Editor's Choice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Featured Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let us build Pakistan" has moved.
30 November 2009

All archives and posts have been transferred to the new location, which is: http://criticalppp.com

We encourage you to visit our new site. Please don't leave your comments here because this site is obsolete. You may also like to update your RSS feeds or Google Friend Connect (Follow the Blog) to the new location. Thank you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

NRO, Supreme Court and Dr Shahid Masood's Naani


By Qais Anwar
تیری نانی چھالیہ کاٹ رہی ہے

بہت عرصہ ہواہم گھوڑا گلی کے سکاوٹ کیمپ میں کیمپ فا۶ر میں بیٹھے تھے ۔ ساہیوال کےایک سکول کے
لڑکوں نے قوالی کے آمیزے کے ساتھ ایک لطیفہ سنایا ۔ پرانے وقتوں میں دلی کے ایک ر۶یس گھرانے نے
گھر پر قوالی کی محفل کا اہتمام کیا ۔ حسب رواج خواتین ایک باریک پردے کے پیچھے بیٹھی ہو۶ی تھیں۔ قوالی
شروع ہو۶ی۔۔۔۔۔۔ پردے کے پیچھے یہ کیا ہو رہا ہے ۔۔۔ میزبان نے محسوس کیا کہ جب بھی قوال اس مصرعے
پر آتے ہیں تو منہ اس پردے کی طرف کر لیتے ہیں جس کے پیچھے خواتین بیٹھی ہو ۶ی ہیں ۔ بہت بھناءے
دیکھا کہ قوالی عروج کی طرف بڑھ رہی ہے اور قوالوں کی ٹولی لہک لہک کر صرف یہی گاءے جا رہی ہے
پردے کے پیچھے یہ کیا ہو رہا ہے ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ رہا نہ گیا اٹھے اور جاکر پردہ اوپر اٹھا دیا اور بولے دیکھو پردے
کے پیچھے تمہاری نانی چھالیہ کاٹ رہی ہے۔

ہمارے ہاں قوالی آصف زرداری کے الیکشن کے وقت ہی شروع ہو گءی تھی۔ آصف زرداری کے جیتنے کی خبر
انصار عباسی نے اس طرح سناءی کہ الیکشن سے کچھ پہلے آنے والا زلزلہ بھی اسمبلیوں اور سینیٹ کے ارکان
کو نہ بتا سکا کہ آصف زرداری کو ووٹ نہیں دینا چاہہیے ۔ پھر باقاعدہ قوالی شروع ہوءی ۔ شاہین صھباءی صاحب
نے پس پردہ قوتوں کے ارادے بیان کرنا شروع کردیے ۔ پھر جناب شاہد مسعود بھی میدان میں آءے اور کیا ہو رہا
ہے کا الاپ شروع کیا۔ پردے کے پیچھے کیا ہے کی وہ تشریحات کیں کہ خدا پناہ۔ کرپشن؛ ذاتی الزامات؛ این آر او۔۔
سب گا چکے لیکن پردے کے پیچھے کچھ بھی نہ ہوا ۔ اب ساری امیدیں عدالت سے ہیں ۔ ہر ایک سے پوچھتے ہیں
عدالت کیا کر رہی ہے۔ پردے کے پیچھے کیا ہو رہا ہے۔ آخر میں عدالت کے خاص آدمی اعتزاز احسن سے
رہا نہ گیا اوروہ اٹھ کھڑے ہوءے کہ کچھ نہیں پو رہا تمہاری نانی چھالیہ کاٹ رہی ہے۔ ایسے لگتا ہے جیسے مقابلہ
چل نکلا ہے ڈاکٹر صاحب قوالی کرتے جا رہے ہیں پردے کے پیچھے یہ کیا ہو رہا ہے؟ اعتزاز احسن پردہ اٹھا
کر کھڑے ہیں کہے جا رہے ہیں تمہاری نانی چھالیہ کاٹ رہی ہے ۔ آ۶یے آ۶ندہ ہفتے کا انتظار کرتے ہیں کہ کیا
ہوتا ہے ۔ ویسے اب جواب دینے والے بڑھ رہے ہیں اب تو حامد میر اور حسن نثار بھی کہہ رہے ہیں
تمہاری نانی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔

Dr Shahid Masood - Tayyab Ali Pyar (Democracy) Ka Dushman Hai Hai





Read more...

Thursday, 12 November 2009

Supreme Court is under siege by the Mullah Media Alliance

It has been learnt through reliable sources that agents of anti-democracy or/and pro-Taliban forces in Pakistani media, namely Shahid Masood and Ansar Abbasi (and their cronies), will in the next few days exert pressure on the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in order get their specific anti-democracy agenda implemented through the judiciary e.g. in the guise of the anti-NRO campaign, and other 'establishment-led' investigations against the PPP government. We present below two news items as well as an op-ed by Ansar Abbasi in which he has tried to pressurize the supreme court of Pakistan to pass judgements consistent with the agenda of the Mullah Media Alliance.

The following news items in today's newspapers can help us solve the puzzle:

SC clarifies report on Zardari’s cases
Source

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday clarified reports that said two cases of President Asif Ali Zardari were placed in a cause list issued in August for hearing on November 16-17. In a press statement, the court said the cases related to the year 1998-99 and were being processed according to routine. One of the cases related to the transfer of a case from one court to another, while the other was filed against an order of the Sindh High Court, wherein the court ordered the release of the property of an appellant. The court said both cases were old and publication of reports in a section of the press should not create any misunderstanding. staff report

PML-N pressured me to become ‘approver’ against Chaudhrys: Hamesh

LAHORE: Former president of the Bank of Punjab (BoP) Hamesh Khan has claimed that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz pressed him to become an ‘approver’ against the Chaudhrys of Gujrat but he refused, a private TV channel reported on Wednesday. Hamesh said the Punjab government assured him that no action would be taken against him if he became an ‘approver’. He said that he had decided to leave the country to avoid becoming a political victim. daily times monitor

Murtaza Bhutto murder case: I was forced to become approver against Zardari: Suddle

Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Shamim Bano
Karachi
The News

Nineteen accused in the murder case of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and six of his comrades denied charges levelled against them and proclaimed their innocence.

Shoaib Suddle, the then Director Intelligence Bureau and presently the Federal Tax Ombudsman, said that the prosecution witnesses testified against him as the then government exerted immense pressure on him to become an approver against Asif Ali Zardari, which he refused.

Former IB chief Masood Sharif and Shoaib Suddle appeared in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge East-I Aftab Ahmed Khan along with 17 other accused and recorded their statements under Section 342 on Wednesday.

Suddle and Sharif, who were exempted from personal appearance, appeared in the court for the second time in 13 years.

They had earlier appeared in the court in 1997, a year after the incident took place.

Rai Tahir and Abdul Basit, who were exempted from personal appearance, also recorded their statements before the judge.

A written questioner was prepared by the court that pertained to three points; the accused hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Mir Murtaza Bhutto and his six comrades; secondly, they all had common intention to fire on the motorcade of Mir Murtaza Bhutto; and thirdly, they ordered their juniors to open fire on the motorcade of Murtaza Bhutto and his associates.

In the shootout, Bhutto was killed along with Aashiq Jatoi, Wajahat Jokhio, Sajjad Ghakro, Bachal Ujan, Yar Mohamamd Baloch, Rahim Brohi, and Sattar Rajpur while Dr Mazhar Memon, Asghar Ali and Ayaz Dayo sustained injuries.

Asif Ali Zardari and Shakaib Qureshi have already been acquitted from the charges. The rest of the accused include former chief minister late Abdullah Shah, late Zeeshan Kazmi, Shoaib Suddle, Masood Sharif, Wajid Ali Durrani, Shahid Hayat, Rai Mohammed Tahir, Agha Jamil, Shabbir Qaim Khani and Abdul Basit.

All the accused, however, denied charges, saying, they were falsely implicated in the case and they prayed the court to acquit them of all charges. When asked by the judge as to why the prosecution witnesses gave evidence against them, they replied that they gave false proofs on the instigation of the complainant party.

The judge asked the accused if they would record their statements on oath, to which all replied in negative, saying that they wouldn’t do so since there was no evidence against them. They also deposed that they did not give any instructions to any of the police personnel to open fire on the motorcade of Mir Murtaza Bhutto.

Clarifying as to why the PWs testified against him, Shoib Suddle said that four days before the incident i.e. on September 16 (1996), Mir Murtaza’s close friend Ali Sonara was arrested following which Mir Sahib along with his companions attacked the CIA Centre, threatened the police personnel and ransacked the office, alleging that the police chief ought to arrest him.

Secondly, he added, DSP Zafar Mithani, who was investigating the matter, misbehaved with the staff of the French Consulate and forcibly stopped them from entering into Hawkesbay. An inquiry was conducted and he was suspended. Later, the investigation was handed over to his father Ali Gohar Mithani who, according to Suddle, took revenge or was biased and that was why the PWs testified against him.

He deposed that due to this case he along with his family members underwent a lot of mental torture and he was also arrested under the Maintenance of Public Order.

In their defence, Rai Tahir and Shahid Hayat asked the court to call two defence witnesses - Rao Imran Ashraf, a reporter of an evening newspaper and Inspector Haider Ali. The court, however, directed to produce them on the next date of hearing on November 14.

The first hearing of the case was held in March 1997, six months of the incident as a tribunal was appointed in October 1996. Asif Ali Zardari was acquitted in March 2008 by the Sindh High Court while Shakaib Qureshi was acquitted in November 2008 by ADJ Abdur Rehman Bhatti. Another accused in the case, Haq Nawaz Sial, was killed in mysterious circumstances.



..
Read more...

Tuesday, 10 November 2009

NRO Actually! (1st Instalment Of Truth)


Selection by: Jarri Mirza

Article written by: Marvi Sirmed

Before I write something about my own personal take on NRO and its legitimacy, I would like to analyze what it actually is and what it is about. While we hear a lot about in the media (generally biased against one party or the other), it is all the more necessary to look into what this word NRO means, what document it is and what it means to the politics in Pakistan. Since the writing could take many pages, and I’m doing it in detail clause by clause, I think we should make it easier for the reader to grasp the information in easiest possible way.

I would apologize from my lawyer friends for not writing this piece in a way they are used to read legislations in. And it is mainly because this piece is intended to serve lay people instead of technical professionals in the field of law. I would try my best to refrain from the legal jargon as far as it is possible. Even then, if there’s something beyond the understanding of a common person (me included), I would request the reader to kindly bring it in the comments so that we could collectively try to understand it. For the purpose of making the continuity easy, I’m calling these pieces “Instalments of Truth”, and this is the first instalment!

I often hear and read comments by lay-persons, saying that NRO was “signed” by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. Now, here’s where the folly lies! NRO is an abbreviated form of National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007, which is a piece of legislation. Legislation, as we all know, is a forte of the parliament in a parliamentary democracy like Pakistan. Pakistan, like many other nation satates, follows West Minster style of parliamentary system (UK, India, Australia, Canada to name few of the parliaments that follow West Minster). There is a corresponding system of government, commonly called Jeffersonian Parliaments, commonly called Presidential form of government (mainly USA). In a West Minster style parliamentary system like the one followed by Pakistan, President is the ceremonial head of the state, who has limited role in legislation.

According to the powers conferred upon the president, by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the President can issue an Ordinance as a piece of legislation when the Parliament is not sitting. Exercising the same power, General (now retired) Pervaiz Musharraf issued an ordinance called National Reconciliation Ordinance 2007, commonly known as NRO. Since it was an Ordinance, it was signed by the President of Pakistan, not by any political party sitting outside the government at that point in time. It is however, debatable, how this ordinance came into being. Without getting into the details of its origin for the time being, we’d go to what it says. The readers can refer to the original text of the NRO wherever s/he deems necessary, which I’ve already put on one of my blogs under the link: http://marvi-sirmed.blogspot.com/2009/10/national-reconciliation-ordinance-2007.html

The Ordinance has seven distinct Sections. Section I deals with the title of the Ordinance as is the usual practice of drafting a legislation.

Section II deals with an amendment in the Criminal Procedures Code (CrPC), which has been there since 1898. This Section of NRO amends section 494 of the CrPC, which empowered only the Prosecutor Generals to withdraw pending Criminal cases. After the amendment introduced by NRO, the Boards at Federal and Provincial Levels could be constituted to review the cases pending from 1st January 1986 to 12 October 1999. These Boards will see if the accused persons in these cases have been falsely involved in these cases on politically motivated reasons. In this case, the Review Boards thus created, can recommend withdrawal of cases to the respected governments.

These Review Boards would be of two types: Provincial and Federal. The Provincial Boards will be chaired by respectable retired Judges of High Courts and will comprise Advocate General / Prosecutor General and the Provincial Law Secretaries. The Federal Board will be chaired by a retired judge of the Supreme Court and will have Attorney General and Federal Law Secretary as its member, while both of these Boards would be appointed by federal and provincial governments as the case may be.

It is noteworthy here that NRO does not bind the federal and provincial governments to act upon the recommendations of the Review Boards. So, if any of the government doesn’t want to withdraw any of the cases, there’s no binding on them to comply with the Boards’ recommendations. In other words, the status of the Boards is recommendatory, not obligatory. It should also be noted here that this particular clause was included on the insistence of MQM, who was part of discussions made on such legislation. The dates mentioned in this section provide cover to the criminal cases made on MQM during the period from 1986 to 1999.



Source: http://marvisirmed.com/?p=193

Read more...

Sunday, 4 October 2009

Judiciary in Pakistan: A movement wasted


A movement wasted
By Kunwar Idris
Sunday, 04 Oct, 2009 (Dawn)
Mysteriously silent is Aitzaz Ahsan, who led processions from one end of the country to the other swaying the lawyers with the rhythm of his poetic chants. It seems he now only has his losses to calculate. — Photo by AFP

The lawyers’ movement has given no relief to the people seeking redress, nor has it made the procedure for the appointment of judges any fairer.

This is not just the viewpoint of a sceptical columnist who has felt all along that neither would come about by agitating on the streets.

It is Ali Ahmed Kurd, the lawyer who charmed the rabble and elite alike with his histrionics, now saying mournfully that pharaohs sit in courtrooms while brokers sit at the doors. An expression of collective discontent of the lawyers on the selection of new judges and the recall of old ones came in the boycott of their oath-taking ceremony by the Karachi bar, led by Rasheed Razvi, once himself a judge and a supporter of the movement.

Mysteriously silent is Aitzaz Ahsan, who led processions from one end of the country to the other swaying the lawyers with the rhythm of his poetic chants. It seems he now only has his losses to calculate.

Also silent is Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry’s spokesman Athar Minallah who, his passion spent, now broods over it all sitting somewhere else. Both Ahsan and Minallah may be quiet, but I suspect they are no less disillusioned than Kurd and Razvi.

The lawyers in the movement were so carried away by the prospect of humbling a haughty president that they forget that the judiciary could become neither independent nor more responsible only by the reinstatement of a chief justice — howsoever unjustly removed or harshly treated. Institutions are built by slogging over centuries and not by one quick march. The lawyers succeeded in their immediate aim but their campaign has made the judiciary more vulnerable to extraneous pressures than before.

Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, addressing the lawyers at Jamshoro soon after his reinstatement, spoke of the disposal of every case within six months. The reinstated chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Khawaja Sharif, similarly told the Sheikhupura bar that every ‘reptile’ would be tamed once the biggest among them, meaning Pervez Musharraf, was hauled up. Musharraf is not there now as an obstacle but Justice Sharif can hardly claim that the disposal of cases has become fairer and more expeditious since his departure. This writer has been following the proceedings of two pending cases, one in the high court and the other in a subordinate court. Neither has matured for a meaningful hearing in two years. The assurances of judges have come to mean no better than the promises of politicians.

The chief justice has also been showing anxiety over the conduct and integrity of the judges being called into question. Surely he now realises that the fact of who took oath, when and who administered it was not enough to acclaim or condemn a judge. The legal profession and the people need more demonstrable evidence. The best, though not conclusive, would be their reputation, lifestyle and wealth.

Repeated pleas made to the heads of state and government and the ministers to declare their assets have had no effect. Resultantly, it is left to conjecture or disclosure. Pakistan’s ever sinking rank in the world corruption table demands that the worst culprits among the offending public servants should be identified. The judges of the superior courts, who are expected to be the least tainted of all, could set the precedent by declaring their assets on joining office and later as well. Sadly, they do not seem to be so inclined.

India’s supreme court set an example by advising the judges to put their assets on the website of the court. But it is voluntary. A judge may refuse to do so as some indeed have.

Justice Chaudhry has only plaudits to earn if he were to make it compulsory. In fact he should go a step further and establish a forum where the public and litigants could air their grievances of delay or discrimination. At present they don’t know where to go and run the risk of contempt if they complain too loudly. The propriety of the conduct of judges must not be left to rumours or reports in the media. It should be open to public scrutiny.

The current discourses of the chief justice are all about the superior courts. The concern of the people, on the other hand, is more about delays and corruption in the lower courts. In fact the first and often the last court, so to say, for the common man is the police station. The delay and denial of justice at lower levels is widespread because the work is too much, even for prompt judges to handle.

The thrust of the chief justice’s drive, therefore, should be towards the creation of informal citizens’ courts. It is all too well known that getting involved in the institutional machinery of the state implies harassment and extortion. Courts are no exception and even the chief justice can do nothing about it.

In England most criminal cases and civil disputes — as many as nine out of 10 — are decided by justices of the peace who are all unpaid but respectable citizens. Pakistan’s local government laws, too, contemplate conciliation courts but hardly any were established, and litigants wouldn’t trust them either in a political environment even if they had been set up. Under a judicial umbrella they would. It would be good use of the funds and expertise provided by the Asian Development Bank’s Access to Justice Programme.

Howsoever carefully chosen and well-paid, the judges of superior courts can advance the cause of justice only if they are role models for all public servants. The other day, Chief Justice Chaudhry distributed official cars among the civil judges of Karachi and promised them better pay as well.

It makes me recall a scene from my student days in Lahore when Justice Masud Ahmad came to the high court riding a bicycle and other judges came driving their own cars — particularly striking among them was Pakistan’s then chief justice, A.R. Cornelius, who came in his sports coupe. Times and the judges have since changed, but not the hard reality that justice doesn’t flow from pay and protocol.

kunwaridris@hotmail.com


Read more...

Saturday, 26 September 2009

Restored judiciary brought no change: Kurd


Restored judiciary brought no change: Kurd
Saturday, September 26, 2009
By By Sohail Khan
ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Ali Ahmad Kurd on Friday said that the restored judiciary had brought no changes in the institution that ultimately disappointed the public at large.

Talking to reporters on the premises of the Supreme Court, he urged the higher

judiciary to strive hard to make the people believe in the judicial system of the country. Ali Ahmed Kurd said that the legal fraternity had waged a war for the restoration of the judiciary and the Constitution and launched a massive movement, and finally it succeeded in restoring the judiciary of November 2, 2007.

However, he said that the restored deposed judiciary brought no changes to the institution. “It was the lawyers’ movement that forced a powerful person of our history to leave the Presidency and the good faith of lawyers made it possible to restore the deposed judiciary,” Kurd said.

The SCBA president said that a large number of litigants visited the Supreme Court but were not provided justice due to which a sense of deprivation and disappointment was prevailing among the masses.

He further said that the Supreme Court should devise a unified system for smooth and rapid processing of applications received from litigants, and they should be intimated at the earliest before their cases are taken up.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=200152



Read more...

Friday, 25 September 2009

Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif and the Sugar Crisis in Pakistan


More than 50 percent sugar mills in Pak owned by politicians
August 23rd, 2009 - 6:22 pm ICT by ANI

Islamabad, Aug.23 (ANI): More than 50 percent of sugar mills in Pakistan are owned by political leaders, and despite this fact, sugar prices in the country have sky rocketed in the recent past, increasing problems for the people, especially in the month of Ramazan.

According to sources, there are 78 sugar mills in the country and the political leaders or their relatives or partners own more than 50 per cent of these factories.

Insiders said that there are at least six mills owned by President Asif Ali Zardari’s family members and other PPP leaders.

They also revealed that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s family members own nine sugar factories situated in different part of the country, most of them in Punjab province.

While the government has claimed that it would look that the sugar prices in the country do not exceed a limit, people believe it is difficult to bring down the prices and they would continue to suffer.

“When the government says that it will catch the culprits and provide sugar to the masses on affordable rates, it is like throwing dust in the eyes of masses”, The Nation quoted one Islamabad resident, as saying on conditions of anonymity.

“After all who were the ultimate beneficiaries of the meetings held between sugar mills owners and the government?” he asked.

The prime reason behind the sudden steep rise in the price of one of the most important daily commodity is a calculated strategy chalked out by major players of the sugar industry with help from important government personalities.

According to sources, the sugar mafia in the country has undermined orders from the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) and has manipulated decision-making at the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) to achieve the mischievous target of increasing the sugar prices.

The command with which this mafia works can be gauged from the fact that ECC’s order to release sugar at a controlled price of 38 rupees per kilogram through ration stores and utility shops is yet to be implemented and people have no choice but to shell out 55 to 60 rupees for a kilogram of sugar.

This is not the first time that sugar prices have reached sky high in Pakistan. During former President General Pervez Musharraf’s regime sugar prices had touched the then peak of 35 rupees per kilogram.A probe was ordered against the political big wigs close to the Musharraf government at that time. However, charges were dropped later on Musharraf’s personal request.

Observers believe that the current scam would also subside with time forcing Pakistanis to spend much more on sugar this Ramzan. (ANI)

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/more-than-50-percent-sugar-mills-in-pak-owned-by-politicians_100236802.html

Sugar Mills of Sharif Brothers exposed in Capital Talk -

See Hanif Abbasi (Jamaatia Munafiq) hypocritically defending his masters.

....
Sugar price

Friday, September 25, 2009

SC refuses to suspend LHC verdict ;Rejects pleas against order ; NAB report on sugar crisis presented in court; SBP gave sugar mills loans worth Rs55 billion out of which Rs21bn still outstanding, apex court told


By Sohail Khan

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected pleas of the sugar mills associations to suspend the order of the Lahore High Court that had fixed the price of sugar at Rs40 per kilogram.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who heads the two-member bench of the apex court hearing identical petitions of the sugar mills associations against the LHC verdict, said the sugar price would remain Rs40 a kilogram.

The Pakistan Sugar Mills’ Association (PSMA), the Punjab Sugar Dealers’ Association (PSDA) and the federal and provincial governments had moved the Supreme Court against the September 3 verdict of the Lahore High Court (LHC) that had fixed retail price of sugar at Rs40 per kilogram.

They had prayed to the apex court to suspend the LHC verdict till the decision of the petitions. The Lahore High Court (LHC) on September 3, 2009 while taking suo motu notice of the sugar crisis in Punjab had fixed the retail price of sugar at Rs40 per kilogram.

In compliance with the court’s earlier direction, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Thursday presented a report prepared two years back on the sugar crisis. The report, prepared on February 17, 2006, stated that the bureau had carried out only preliminary investigation into the crisis but various quarters raised a lot of hue and cry giving the impression that NAB’s inquiry was contributing to further escalation of the sugar prices. This forced the NAB to close the inquiry, the report stated.

The report further stated the sugar industry in the country was predominantly owned by politicians, who despite being in government, acted contrary to the laws and ethics of business and held sugar stock which is tantamount to hoarding.

The report also contains a list of mills owned by politicians that hoarded thousands of metric tons of sugar during the 2006 crisis.It also states that there was a clear-cut position drawn by sugar mills owned by politicians and farmer associations while the government remained in a fix and lacked resolve to bridge the gap between the two stakeholders.

According to the NAB report of 2006, major ownership of the country’s sugar mills industry was in the hands of politicians who hoarded the commodity, which caused the sugar crisis.The report issued on February 17, 2006 also listed names of politicians who own sugar mills. They included Asif Ali Zardari (3 mills), the Sharif brothers (12 mills), Humayun Akhtar Khan, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Mian Azhar, Mian Altaf Salim, Jehangir Tarin, Haroon Akhtar, Anwar Cheema and Nasrullah Dreshak.

A report submitted by the State Bank before the apex court stated that during January 2009, the banks gave sugar mills loans worth Rs55 billion of which Rs21 billion are still to be paid by the mills.

The court adjourned the hearing till October 1, as other parties in the case including the federal and provincial governments, the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP), the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) and the PSMA requested for more time to present reports that the Supreme Court had sought on the previous hearing of the case.

The chief justice also directed PSMA President Iskander Khan to present a copy of the letter he had written to Federal Minister for Food and Agriculture Nazar Muhammad Gondal on June 16, 2009.

Responding to an inquiry by the chief justice, Khan said he had written to the minister that they had sugar stock of two million metric tons. The chief justice reminded him that he had also written to the minister that the PSMA had sugar stock sufficient up to December 2009.

During the course of proceedings, the chief justice observed that the court had not barred anyone from crushing sugarcane.The Punjab government in its reply to the Supreme Court on fixing the sugar prices said the country is facing the crisis because the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) failed to import the commodity in time.

It further stated that the sugar dealers sold 63 per cent of their stock in the first nine months while 37 per cent stock was hoarded for profiteering prior to the beginning of the crushing season. It said no formal inquiry was conducted on a report based on NAB investigation and the Supreme Court, taking suo motu action, dismissed the case on January 24, 2008.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24684
.....

PML-N rejects NAB report on sugar

Friday, 25 Sep, 2009
How can the Sharifs be held responsible for the sugar crisis in 2006 when they were in exile: says Senator Pervaiz Rashid.

LAHORE: Senator Pervaiz Rashid has said the National Accountability Bureau report about involving the Sharif brothers in 2006-07 sugar crisis was to stop the return of PML-N leaders to Pakistan and a tactic to blackmail them.

Commenting on the NAB report published after three years, the senator said that it was an era of dictatorship when the PML-N had issued a schedule of the All Parties Conference, Charter of Democracy and return of Nawaz Sharif to the country.

According to a press release issued here on Thursday, he said that all these tactics were adopted to create hurdles in the return of the exiled politicians.

He said the report about the sugar crisis against the PML-N leaders was a part of the character assassination campaign launched by the dictator.

It was the period when former president Pervez Musharraf was feared of public reaction against him and was not ready to give permission to prominent opposition leaders to play their political role, he said.

‘How can the Sharifs be held responsible for the sugar crisis in 2006 when they were in exile’, he questioned and added that they were not even allowed to perform funeral rituals of their father by the dictator.

The senator said that Shahbaz Sharif was also not allowed to participate in the marriage ceremony of his daughter.

Mr Rashid said when Shahbaz Sharif came to Pakistan he was sent back to Saudi Arabia through another plane despite clear orders of the Supreme Court.

He said most of such cooked up reports, which were prepared only to please the higher authorities, were proved wrong in the court.

He said why the government at that time did not dare to publish the report about the sugar crisis if irregularities were identified in it.

The senator said the Sharif brothers had never been involved in hoarding or anti-people policies and the public support given to them in the last general election was a proof of the fact.



Read more...

Sunday, 13 September 2009

Pakistan: Supreme Court to inquire into Sharif bribe claims


Islamabad, 4 Sept.(AKI) - By Syed Saleem Shahzad - Pakistan's Supreme Court has signalled it will begin inquiring into allegations about a historic deal spearheaded by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in a bid to protect his office in 1993. The appellate bench of the court will set a date soon for the hearing which will hear claims that Sharif paid seven MPs from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas near the border of Afghanistan.

The hearing now depends on the Chief Justice of Pakistan and court staff to determine when the case will be heard.

“This is the story of a gambler (Nawaz Sharif) who when he lost the game refused to pay and fled,” said Shahid Orakzai, the petitioner, who filed this case in 1997 against the former premier.

According to the petition, the case focuses on the 'horse trading' of seven MPs who were allegedly bribed to help Sharif form a majority for Pakistan Muslim League in October 1993 for the election of national assembly speaker which finally set the stage for the election of the leader of the house.

Sharif allegedly used Shahid Orakzai as a liaison to approach the MPs from the tribal areas and agreed to pay each of them 2.5 million Pakistani rupees (30,000 dollars) for their support.

However, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz failed to secure a majority and its rival Pakistan Peoples Party formed a majority in the parliament.

Sharif has been accused of seeking to delay the payment and later refusing to pay a portion of the funds to the MPs who cast their vote in his favour.

Former ISI official retired squadron leader Khalid Khawaja has also filed an affidavit in the court confirming that the transactions took place with the MPs through Shahid Orakzai.

The case is widely seen as a litmus test for the credibility of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Shahid Orakzai told Adnkronos International in Islamabad.

Many will be watching to see whether he fixes an early date for the case, or like previous court orders refuses to hear the case or delay it to protect Sharif.

Sharif first became prime minister in 1990 but his government was sacked in April 1993, when president Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the National Assembly on charges of corruption, nepotism, and extrajudicial killings.

Six weeks later, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the presidential order was unconstitutional, reconstituting the National Assembly and returning Sharif to power on May 26.

The army stepped in asking Sharif to resign and he and the president were forced from office in July 1993.

In July 2009 Pakistan's Supreme Court acquitted Sharif of hijacking charges, removing the final ban on him running for public office.

Sharif was found guilty of hijacking then army chief general Pervez Musharraf's plane in 1999, when he ordered it to be diverted.


Read more...

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Taliban taste justice, Taliban style in Swat, Pakistan

Pakistani soldiers stand guard on top of a mountain overlooking the Swat valley

Pakistan's military is accused of summarily executing suspected Taliban militants in the Swat valley. Photograph: Pedro Ugarte/AFP/Getty Images

When was the last time that judicial courts in Pakistan, including "the great saviour of the nation" Chief Justice Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry, sentenced a jihadi or/and a sectarian terrorist to death? When was the last time that the most notorious criminals of Al Qaeda, Taliban, Sipah-e-Sahaba were given exemplary punishments? When was the last time such punishments were executed?

It would appear that because of fear of death or temptation for money (or because of their own ideological alignment with convervative forces), courts in Pakistan have been more on the side of criminal such as Hafiz Muhammad Saeed (of Lashkar-e-Toiba), Mullah Abdul Aziz (of Lal Masjid), and Akram Lahori (of Sipah-e-Sahaba), than taking care of the lives and properties of innocent Pakistanis.

Therefore, given that judicial system in Pakistan has failed to punish the culprits, we hereby declare our support for the extra-judicial killing of Taliban terrorists by Pakistan Army, Police and ordinary Pakistani citizens. Taliban (and their Wahhabi-Deobandi supporters) are the scum of the land of the pure. They need to be eliminated through all possible means. It is our responsibilty to secure the country and its people from the menace of terrorism; ends would justify means in this case.

Bodies found in Pakistan valley

The body of a suspected militant is found in Mingora (21 August 2009)
Residents and human rights groups have called for an investigation

The bodies of 22 suspected militants have been found in Pakistan's Swat valley in the past day, officials say.

Corpses allegedly began appearing several weeks ago. Officials said 18 were found in the region last week.

Local residents say the Pakistani security forces have been carrying out extra-judicial killings as part of their offensive against the Taliban.

The army and police have denied the accusations, saying locals could be behind the killings for "revenge".

A leading Pakistani human rights watchdog says it has received "credible reports of numerous extra-judicial killings and reprisals carried out by security forces".


"We call for a proper investigation to find out who killed them, who were the dead, whether they were militants, innocent people or bystander," I A Rehman, of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, told the Reuters news agency.

"We've already demanded an investigation but nothing has happened. It's a serious matter and must be looked into," he said.

'Blindfolded'

Three bodies were found in the Danagram area on the outskirts of Swat's central town of Mingora on Tuesday morning, a security official told BBC Urdu, bringing the total number discovered in the past day to 22.

Previously we were afraid of the Taliban. Now, we're afraid of the army
Mingora resident

He said the victims had not yet been identified.

On Monday, local officials said 19 corpses had been recovered from areas around the Malam Jabba road, north of Mingora.

Witnesses said most of the victims had been shot, some several times. They were blindfolded with their hands tied behind their backs, and dumped in fields or alleys.

"Previously we were afraid of the Taliban. Now, we're afraid of the army," one man told the Associated Press news agency.

Military officials have confirmed that the army has been conducting operations in areas where the bodies have been found.

A top government official in the region, Malakand division commissioner Fazal Karim Khattak, told the BBC that the appearance of the bodies had become a "puzzle".

But he rejected the local view that the security forces had been killing suspected Taliban fighters extra-judicially after detaining them.

Pakistani troops in Mingora (15 August 2009)
The army has been operating in areas where the bodies have been found

"I have recommended to the provincial government to hold an inquiry into the circumstances that have led to these deaths," he said.

A military spokesman, Maj Gen Athar Abbas, said he believed the killings could have been the "result of revenge by local people".

"It could be a reaction to all that happened to the people in Swat," he said.

While the Taliban controlled the valley, militants dumped bodies of alleged collaborators on the streets to terrify people into submission, correspondents say.

Officials say people have been discovering unidentified bodies dumped in the Swat valley since mid-July, when internal refugees who had fled the area in April in the wake of the army offensive returned.

According to one estimate, more than 120 corpses have been found in total. Other officials believe the figure could be as high as 200.

...

Swatis not concerned

Similar killings took place when the Taliban moved into the valley in 2007, eventually controlling much of the one-time tourist retreat. Then, militants killed police officers or alleged government collaborators, often beheading or stringing up the bodies of their victims in public. So many decapitated bodies were left in Mingora's main square that it was nicknamed "bloody square".

The militants also banned girls from school, flogged women in public, closed music and video shops and ordered men to grow their beards in line with their interpretation of Islamic rules.

The army launched a major offensive in April this year, causing two million people to flee the fighting. Pakistani forces claim to have killed more than 1,600 militants – including a key Taliban commander, Baitullah Mehsud. But while the insurgents have been pushed back, they have not gone away completely. Last week, Mingora was hit by two suicide blasts.

Most Swat residents interviewed by the media said they were unconcerned if Taliban militants were being killed, saying that they felt no pity for those who had brought terror and misery to the region and that the killings might be what was needed to stop the insurgents returning. Others, however, said they now feared the army.

"Previously we were afraid of the Taliban. Now, we're afraid of the army," one man told the Associated Press, at the site where the bodies of two people, 35-year-old butcher Gohar Ullah and his brother Zahoor, 30, were found last Friday.

...

Tailpiece: Court orders release of Sufi Muhammad's sons:

مولانا صوفی کے بیٹوں کی رہائی کا حکم

مولانا صوفی محمد

مولانا صوفی محمد اس وقت قید میں ہیں اور انہیں بغاوت کے مقدمے کا سامنا ہے

پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے حکومت کی جانب سے ٹھوس ثبوت فراہم نہ کرنے پر مولانا صوفی محمد کے تین بیٹوں کی رہائی کا حکم دیا ہے۔

ان تینوں کو بائیس جولائی کو پشاور سے تین ایم پی او ( نقص امن میں خلل ) کی دفعہ کے تحت گرفتار کیا گیا تھا۔

بدھ کے روز پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے جج جسٹس اعجاز افضل خان نے حکومت کی جانب سے مولانا صوفی محمد کی تین بیٹوں رضوان اللہ، حیات اللہ اور فضل اللہ کی گرفتاری کے حوالے سے ٹھوس ثبوت فراہم نہ کیے جانے پر تینوں کی رہائی کا حکم دیا ہے۔

خیال رہے کہ گزشتہ ماہ پولیس اور خفیہ اداروں کے اہلکاروں نے پشاور کے علاقے سٹی ٹاؤن میں واقع مولانا صوفی محمد کے گھر پر چھاپہ مارا تھا اور انہیں ان کے بیٹوں سمیت حراست میں لے لیا تھا۔

مولانا صوفی محمد کے تینوں بیٹوں نے اپنی گرفتاری کو پشاور ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کر رکھاتھا۔

اسی ماہ تین اگست کو صوبہ سرحد کی حکومت نے کالعدم تحریک نفاذ شریعتِ محمدی کے سربراہ مولانا صوفی محمد سمیت نو افراد کے خلاف بغاوت کا مقدمہ درج کیا تھا۔سرحد حکومت کے ترجمان میاں افتخار حسین نے کہا تھا کہ مو لانا صوفی محمد نے حکومت سے کیے گئے وعدوں سے انحراف کیا جس سے مالاکنڈ ڈویژن میں دہشت گردوں کو تقویت ملی۔


Read more...

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Bhutto Case and Supreme Court of Pakistan: By Rauf Amir



This site has moved to http://criticalppp.com/archives/1195, click this link if you are not redirected
Read more...

Thursday, 26 March 2009

In the aftermath of the Long March "revolution" in Pakistan


Asadullah Ghalib, Express, 26 March 2009

....




Nazir Naji, Jang, 26 March 2009

....

Storming the Supreme Court with litigation

Hardly had Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry resumed his office at the Supreme Court than “constitutional” petitions were filed before the court charging 38 judges who had taken oath under the PCO with contempt and challenging appointments of judges done without Justice Chaudhry’s “consultation”. Yet another petition has sought action against Pervez Musharraf for his “admittedly” unconstitutional actions of November 3, 2007 in subversion of the constitution, as outlined in Article 6 on treason.

People with a strong “retroactive correction” in mind want punishment to descend on all and sundry. In non-legal language, they want to pillory all those who took the view opposite to theirs, but if the cases go the way they want them to go, the country’s judicial system will be seriously undermined. The difficulty arises in the convergence of the legal-constitutional and the political-electoral in these cases. Which PCO was more lethal, the one “indemnified” by parliament or the one not “indemnified”?

If a moderate but honest judge quietly in disagreement with Justice Chaudhry’s hair-trigger activism chose not to leave with him, should he be punished today? What should be made of an elected government treating the PCO judges as normal judges and not bringing back the old ones after the Murree Agreement? The lawyers’ stand was that the political parties should not take part in the elections of 2008. It was a legal stand because the general who had done the misdeed of November 3 was now holding them. Elections indirectly legitimised him.

The act of election has its own indemnifying aspects. The fact that the political parties did not abstain from elections, and the fact that the people did not heed the lawyers’ call and voted with an impressive turnout should count for something. If the PCO judges have sat in judgement on cases that have been accepted as jurisprudence then how can they now be forced to leave? If a de facto capacity is allowed to these judges then what stops the “reinstated” court from making them de jure automatically? What is important is to realise that excessive backward-looking litigation is not going to benefit Pakistan. (Daily Times, 26 March 2009)
Read more...

Thursday, 12 March 2009

Ijaz Hussain: Unattended issues of SC judgement

Unattended issues of SC judgement —Ijaz Hussain

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/29/xinsrc_232110426052907876603.jpg

If courts are not in a position to refuse cases that are essentially political in character, litigants can certainly help them towards this end. They can do so by refraining from judicial recourse for settlement of their political scores

The Supreme Court judgement to ban the Sharif brothers from holding public office has evoked a variety of reactions. At least three stand out.

First, many commentators have criticised it as politically motivated. Nawaz Sharif has gone to the extent of calling it an edict issued by President Asif Zardari.

Second, given the turmoil that has resulted from this judgement, the dismissal of the Punjab government and the imposition of Governor’s Rule, many have accused the Court of rendering a judgement without taking into consideration the serious consequences that it could have entailed. In their opinion, the Court should have been mindful of the fallout of its pronouncement and abstained from giving the kind of judgement that it gave.

Third, some commentators have expressed the view that the Court should not have entertained the case in the first place because it was political in character. In their view, political issues render the Court controversial which in turn reduces its effectiveness.

Are these strictures justified?

As to the question whether or not the decision was politically motivated, in the absence of hard evidence it is difficult to say anything. However, it does not signify that the Court was absolutely free from political manipulation. It only means that we do not have at this stage hard evidence to prove the charge. This is no different from certain past cases where similar allegations were levelled but no proof was forthcoming at that time though subsequently evidence emerged to confirm the charges.

One example is the Bhutto case where it was alleged that Zia-ul Haq influenced the Court, but there was no hard evidence to prove it. However, not long ago Justice Nasim Hasan Shah, who sat on the bench hearing the case, confessed to having voted for Bhutto’s hanging because of government pressure. Another example is the Tamizuddin Khan case where it was alleged that the Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad influenced the judges but no evidence was available to prove it. However, years later Qudratullah Shahab, who was principal secretary to the Governor-General, revealed in Shahabnama that Ghulam Muhammad did influence Justice Munir.

In the present situation also, there is no hard evidence at this stage to prove that Zardari influenced the judges; yet there is considerable circumstantial evidence available in the matter. To begin with, the proceedings in the case were moving along gingerly. However, the Court one day suddenly decided to expedite them by ordering day-to-day hearings.

Secondly, it was hearing preliminary objections relating to the exclusion of PCO judges from the bench and the Sharif brothers’ lawyers’ locus standi to file appeals against the LHC’s order. The Sharif brothers’ lawyers had made it clear that they were yet to argue the case on merits, a position that the Court had accepted. However, inexplicably and out of the blue, it declared that it had heard the case on merits and gave the final judgement.

Third, the Court passed a short order as if it was in a great hurry. It should have opted for full judgement. Perhaps it did not do so because it would have been time-consuming.

How do we explain the Court’s behaviour?

A clue is provided by the date of the lawyers’ Long March which was getting closer and the fact that Sharif brothers were not only to participate in it but in the dreaded dharna as well. Additionally, the fact that the Punjab government was to facilitate movement of the enormous crowd was causing sleepless nights in President House. It was imperative to do something to stop the Sharif brothers in their tracks. Negotiations were, of course, the best way to do it, but they proved abortive.

The other option was to remove the PMLN government in Punjab and impose Governor’s Rule. For this purpose, a good excuse was needed, which the Court’s judgement duly provided. That explains why immediately after the announcement of the judgement, the Punjab government was dismissed and Governor’s Rule imposed.

Here, a word about the presence of PCO judges on the bench is in order. The Sharif brothers did not appear before the Court because they had refused to recognise the PCO judges as legitimate. Their lawyers had submitted an application asking for exclusion of PCO judges from the bench and for the constitution of a larger bench comprising non-PCO judges.

The court went ahead with the case without disposing of this application. Nor did it replace the PCO judges. This rendered the Court controversial. It would have been better had the CJ not appointed the PCO judges or the PCO judges had on their own refused to sit on the bench. That way, the Court’s judgement would have carried greater weight and its dignity, which had been badly shattered as result of the controversy surrounding the Dogar case, might have been salvaged. However, the CJ failed to seize the opportunity. That also explains why the charge of a politically motivated decision has stuck.

As to the question whether or not the court should have taken into consideration the possible consequences of the decision that it contemplated, it is almost as old as Pakistan. It arose for the first time in the Tamizuddin Khan case where CJ Munir endorsed Governor-General Ghulam Muhammad’s action to dissolve the Constituent Assembly for political reasons. At a function organised by the High Court Bar Association after his retirement, Munir justified the decision in favour of the government by arguing that, “there would have been chaos in the country and a revolution would have been formally enacted possibly by bloodshed,” which in his opinion would have been, “a far more serious situation than that created by the invalidation of whole legal system.” He subsequently applied the same rationale to justify Ayub Khan’s coup d’etat in the Dosso case.

This pragmatism signifies that courts are to decide cases keeping in mind extraneous factors rather the merits. Now this is a very dangerous notion because its acceptance would signal the death-knell for justice as the courts would decide cases on the basis of extralegal considerations. This would be utterly contrary to their duty, which is to adjudicate on the basis of law and law alone regardless of the consequences.

It is interesting to note that even CJ Munir, who pioneered the opportunistic thinking in Pakistan, in a saner moment took an utterly different view when he categorically stated: “I am quite clear in my mind that we are not concerned with consequences, however beneficial or disastrous they may be.” Consequently, the analysts who have criticised the Court for delivering a judgement without taking into account its fallout are utterly misguided in their criticism.

As to the question whether or not the Court should have refused to entertain the case on the ground that it had a political character, it has been raised on other occasions as well. However, a court does not refuse to entertain a case on the ground that the question asked is of a political nature; and that the matter should be settled politically. If it were to do so it would have to close shop and send judges home as a consequence.

The apex court’s 1997 judgement in the Mahmood Khan Achakzai case is relevant here. The court said that it could not be deterred from determining a question on the touchstone of the Constitution on the ground that it was political. Nor, in its opinion, could it adopt the “political question doctrine” for refusing to determine difficult and knotty problems as it would amount to abdication of judicial power, which it believed neither the Constitution nor the law permitted.

If courts are not in a position to refuse cases that are essentially political in character, litigants can certainly help them towards this end. They can do so by refraining from judicial recourse for settlement of their political scores; and by making honest and serious efforts to take care of their political disputes through political means. This would keep the judiciary from becoming controversial which in turn would strengthen it. However, given the highly polarised and fractured character of our society, one wonders if our politicians will ever heed this advice! (Daily Times)

The writer is a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam University. He can be reached at hussain_ijaz@hotmail.com


Read more...