Pakistan Cyber Force: NRO

Top stories

Pakistan Cyber Force [Official]

Showing posts with label NRO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRO. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2012

NRO, Swiss Letter: Sindh High Court moved against Zardari's so-called "immunity"

Print Friendly and PDF


KARACHI: A petition has been filed in Sindh High Court seeking declaration that American stooge President Asif Ali Zardari is not entitled to take benefit under the Article 248 of the Constitution in NRO case and disqualification proceedings be initiated against the prime minister for violation of Supreme Court’s order. Petitioner Maulvi Iqbal Haider submitted in the petition that President Asif Zardari participated in 2008 election where the interlocutory order of Supreme Court in NRO case was in field that permitted the candidates to participate in election with condition of final decision of the Supreme Court. He submitted that at the time of interlocutory order, President Zardari was not a President therefore Article 248 shall not apply upon them.

He submitted that Supreme Court in compliance of its judgment in NRO case directed the prime minister to write a letter to the Swiss government with regard to reopening of cases against President Zardari that were earlier withdrawn due to NRO however, Prime Minster Yousuf Raza Gilani refused to do so in his written statement submitted before the Supreme Court as well as in his reported statements in public gatherings.Haider said that he filed a reference under Article 63(2) before the National Assembly’s speaker for disqualification but speaker did not send the same to Election Commission. The court was prayed to declare that president is not entitled to take any benefit under Article 248 and post of prime minister is bound to write a letter to the Swiss government in compliance of Supreme Courtís judgment in NRO case.He also prayed the court to direct Speaker National Assembly to send his reference for disqualification of prime minister to the Election Commission.


Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Friday, March 16, 2012

Research papers on Zardari's immunity stolen from Supreme Court Official's residence

Print Friendly and PDF

American Puppet Asif Ali Zardari
ISLAMABAD: Research papers on immunity of heads of the states have been stolen from the residence of an official of the apex court in Islamabad, DawnNews reported on Thursday. The Ramna Police Station has registered the case and investigation was underway. Senior judicial assistant Yousuf Jan Marwat was working among several assignments on the president’s immunity. Marwat reported that burglars broke into his residence in G-10 area of the capital last night when none of his family members were present at home. However, according to sources, the only thing missing from his residence was the documents he was working on as a researcher for Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. A copy of the documents had already been submitted to the chief justice, Marwat told this reporter.
(Dawn)
Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Switzerland to follow suit if Pakistan withdraws President's immunity: Lawyer

Print Friendly and PDF

The Swiss government will withdraw the immunity of President Asif Ali Zardari if Pakistan abolishes the immunity enjoyed by its president under the constitutions of the country. This was stated by the lawyer representing Government of Pakistan in Swiss cases Macaulay Franklin while talking to a private TV channel. "If the Pakistani government abolishes the presidential immunity the Swiss authorities will follow the suit." He said that the government can write to Swiss authorities seeking details about the frozen assets, but the Swiss government cannot probe due of immunity. Macaulay Franklin said that if the accounts were shifted to somewhere else to affect the proceeding on case it would be considered another crime under money laundering act. He said if the cases were reopened then the Swiss authorities would probe the details of the assets and most probably will seize them.

Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Sunday, March 11, 2012

PPP gang in troubled waters once again: SC reopens NRO cases

Print Friendly and PDF


The office of Attorney General of Pakistan on Saturday received the Supreme Court order on writing letter to Swiss authorities for reopening of corruption cases against the extra ordinarily corrupt President Asif Ali Zardari.
On March 8, a seven-member SC bench hearing NRO implementation case directed Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to write to Swiss authorities for reopening of the cases against the president regardless of advice of the secretaries.It was the first time that the Supreme Court has directly asked the Prime Minister to write letter to Swiss authorities till March 21 to comply with para 178 of NRO verdict.  Previously, the directives were conveyed through the Law Ministry.
Aitzaz Ahsan, counsel for the PM, told the court that the Prime Minister had not wilfully defied the order but only acted on the advice of the Law Ministry.
According to a senior lawyer, Raza Kazim, the court has once again given opportunity to the PM to comply with the court order. “If the PM does not write, the court will have no other option but to convict him in the contempt case,” he added. But, according to Aitzaz Ahsan, the court never asked the PM directly to implement the judgment, instead, it directed the federation to reopen corruption cases against shameless President Zardari. However, on Saturday the SC order for writing to Swiss authorities landed in the AG office.
 (The Nation)
Xharaf Vsm
Pakistan Cyber Force

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

NRO, Contempt Case: Aitzaz Ahsan wasted court's time, says Supreme Court

Print Friendly and PDF

The Supreme Court of Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: The contempt case hearing against American Puppet Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was adjourned on Wednesday on the note that most of the time during the proceeding was “wasted with irrelevant questions by [Gilani’s counsel] Aitzaz Ahsan.” The seven-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk adjourned the hearing till Thursday. The bench observed that Aitzaz cannot cross-examine his own witness – Defence and Cabinet Secretary Nargis Sethi – who appeared before the court as a witness in the case and to present the summaries of May 21 and September 23, 2010 before the court. Aitzaz Ahsan said Defence Secretary Nargis Sethi brought the two summaries along with her. Justice Nasirul Mulk remarked these are the same two summaries which you (Ahsan) had already submitted. Justice Mulk consulted with the bench over the summary and returned it to her.

Justice Asif khosa observed that the court “did not understand the purpose” of asking Sethi questions. “Do you want to give Gilani a character certificate?” questioned Justice Khosa. Barrister Aitzaz said, “Yes, I want to (give Gilani a character certificate), my main motive is to tell the court what character the accused [Gilani] has.” Attorney General of Pakistan Maulvi Anwarul Haq said, “Being a prosecution in the case, I have some reservations with the method with which he [Aitzaz] is trying to carry the case.” “Nargis [Sethi] can only testify her own signature. In this hearing, she is attesting other people’s signatures [in the summaries].” The summaries mentioned that the then law minister, Babar Awan and the then law secretary, Pir Masud Chishti had informed the premier that the cases filed against President Asif Ali Zardari in the Swiss courts were withdrawn and that there was no use of writing a letter to the Swiss authorities since there were no cases. Later on, the honorable court adjourned the hearing till tomorrow (8th March, 2012).

Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

NRO, Contempt Case: Supreme Court blasts Puppet PM's "political martyrdom" with 37 reasons

Print Friendly and PDF

The Supreme Court of Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: Having earlier rejected the prime minister’s appeal against his indictment in a contempt case, the Supreme Court on Monday gave detailed reasons why it chose to do so – 37 of them to be precise.

Authored by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, one of the judges of a bench that turned down the prime minister’s intra-court appeal on February 10, a detailed verdict also warned, ominously for the premier, that it would not practice restraint in the name of ‘serious consequences’ or ‘functional immunity’. It stated that a seven-member trial bench will examine contempt of court charges against the prime minister in depth.

The rationale for the rejection of the appeal is stated to be the premier’s constant inaction in implementing its order over the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) – that is, to write a letter to Swiss authorities seeking reopening of graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari.

The court termed Prime Minister Gilani’s appeal to receive preferential treatment contrary to the Constitution as well as Islamic teachings. The premier had filed an appeal through his counsel Aitzaz Ahsan against a preliminary Feb 2 order that decided charges against the prime minister would be framed for the non-implementation of the NRO verdict.

The judgment indicated the bench was in no mood for excuses, reminding premier Gilani of his oath to protect and work in accordance with the Constitution, saying that “the higher the constitutional office, the greater the onus of responsibility on the holder of such office … In other words, the court has greater reason to be particularly concerned about the possibility of contempt having been committed by the appellant.”


The verdict went on to state: “It is clear to us that the appellant’s (premier’s) claim to a ‘special privilege’ on account of his executive office, which seeks for him ‘greater restraint’ amounting to an exception from contempt proceedings, does not find any basis in our Constitution”.

The judgment quoted a Hadith of the blessed Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.ww in the verdict as well: “O people, those before you were ruined because when someone of high rank among them (sharif) committed theft, they would spare him, but when a weak person from amongst them (zaeef) committed theft, they would inflict the prescribed punishment upon him.”

Replying to Aitzaz’s concerns, the court order stated: “…the court cannot and should not base its decisions on expediency or on consideration of the consequences which may follow as a result of enforcing the Constitution… the doctrine of necessity has already been buried because of the valiant struggle of the people of Pakistan. The court can only strengthen the rule of law by upholding the Constitution, which is, in fact, the supreme law.”  The doctrine of necessity refers to the basis on which extra-legal actions designed to restore order are found to be constitutional.

Explaining why the court refused to dismiss the show-cause notice against the prime minister (a notice requiring one or more of the parties to a case to justify, explain, or prove something to the court) the judgment says, “A show-cause notice under the (contempt of court) ordinance can, of course, be discharged where the alleged contemnor shows that the court order has, in fact, already been complied with. The notice may, at the discretion of the court, also be discharged if the alleged contemnor agrees to comply with the court order even after the issuance of a show cause notice.”

The court observed that the prime minister’s explanations to rely on the advice of his subordinates’ summaries confirm that the directives in the NRO judgment have not, as yet, been complied with. The court also found incorrect the defence counsel’s contention that the trial bench denied him a ‘full hearing’.

Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Dishonest PM could be Disqualified, Government's Refusal to implement NRO verdict Against Qur'an: Supreme Court

Print Friendly and PDF


The Supreme Court of Pakistan
The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday said that the government had failed to implement the verdict in the National Reconciliation Ordinance Case (NRO). The five-member bench was announcing its verdict in the NRO implementation case. The court said that the prime minister had sided with a party instead of the constitution, and that he did not appear to be honest and government’s refusal was not only against the constitution, but was also against the Quran.

The five-member bench said that an investigation can be carried out and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani can be declared ineligible for ten years. The verdict also stated that the government had been given two years, yet no action had been taken. It also said that Chairman NAB’s attitude came under misconduct and that he could be removed. The five-member bench of Supreme Court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, had earlier reserved its judgement in the NRO implementation case.

Attorney General (AG) Maulvi Anwarul Haq informed the five-member bench that he was unable to tell whether or not the government would write a letter to the Swiss authorities. The law secretary has gone abroad, where he is being treated for a prostate problem, the AG submitted. The secretary was required to prepare a summary for the prime minister for his permission to reopen graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari in Switzerland. The cases were withdrawn under the NAB Ordinance through a letter written by former Attorney General Malik Muhammad Qayyum. Justice Khosa’s observation left the NAB authorities and others present in the courtroom wondering about the order due to be released shortly. They wondered whether the court initiate contempt proceedings against Law Secretary Masood Chishti or pass directions to the prime minister for compliance.

Earlier, the court had observed that they could issue notices to the prime minister for defiance of their verdict. The five-judge bench, on the last day of hearing, had observed that it was giving a final opportunity to authorities to take action against those who violated its verdict. The bench had asked the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman Fasih Bokhari to examine why Ahmed Riaz Sheikh and Adnan A Khwaja were appointed despite being convicts. Bokhari informed the court that criminal intent and misuse of authority had been absent from the cases in which the court had asked him to take action. There are other laws under which Sheikh and Khwaja could be proceeded against, said the chairman. “But as far as NAB law is concerned, they could not be proceeded against”, he added.

The attorney general pleaded that the government had reopened over 8,000 cases pursuant to its December 16 order against the NAB Ordinance. Besides, the order on establishment of accountability courts was also implemented, he submitted. Justice Khosa observed the law secretary seem to be avoiding an appearance deliberately. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry observed that the secretary may not return unless the implementation case was decided. “I will pray for his early recovery”, the AG hastened to add.

On January 3, the court had expressed disappointment over the non-implementation of the court’s judgement and had given the government time till January 10 (today) to file their reply in the case. On December 16, 2009, the Supreme Court had declared the NRO to be void ab initio (void from the start), thus leaving those pardoned under the ordinance as fair game for investigators.
(ET)
Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

PPP gang in trouble: NRO deadline expires today

Print Friendly and PDF

Total defiance of the government to comply with Supreme Court’s last warning for writing letter to Swiss authorities in National Reconciliation Ordinance case expires today (Tuesday) leaving the apex court with no option but to proceed with contempt of court. Institutional tension has raised after the Executive has shown total disregard to the directives of the judiciary in the NRO case, which many believed could cost the prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, his job in case the controversy drags on.

Extra ordinarily corrupt Zardari, who is also PPP gang's Co-Chairperson, added shamelessly to the heightened tension between the Executive and Judiciary by leaving the matter for the next government to write to Swiss authorities. “I would only remain president for the next 12-15 months after which the next government may write to Swiss courts”, Zardari told a private TV channel on January 7, adding ‘why would his (burglar) government do so?’

The shameless Zardari said NRO case and Swiss courts would have a significance in history, thus, ‘neither he nor the Prime Minister would want such a thing to be part of the history’. This shows height of shamelessness.
President said he was not afraid of Article-248 and that he considered Swiss case as a trial of Benazir Bhutto grave, adding that it was the decision of party not to write to Swiss courts.

According to the constitutional analysts, the Supreme Court could punish Prime Minister Gilani in contempt of court for minimum of six months and up to two years in line with the 18th constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court on its last hearing on implementation of the NRO case had issued last warning to the government to write letter to Swiss Court about the ill-gotten $60 million belonging to President Zardari and his late spouse  Benazir Bhutto stashed in the Swiss banks.

On other hand, some people believed that there were $97 billion dollars stashed in Swiss banks belonging largely to Pakistani politicians, and feared that if government did not implement the apex court directives in NRO case, the entire efforts to bring back the ill-gotten wealth stashed in the Swiss banks would go never bear fruits.

Meanwhile, quoting sources private TV channels claimed that the stooge, cowardly  President Asif Ali Zardari may leave for Dubai today, notwithstanding such serious situation. “All arrangements have been finalized and the President may leave for Dubai any time soon,” it said.
 (The Nation)
Mildly edited by: Xharaf Vsm
Pakistan Cyber Force

Monday, January 9, 2012

Supreme Court reserves NRO judgement, detailed verdict to be announced at 1 pm today

Print Friendly and PDF



The Supreme Court of Pakistan
The Supreme Court reserved its judgement in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) implementation case on Tuesday, a private news channel reported today. The judgement was reserved by a five-member bench, headed by Justice Saeed Khosa, hearing the case. On January 3, the court had expressed disappointment over the non-implementation of the court’s judgement and had given the government time till January 10 (today) to file their reply in the case. On receiving no reply, the court passed its verdict.

The detailed verdict will be announced at 1pm today.

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chief Fasih Bukhari appeared before the court and said that the body cannot investigate the case further as it does not fall under its jurisdiction. Bukhari was asked to state the progress on the implementation of the NRO verdict earlier in a hearing last month. Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq also appeared before the court and said that the law secretary is out of the country and cannot return due to his ill health. He requested the court to wait for the law secretary to return before passing a judgement, but the bench ignored his request.

Justice Khosa observed that the court was not hearing the case to decide the fate of any particular person, and it was only being heard to see if the court’s judgement was implemented or not. On December 16, 2009, the Supreme Court had declared the NRO to be void ab initio (void from the start), thus leaving those pardoned under the ordinance as fair game for investigators. The federation had challenged the NRO verdict in the middle – but on November 24, a 17-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, swiftly dismissed the review petition.

Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force

Friday, December 9, 2011

All NRO Cases Revived, Benifits Cancelled by Supreme Court

Print Friendly and PDF


Supreme Court of Pakistan
ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court in its detailed judgment on NRO verdict review pleas has announced that all corruption cases stand revived to their pre-NRO poison and ordered cancellation of all benefits accrued under the ‘Black Law’. The 31-page detailed verdict, which was drafted by Justice Tassadaq Hussain Jilani and announced on Thursday, directed federal and provincial governments to provide all assistance to the courts in prosecution of the culprits. The detailed verdict bears signatures of all the 17 judges comprising the full court that heard the case. Earlier, on November 25, a 17-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had announced the short order.

The court said in its judgement that the federal counsel was heard but he failed to give arguments to build the case for a review of certain aspects of SC’s December 16, 2009 decision on the NRO (National Reconciliation Ordinance). The parliament also did not validate the NRO, it further said. The judgement said that as a consequence, all steps taken, actions suffered, and all orders passed by whatever authority, any orders passed by the courts of law including the orders of discharge and acquittals recorded in favour of the accused persons, are also declared never to have existed in the eyes of law and resultantly of no legal effect. All the cases in which the accused persons were either discharged or acquitted under Section 2 of the NRO or where proceedings pending against the holders of public office had got terminated in view of Section 7 thereof, a list of which cases has been furnished to this court and any other such cases/proceedings which may not have been brought to the notice of this court, shall stand revived and relegated to the status of pre-October 5, 2007 position.

All the concerned courts including the trial, the appellate and the review courts are ordered to summon the persons accused in such cases and then to proceed in the respective matters in accordance with law from the stage from where such proceedings had been brought to an end in pursuance of the above provisions of the NRO. The federal government, all the provincial governments and all relevant and competent authorities including the NAB prosecutor general, the special prosecutors in various accountability courts, the prosecutors generals in the four provinces and other officers or officials involved in the prosecution of criminal offenders are directed to offer every possible assistance required by the competent courts in the said connection. Similarly, all cases which were under investigation or pending enquiries and which had either been withdrawn or where the investigations or enquiries had been terminated on account of the NRO shall also stand revived and the relevant and competent authorities shall proceed in the said matters in accordance with law.


Now any judgment, conviction or sentence recorded under section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance shall hold the field subject to law and since the NRO stands declared as void ab initio, therefore, any benefit derived by any person in pursuance of Section 6 thereof is also declared never to have legally accrued to any such person and consequently of no legal effect. The federation had initially challenged the short order dated 16-12-2009 but when the detailed reasons were released, it filed CMA No. 1844 of 2010 and added additional grounds in support of the petition for review. Babar Awan federation counsel in review petition prayed to the court that although the Federation of Pakistan had not defended the NRO before this court the observations made in Paras 44 and 45 of the detailed judgment (under review) with reference to Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto’s book ‘Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West’ that any benefit was drawn by the author and that NRO 2007 was not promulgated for the object of national reconciliation but for the benefit of certain individuals is incorrect; that the only benefit which she derived was restoration of democracy and that this finding is an error apparent in the face of record; that initially a statement was filed to the effect that the federation did not contest the Petition No 76 of 2007 and rather filed a conceding statement.

It was however submitted by the federation’s counsel then, that if this court intended to travel outside the parameters of the prayers made in the petitions (which were review), it would have been proper and just to grant reasonable time to the federation to reply and contest. In written reply the said counsel had specifically made a prayer “if however this honourable court wishes to rule upon wider issues other than those raised in the petition in that case, the federation requests that petitions be filed precisely stipulating these issues whereupon the federation will seeks instructions on such new petitions.” The court noted that though the parliament did not approve the NRO as an Act nor defended the law, rather it did not oppose revival of criminal cases; yet this petition for review was filed on behalf of the federation; that despite repeated queries of the court, learned did not elaborate as to how the federation was an ‘aggrieved person’ or disclose any other ‘sufficient cause’ to fall within the parameters of the law regulating the review jurisdiction.

The court observed that despite the fact that earlier on Mr. Masood Chishti filed application to seek permission to argue the case who was superseded by Mr. Kamal Azfar and even he withdrew as he was appointed Adviser to the Prime Minister and thereafter Mr Babar Awan, ASC filed CMA No. 5144 of 2011 seeking permission to argue the case. “We permitted him to argue so that if we find that a case for review is made, we will allow the application seeking permission to argue, which could only have been argued under the Supreme Court Rules by the counsel who appeared for the Federation in the main case.” “Having considered all the grounds urged before this court, we are of the view that no case for review is made out. The application seeking permission to argue by the counsel who admittedly did not appear for federation in the main case is violative of Rule Order XXVI Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules and therefore not tenable and the application was disposed off accordingly.”

( The Nation )

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Complete Text of Supreme Court’s order in Memo Case

Print Friendly and PDF


Supreme Court of Pakistan
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY CJ
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN
MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI
MR. JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA
MR. JUSTICE TARIQ PARVEZ
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY

CONSTITUTION PETITIONS NO. 77 TO 85 OF 2011 [Constitution Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution regarding alleged Memorandum to Admiral Mike Mullen by Mr. Hussain Haqqani, former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States of America] Watan Party PETIONER [CP 77/2011] M. Tariq Asad Advocate Supreme Court... PETITIONER [CP 78/2011] Muhammad Nawaz Sharif...

PETITIONER [CP 79/2011] Senator Muhammad Ishaq Dar & another... PETITIONERS [CP 80/2011] Iqbal Zafar Jhagra & another...

PETITIONERS [CP 81/2011] Lt. General (r) Abdul Qadir Baloch & 2 others... PETITIONERS [CP 82/2011] Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan & another...

PETITIONERS [CP 83/2011] Syed Ghous Ali Shah & 2 others...

PETITIONERS [CP 84/2011] Hafeez Ur Raman.. PETITIONER [CP 85/2011] VERSUS Federation of Pakistan & others... RESPONDENTS

For the petitioners: Barrister Zafarullah Khan, ASC in person Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC in person Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in person Senator Muhammad Ishaq Dar & Khawaja Muhammad Asif, MNA in person Mr. Attique Shah, ASC Dr. M. Salahuddin Mengal, ASC Sardar Asmatullah Khan, ASC Syed Ghous Ali Shah, ASC Ch. Naseer Ahmad Bhutta, ASC With Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR On Court notice: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq Attorney General for Pakistan Respondents: Not represented. Date of hearing: 01.12.2011 ...

O R D E R

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ. - These petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have been instituted on behalf of the petitioners belonging to political parties and others hailing from all the federating units of Pakistan including Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit & Baltistan, in the wake of the confidential memorandum of 10th May, 2011, which was handed over by one Mansoor Ijaz, an American businessman of Pakistani origin to Admiral Mike Mullen, the then Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States through former US National Security Advisor James John. Mansoor Ijaz disclosed in an article published in the Financial Times London on 10th October, 2011. He claimed that the memorandum containing message from the Pakistan Government was handed over to him by the then Pakistan Ambassador Hussain Haqqani. According to him, both Mike Mullen and James John confirmed the contents of the memorandum. Upon such disclosure, there was unrest amongst the political government and the defence agencies as according to the contents of the memorandum, which has now been published in the foreign as well as local media, prima facie, there was highly objectionable material relating to compromising the sovereignty, security and independence of Pakistan. The contents of the memorandum, which have been incorporated in most of the petitions, are reproduced hereinbelow: -

“CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM

BRIEFING FOR ADM. MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

During the past 72 hours since a meeting was held between the president, the prime minister and the chief of army staff, there has seen a significant deterioration in Pakistan’s political atmosphere. Increasingly desperate efforts by the various agencies and factions within the government to find a home - ISI and/or Army, or the civilian government - for assigning blame over the UBL raid now dominate the tug of war between military and civilian sectors. Subsequent tit-for-tat reactions, including outing of the CIA station chief’s name in Islamabad by ISI officials, demonstrates a dangerous devolution of the ground situation in Islamabad where no central control appears to be in place.

Civilians cannot withstand much more of the hard pressure being delivered from the Army to succumb to wholesale changes. If civilians are forced from power, Pakistan becomes a sanctuary for UBL’s legacy and potentially the platform for far more rapid spread of al Qaeda’s brand of fanaticism and terror. A unique window of opportunity exists for the civilians to gain the upper hand over army and intelligence directorates due to their complicity in the UBL matter. Request your direct intervention in conveying a strong, urgent and direct message to Gen Kayani that delivers Washington’s demand for him and Gen Pasha to end their brinkmanship aimed at bringing down the civilian apparatus - that this is a 1971 moment in Pakistan’s history. Should you be willing to do so, Washington’s political/military backing would result in a revamp of the civilian government that, while weak at the top echelon in terms of strategic direction and implementation (even though mandated by domestic political forces), in a wholesale manner replaces the national security adviser and other national security officials with trusted advisers that include ex-military and civilian leaders favorably viewed by Washington, each of whom have long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities. Names will be provided to you in a face-to-face meeting with the person delivering this message.

In the event Washington’s direct intervention behind the scenes can be secured through your personal communication with Kayani (he will likely listen only to you at this moment) to stand down the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment, the new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the civilian apparatus, to do the following:
  1. President of Pakistan will order an independent inquiry into the allegations that Pakistan harbored and offered assistance to UBL and other senior Qaeda operatives. The White House can suggest names of independent investigators to populate the panel, along the lines of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, for example.
  2. The inquiry will be accountable and independent, and result in findings of tangible value to the US government and the American people that identify with exacting detail those elements responsible for harboring and aiding UBL inside and close to the inner ring of influence in Pakistan’s Government (civilian, intelligence directorates and military). It is certain that the UBL Commission will result in immediate termination of active service officers in the appropriate government offices and agencies found responsible for complicity in assisting UBL.
  3. The new national security team will implement a policy of either handing over those left in the leadership of Al Qaeda or other affiliated terrorist groups who are still on Pakistani soil, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, or giving US military forces a “green light” to conduct the necessary operations to capture or kill them on Pakistani soil. This “carte blanche” guarantee is not without political risks, but should demonstrate the new group’s commitment to rooting out bad elements on our soil. This commitment has the backing of the top echelon on the civilian side of our house, and we will insure necessary collateral support.
  4. One of the great fears of the military-intelligence establishment is that with your stealth capabilities to enter and exit Pakistani airspace at will, Pakistan’s nuclear assets are now legitimate targets. The new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the Pakistani government - initially civilian but eventually all three power centers - to develop an acceptable framework of discipline for the nuclear program. This effort was begun under the previous military regime, with acceptable results. We are prepared to reactivate those ideas and build on them in a way that brings Pakistan’s nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime.
  5. The new national security team will eliminate Section S of the ISI charged with maintaining relations to the Taliban, Haqqani network, etc. This will dramatically improve relations with Afghanistan.
  6. We are prepared to cooperate fully under the new national security team’s guidance with the Indian government on bringing all perpetrators of Pakistani origin to account for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, whether outside government or inside any part of the government, including its intelligence agencies. This includes handing over those against whom sufficient evidence exists of guilt to the Indian security services.
Pakistan faces a decision point of unprecedented importance. We, who believe in democratic governance and building a much better structural relationship in the region with India AND Afghanistan, seek US assistance to help us pigeon-hole the forces lined up against your interests and ours, including containment of certain elements inside our country that require appropriate re-sets and re-tasking in terms of direction and extent of responsibility after the UBL affair. We submit this memorandum for your consideration collectively as the members of the new national security team who will be inducted by the President of Pakistan with your support in this undertaking.”

2. It is significant to note that the issue of confidential memorandum was highlighted after 21st November, 2011. In the meanwhile, the then Ambassador of Pakistan to the USA, was summoned who tendered his resignation as per undisputed reports aired on electronic media. It may not be out of context to observe here that as per media reports, the ISI had also collected SMS messages exchanged between the former Ambassador of Pakistan and Mr. Mansoor Ijaz, extracts of which have been incorporated in the petitions.

3. It is to be noted that not only in the publication of the ‘Financial Times’ of 10th October, 2011, but subsequent thereto, material was published in the print media on behalf of Mr. Mansoor Ijaz, who emphasized that “Mr. Mullen insisted on having the Ambassador’s offers to be put in writing because the US Government had been repeatedly deceived by Pakistan’s verbal offers of action in the recent past.” “He also insisted that I obtain the Ambassador’s assurance that President Zardari had approved the offers contained in the memorandum. I did exactly those two things,” he told The News. Speaking after Admiral Mullen confirmed the Memo, Mansoor said at 09:06:16 hours, “I spoke to Amb Haqqani at his London hotel (Park Lane Intercontinental Room 430) in a call lasting 11:16 minutes.” “During this call, he confessed that the final text of the memo was OK and that he had ‘the boss’ approval’ that the memorandum could be sent to Admiral Mullen. The boss was an obvious reference to President Zardari,” Mansoor insisted.”

4. We note that exchange of messages has also been admitted as is reported in the UK Financial Times of 10th October, 2011. The Federal Interior Minister Mr. Rahman Malik had, however, admitted that Mr. Hussain Haqqani was involved in communication of voice/text messages with an American national, but there was no written letter, either from the Presidency or from any other agency of the Government. Mr. Malik is reported to have said that no doubt Mr. Haqqani was a close aide of the President, but this communication through SMS (text message) was between two individuals - one American national and the second was our Ambassador.

5. The material available was exchange of SMS messages and blackberry messages and we have to examine as to who had initiated these messages. It is clear that the matter is open for investigation.

6. All the petitioners were asked their opinion as to the objects and purposes for which the confidential memorandum in question attributed to the then Ambassador of Pakistan was sent to the US Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff by handing it over to James John and also utilizing the services of a businessman Mansoor Ijaz, particularly in the wake of the incident of Abbottabad of 2nd May, 2011. According to them, if the allegations contained hereinabove are established, then the culprits whosoever are involved, should be held liable for action and a Commission be constituted to probe into the memorandum scandal. Whereas the learned Attorney General for Pakistan stated that he is not against the probe, but as the matter is pending before the Parliamentary Committee on National Security, therefore, we should wait for the result of the Committee’s proceedings. In our opinion, both the forums are not against probe into the matter and subject to constitutionality of the Committee, proceeding can be taken up simultaneously.

7. It may be observed that under Article 5 of the Constitution, it is the basic duty of every citizen to be loyal to the State and to be obedient to the Constitution and law, being inviolable obligation wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.

8. The memorandum, issuance whereof, prima facie, seems to be established, has posed immediately two questions - one with regard to civil/constitutional liability with its consequences as envisaged by Article 6 of the Constitution, and the second, the criminal liability as well. We are conscious of the fact that the respondents who include the President of Pakistan, the Army Chief, ISI, etc., have to file their replies to explain their position. However, we may, at this stage, refer to the case of United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States [418 US 683] wherein the then President of the United States was facing proceedings before the Committee of the Senate, and at the same time, pretrial evidence was being collected by a special prosecutor general, which was objected to by him and the matter went up to the US Supreme Court and ultimately it was resolved that such pretrial evidence could be collected. Similarly, there are so many other cases, including the case of Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan (1994 SC 2142) wherein collection of pretrial evidence against persons who are found guilty ultimately is not prohibited.

9. We are told that the Prime Minister of Pakistan has also announced that the Parliamentary Committee on National Security will probe into the matter. We do not know the mandate of the Committee. However, we have been informed that as far as this Committee is concerned, it has no constitutional backing, i.e. it has not been constituted under any provision of the Constitution. Be that as it may, if any incriminating evidence is collected by the Committee both for civil and criminal action by probing into the matter, we would welcome the same. During the pendency of the proceedings, we would appreciate if the outcome of the proposed inquiry by the Committee is shared with us, if possible. Similarly, if the local Commission, which we are contemplating to constitute, succeeds in collecting forensic or other physical evidence, we would also be sharing the same with the Parliamentary Committee because the object and purpose both of the Parliament and of this Court is that there should not be any compromise on the sovereignty, security and independence of the country.

10. The petitioners, however, undoubtedly had to discharge their burden while arguing their cases with regard to the remedy, which they have invoked under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, however, it is considered appropriate that in the meantime, the respondents may file their replies to all the petitions within 15 days of the passing of this order. To protect and preserve the evidence, we would like to appoint a Commission comprising a competent officer for the purpose of collecting evidence on the issues, which have been highlighted hereinabove, including the question of authenticity of the memorandum, and the circumstances under which it was sent and the object behind addressing such memorandum to the high ups of a foreign country, and whether such an act is tantamount to compromising the sovereignty, security and independence of Pakistan.

11. The Registrar of the Court is directed to address a letter on behalf of the Court to Mr. Tariq Khosa, a former PSP officer, who had worked as Secretary Norcotics, DG, FIA as well as Inspector General/PPO, Balochistan to obtain his consent whether he agrees to perform this national duty. On receipt of his consent, the matter shall be handed over to him. The Commission shall be entitled to the remuneration, TA/DA and other perks, which Mr. Tariq Khosa was receiving at the time of his retirement. If need be, Mr. Tariq Khosa may travel outside Pakistan for the purposes of collecting evidence as this Court had allowed such practice in the case of Benazir Bhutto v. State (PLD 1999 SC 937). As far as the expenditures of the Commission are concerned, those shall be borne by the Foreign Affairs, Interior, Cabinet and Defence Divisions.

12. In the meanwhile, we direct that all the concerned authorities of the Federal and the Provincial Governments shall extend their full cooperation to Mr. Tariq Khosa in collecting evidence. He would be free to associate with him any other sitting and/or retired officer of the police or any other technical person to collect evidence. He would be holding the probe in the Cabinet Division. The Cabinet Secretary shall provide him all logistic support for the purpose of performing the function on behalf of the Court. He is required to complete this task as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the receipt of this order. It is to be noted that in case Mr. Tariq Khosa declines to act as the Commission, he may inform the Registrar who shall place the matter in Chambers for passing of appropriate order for taking up the matter either in the Court or holding proceedings in the Chambers.

13. We may also observe here that no sooner the issue of memorandum came to limelight, the former Ambassador of Pakistan tendered his resignation. We do not want to attribute to him anything adverse about his involvement and he is entitled to due respect. But, we desire that he should fully cooperate with the Commission and during the pendency of the cases before this Court, he would not be leaving the country without prior permission of this Court. This order should be communicated to the Secretaries of the Ministries of Interior and Foreign Affairs with the direction that if Mr. Hussain Haqqani violates the terms of this order and goes abroad, they shall be held personally responsible. At this juncture, we would expect from all the foreign agencies that they will extend full cooperation to the Commission as it is an issue of utmost importance for the sovereignty, security and independence of the country.

14.Adjourned to a date in office.

Sd/- IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ Sd/-

Sd/-MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J. TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J. Sd/-

Sd/- JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. TARIQ PARVEZ, J.

Sd/-

Sd/-MAIN SAQIB NISAR, J. AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

Sd/- EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J. IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.

Islamabad, the 1st December, 2011 APPROVED FOR REPORTING

?? ?? ?? ?? 10 10

CONST P 77-2011/2010, etc.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

NRO - Time has come to write History - CJ Iftikhar

Print Friendly and PDF


Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry says only those who wanted to become president were interested in the controversial law. During the hearing of the NRO case Chief Justice said time has come to write history. Benazir has written in her book the NRO was done by Pervez Musharraf. She did not mention any weakness in her book and rather blamed Pervez Musharraf, added the CJP. NRO did not mean an end to political cases against her, said the CJP. Benazir was a daughter of the leader who never accepted any wrongdoing, he added. The court also disallowed Babar Awan to read additional documents. He said he will issue the order on the documents afterwards.
( The Nation )

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Govt MUST NOT protect Thieves: Supreme Court

Print Friendly and PDF


ISLAMABAD – The government should not protect the thieves and support a ‘black law’, Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry said on Tuesday while heading a full-court hearing of NRO review case. As 17-member-bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday continued hearing the review petition on National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), the chief justice queried as to how the NRO could be defended despite attorney general’s terming it a black law. The court questioned that when the federal government was not affected by the December 16, 2009 apex court judgment on NRO, why it had filed a review petition.

“The state should not support the black and the stinking law,“ the chief justice observed, adding that it was the federation and not a political party that filed the petition, and if someone has any grievance over the court judgement, he or she should come forward instead of the government. Thousands of people took benefit of the NRO but nobody took recourse to the court nor was the court ruling on the ordinance challenged, he added. “Will the government protect the one who conceal corruption and pardon any such offence?” the chief justice questioned, adding that federal government wants to give ‘premier of the corruption’ to those who have remained involved in corruption.

Giving arguments before the bench, former federal law minister Babar Awan, whom the court allowed to appeal the case on behalf of the federation on merit, said the government does not even acknowledge the NRO as its repercussions are not good. He further said notices are taken on various news reports; an affront to a lawyer should also be taken note of, adding the federal government believes in transparent and candid accountability. “I will talk about accountability and not raise a political slogan for the elimination of corruption,” he added. In his arguments, Awan said that it is a court order that the accused cannot be punished in absentia and that is why closed cases cannot be reopened. Similarly, the SC cannot instruct the federation to reopen cases abroad. Awan maintained that the attorney general in the recent past had written the letter to the (Swiss) authorities without taking advice.

The function of the attorney general for Pakistan was abused, said Babar Awan. He held that the court had ignored the law of past and close transaction, adding that neither the court had authority to reopen overseas cases to investigation nor it can instruct the federation to reopen cases abroad. The chief justice questioned if the government is backing a law under which corruption flourished. He further said that a federation gains popularity if it does not support a black law and appreciated the current parliament for not approving the NRO.

On a point that NRO was not the deal between two parties but the then cabinet had fully approved it and was legally promulgated by the then president, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja asked Awan whether he wanted to say that NRO was a legal law and should be enacted again. The learned counsel said no there were certain points, which he would not press, and it was on of those. The chief justice said earlier the federation was insisting that people who have benefited from NRO should be tried in accordance with law, but now the federation defending the corrupt people. He said: “When the federation is coming to the defence of NRO we are very much disturbed.”

Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmany said: “If an individual is aggrieved by the judgment of this court then he should come forward but not in the garb of the federation.” Justice Nasirul Mulk remarked that those who benefited from NRO should be tried in accordance with the law. Justice Saqib Nisar said that the persons who have plundered the national wealth are talking about the past and closed transaction, which undoubtedly apply in this case as documents of corruption are available. The court said that the federation could not protect any thief and criminal. Babar Awan responded that the PPP has not protected corrupt persons, while in the past people were not only protected, but over protected. He said the federation complain is that they were not heard properly. Justice Jawwad asked Babar Awan: “We understand you will stand by the stand taken by the federal government earlier. The learned counsel said that the federation stands for accountability and no vengeance.

The Chief Justice asked the former law minister to show a single word from the judgment where the court has condemned the federation or the verdict adversely operating against the federation. He added that the court has rather helped the federal government in recovering plundered and looted national wealth. In Rental Power Plant case Rs4.5, given to Reshma as advance was recovered. He stated the federation led by Yousuf Raza Gilani should not support NRO. When former law minister pleaded that federation represent the will of the people. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said you mean to say that federation is for the masses and it has to take care of everyone and in the masses there are thieves and murderers, and if it would not protect them then who would defend them?

Babar Awan said the words that late Benazir Bhutto entered into a deal with Musharraf should be expunged from the NRO judgment. He said late Benazir Bhutto entered into deal not in personal capacity, but was representing the biggest party of the country. He said the PPP the biggest political party represents the will of the people. Justice Sarmad said the federation is not one political party and the chief justice executive of the government does not represent one party but the entire federation. He said if the verdict is against the BB then let come legal heirs of BB come forward. The chief justice said the president, PM and ministers are for the whole country and not just a party. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali said the PM and ministers take oath not to protect one party but the whole country. Paying tribute to the parliament he said it did not touch the ‘stinking law’ and it was not validated under the 18th Amendment. He said that people who were affected by the apex court judgment on NRO did not come before the court.
( The Nation )

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...