that restored Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry
The ten judges who handed down the judgment were: Justices Khalilur Rahman Ramday, Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Mian Shakirullah Jan, Tassadduq Hussain Jillani, Nasirul Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Ch Ijaz Ahmed, Syed Jamshed Ali, Hamid Ali Mirza and Ghulam Rabbani The three judges who dissented were Justices Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M Javed Buttar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad.
3. Only one judge who gave the judgement in favour of restoring CJ Iftikhar – Shakirullah Jan- was on the bench that heard the petitions against holding of the dual offices.
4. Two judges, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M Javed Buttar, who dissented in the CJ restoration case were included in the bench that heard dual offices’ petition. Also included was Justice Javed Iqbal who became the acting chief immediately after the “suspension” of CJ Chaudhry on March 9.
Reacting to the 28th September 6-3 judgment, PML (N) acting president Makhdoom Javed Hashmi had said the infamous doctrine of necessity, under which all military rules had been validated by the apex court, was still continuing. “We thought the judiciary has become totally independent, but this impression proved to be wrong,” he declared.
After Justice Chaudhry’s restoration on July 20, 2007, his supreme court had three months to take suo moto notice of some crucial constitutional issues but strangely enough, although it found time to issue notices about traffic jams in Karachi, Jamia Hafza and ‘missing persons’, judicial activism was notably absent about crucial constitutional issues. Justice Javed Iqbal heard the petition challenging the eligibility of Musharraf for three weeks before dismissing it on technical and frivolous grounds amid reports in the foreign media [Sunday Times] that this decision was obtained after a blackmail on ‘personal conduct’. This and other issues raised eyebrows in the well informed circles. Mystery still surrounds the issue of “missing persons”.
Let us take one example of Qari Saifullah Akhtar, a militant with a notorious past. Among the “missing persons” released as a result of Justice Chaudhry’s intervention (though not directly by him) was Qari Saifullah Akhtar. The question of persons like Qari Saifullah Akhtar has not received the media scrutiny it deserves. Qari is not an ordinary person but perhaps one the biggest terrorists Pakistan’s military establishment–jihadi nexus has produced in the last 20 years. He was accused by Benazir Bhutto of masterminding the October 18, 2007 bombing in Karachi.
Saifullah Akhtar emerged on the national scene when in October 1995, General Abdul Waheed Kakkar, the then chief of the army staff under Benazir Bhutto, discovered a plot by a group of army officers headed by Major General Zaheer-ul-Islam Abbasi to have him and Benazir assassinated, capture power and proclaim the formation of an Islamic Caliphate in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Abbasi and his army associates were arrested. They were found to have been plotting in tandem with a group in the Harkat-ul-Ansar (HuA) led by Qari Saifullah Akhtar. But while Abbasi and his associates were court-martialled and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the Qari was released without any action being taken against him.
On May 19, 2002, ARY Digital TV’s host Dr. Shahid Masood, while discussing the May 8, 2002 killing of 11 French nationals in Karachi, named one Harkat al-Jahad al-Islami as one of the suspected terrorists involved in the bombing. When the Americans bombed the Taliban and Mulla Umar fled from his stronghold in Kandahar, a Pakistani personality also fled with him. This was Qari Saifullah Akhtar, the leader of Harkat al-Jahad al-Islami.
On August 8, 2004, the then Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed announced the arrest of ‘wanted militant’ Qari Saifullah Akhtar: “We confirm that we have arrested [Qari] Saifullah Akhtar. He was on our wanted list for a very long time before, but he was not available. We did not know his location. And now from UAE, we got the information, and they delivered him to us. And now he is in our custody.”
On January 18, 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition against the arrest of Qari Saifullah Akhtar and directed the petitioner to first move the High Court by filing a habeas corpus writ petition. A Supreme Court bench of Justice Hamid Ali Mirza and Justice Falak Sher ruled that the arrest in this case was not a matter of public importance; hence a constitutional petition could not be filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
The U.S. was reportedly interested in questioning Akhtar and on July 19, 2006, his name was included in the “Terrorists No Longer a Threat.” On May 5, 2007, the Supreme Court was told Qari was not in government custody. A report presented by the National Crisis Management cell to the Supreme Court, revealed, “He is engaged in jihadi activities somewhere in Punjab”, thus denying that Qari Saifullah was in government’s custody.
On May 26, 2007, Supreme Court was told Qari had been released. Director Crisis Management Cell Col (retd) Javed Iqbal Lodhi told the Supreme Court that so far 98 missing persons have been traced. The two member bench comprising Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Justice Falak Sher directed the interior ministry to submit affidavits about those who have reached their homes so that information could be collected as to who had picked them up and under what charges and circumstances. The bench also asked the authorities to expedite their efforts to find out whereabouts of remaining 156 missing people and coordinate with all the intelligence agencies including MI, ISI and the interior ministry officials of all four provinces. The counsel for Qari Saifullah Akhtar said he had been released after detention by the security agencies for two years and nine months. Qari was re-arrested on February 26, 2008 and released on March 26, 2008 by a Sind high court judge (also a TV star) appointed after November 3, 2007.
It is indeed strange that while the Supreme Court under Chuadhry went to such lengths to help the “missing persons”, it did not take suo moto action about some of the most crucial constitutional issues of the time. It did not think it fit to take suo moto action about the question of the eligibility of General Musharraf to contest elections or the validity of Presidential elections by the former parliament. Why? One might say it was waiting for some one to file a petition. Maybe! However, I doubt that explanation given how things really work in Islamabad.
However, it could have taken suo moto notice of the Election Commission’s notification of Sept. 10, 2007, which excluded the presidential candidates from the purview of Article 63, which enumerated the disqualification of candidates. This was the beginning of the rigging of the presidential elections. But Justice Chaudhry’s Court was a silent party to this blatant subversion of the constitution in a matter as important as the election of the president of Pakistan. Why?
The critics of the PPP maintain that the party is afraid that Justice Chaudhry would reopen the NRO case and this would harm the interests of Mr. Zardari and others. That may be so. But the question of accountability is much larger than that. The NAB used the cases as a means of political victimization and selected accountability. Why no one raises the question of the accountability of the sons of generals, Chaudhries of Gujrat, Ghulam Ishaq’s family, and other champions and minions of the establishment. Yes, all holders of political and government offices, including Mr. Asif Ali Zardari and Mr. Nawaz Sharif should account for their wealth. But the accountability should not be selective and it should not be restricted to the politicians from the smaller provinces particularly from Sind.
This should not be taken as a defense of Zardari. He should fulfill the promise he made to the nation when he signed the Bhurbun declaration which is simple and unambiguous in that the all judges were to be reinstated through a resolution of the parliament within 30 days of the formation of the federal government. The text of the declaration dated March 9, 2008 is as follows:
TEXT OF MURREE DECLARATION
1- Allied parties, the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League (N) resolve to form a coalition government for giving a practical shape to the mandate, which was given to the democratic forces by the people of Pakistan on February 18, 2008.
2- This has been decided in today’s summit between the PPP and the PML (N) that the deposed judges would be restored, on the position as they were on November 2, 2007, within 30 days of the formation of the federal government through a parliamentary resolution.
3- The parties agreed that all allied parties would fully support the candidate for the position of the prime minister, nominated by the PPP. The PML (N) suggested that the candidate for prime minister should be such person who can take ahead the common agenda of the allied parties.
4- The parties agreed that the speaker and the deputy speaker of the national assembly would be from the PPP while the speaker and the deputy speaker of the Punjab assembly would be from the PML (N).
5- Both the parties agreed that the PML (N) would be a part of the federal government while the PPP would be a part of the Punjab government.
6- This is the solid opinion of the leaderships of both the parties that the allied parties are ready for forming the governments and the sessions of the national and provincial assemblies be summoned immediately.
It is clear that by not acting in accordance with the letter and spirit of the “Murree Summit Declaration” Mr. Zardari’s credibility has been damaged. However, the question of a truly independent judiciary is much larger than what the lawyers, PML(N), or the media pundits seem to believe. At the moment, the polarizing line has been drawn between two forces. Those who want to work with Musharaff and those who do not. But there is another not so visible line. The parties with the largest following in the smaller provinces, namely, the PPP, MQM, ANP and the JUI do not seem to be so concerned about the restoration of judges. Why? Is it because the judiciary has historically played the part of the B team of the Punjabi establishment?
Some very senior and seasoned lawyers believe that there is another line. Justice Chaudhry’s saga represents the split inside the establishment on the lines of ‘liberal’ and ‘right-wing’ elements. While the liberals are a heterogeneous group, the ‘right-wingers’ are dominated by the traditional Punjabi establishment. The Supreme Court bar led by Aitzaz Ahsan has maintained that the recognition of the validity of November 3, 2007 actions of the then chief of the army staff General Musharraf would set a bad precedent. That is correct. But so did the acceptance of his actions of October 12, 1999. The PCO of November 3, 2007 was unconstitutional and all actions void ultra vires but so were the actions under the PCO of 2000. The fact that it was later validated is irrelevant from a legal and moral standpoint. There is no provision in the constitution for such post-facto validation. One does not need a Phd to know that the extra constitutional steps cannot be legalized by any institution be it the Supreme Court or the parliament itself. However, the reality is that they do result in defacto situations but those are NOT dejure situations. But what is the way out of this impasse?
The situation can be summarized as follows:
1. If a strictly constitutional path is followed, judges who refused to take oath under the PCO of January 2000 should be restored but they reportedly do not want to come back.
2. If Justice Chaudhry and others are restored, what is the guarantee they won’t resort to the kind of selective ‘judicial activism’ they did before. The Supreme Court has to redeem itself as an institution. It is a bitter fact of our history that it has treated the prime ministers from Lahore and Larkana differently; be it Anwarul Haq, Nasim Hasan Shah or Iftikhar Chaudhry.
3. If all judges are not restored, PML(N) would probably quit the cabinet.
A fairer and longer lasting solution would be to let all the judges return as part of a constitutional package in accordance with the provisions of the charter of democracy.
Given the tainted past of most of the judges and long history of collaboration with the dictators and their intelligence agencies, I feel more comfortable in letting the elected representatives decide these matters rather than the people, who at the end of the day, were just appointees of a military dictator. This may annoy a lot of people but the fact is Yousuf Raza Gilani spent five years in jail while these judges were happily working under a dictator and enjoying all the perks.
——————————————————————————–
Around 1000 people were trying to make their way to the residence of deposed chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who is under house arrest, but were blocked by police.
Police said 14 officers were hurt in the melee, while an AFP reporter said at least one local journalist was taken to hospital after being beaten with a baton. The clash lasted about 45 minutes.
“They started pelting the police with stones and tried to force their way through. The police responded with tear gas and baton charges to disperse them,” Kaleem Imam, a senior Islamabad police official, told AFP. Read more »
By Yousuf Nazar Read more »
LAWYER OF THE YEAR | IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY
Rex Bossert / Editor-in-Chief
December 17, 2007
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Illustration: Joseph Adolph
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is not exactly a household name to the legal profession in the United States. We think he should be. Read more »
One of Pakistan’s most senior judges has criticised the international response to the state of emergency.
BBC news, Dec. 10 Read more »
November 15, 2007 It has been twelve days now that Pakistan’s chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was put under house arrest, along with Justice Rana Bhagwandas and Justice Khalilur Rahman Ramday, two senior judges of the court. Speaking to BBC World Service TV, Justice Ramday has termed the present Supreme Court as ‘extra-constitutional’. He said that he was relaxed and would give ‘A’ grade to his community for upholding the principles and not compromising on the proclamation of emergency. He maintained that it was extra-constitutional and it was easy to interpret if what followed it was constitutional. He said judges had nothing against General Musharraf and held him responsible for the crisis. The judiciary and its officers have been under tremendous pressure since March 9, 2007, when Musharraf first ‘suspended’ Chief Justice Chaudhry. On May 14, 2007, the supreme court’s additional registrar Syed Hammad Raza was shot dead. Read more »
Justice Bhagwan Das has spoken. The senior most judge, next only to the Chief Justice, has said that he recorded his dissent on the call of conscience. The implications are clear and ominous.
The supreme court of Pakistan’s decision to dismiss petitions against the legality of General Musharraf”s election must be viewed in its correct historic context.
