It is interesting to note that in today’s The News, the OpEd written by Shaheen Sehbai, an Editor in the newspaper, has been relegated to the inner pages. It seems like even The News governing board has realized that Mr Sehbai is not a journalist, but a campaigner. And that his stories are not based on fact, they are based on conspiracy theories
Let us take a look at today’s story titled ‘Where did the minus-1 formula come from?’. In this story Mr Sehbai alleges that there was a one-to-one meeting between the President and the Prime Minister during which certain issues were discussed. Now, if there was no one else present in the meeting and I am sure President Zardari did not provide Mr Sehbai with information about the meeting, then who did? Did Mr Sehbbai receive information from the Prime Minister himself or from his office? Or did Mr Sehbai receive information from those who “listen” to conversations? Maybe that is what Sehbai means when he repeatedly refers to ‘fly on the wall’ informing him about what happened! But if this is the case then his story is totally unreliable and it is time someone exposed these dubious links.
Mr Sehbai’s piece is not a OpEd piece it is fiction. Here are some snippets. First, “…started taking shape in the power corridors of Islamabad and Rawalpindi when coupled with political failures, there was a torrent of reports of corruption, mainly by people associated and appointed by the presidency on key government and corporate positions, with a turnover of billions in shady deals.” Or “Secret meetings with uniformed star officers were held in the wee hours of cold nights.” And “Political amateurs, who had grabbed the high place coming from tiny bit jobs in hospitals, jails, and stud farms or from apartments in exile, could not keep the secret.” Better still, “A Presidency insider narrated the story of how the lifestyles of people around the president had transformed within weeks and months.” If I am not mistaken this is what we read in most mystery or romantic novels!
Mr Sehbai never mentions his sources, all he does is refers to meeting “politicians, retired and working civil and military bureaucrats, journalists and businessmen.” If there are so many people he has met and so many who are willing to open up to him – as he supposedly argues – why does he have a problem in telling his viewers who these sources are? How is it that Mr Sehbai knows what is happening behind closed doors, in one-to-one meetings, has the confidence of everyone from the media to the civilian to the military establishment? Who gives him all this information? The public has a right to know especially when all he says about his sources is words to the effect, “A fly on the wall said a Maulana would appear regularly in the PM House to take what he needed and this was no secret.”
Or is it possible that Mr Sehbai has his own agenda. Ten years ago in an article in Dawn titled “The Patient and the Surgeon” (October 22, 1999), Mr. Sehbai described Pakistan as a “patient” and General Musharraf as the “surgeon.” Quoting unnamed sources Mr Sehbai advised General Musharraf on what he should do, namely, “General Musharraf cannot dawdle and straggle any more as he is losing the critical strike time that could give him the advantage of an early sweep against the mafias and layers and layers of corrupt elements all over the place. His administration has a very soft face so far and this has not caused enough fear and panic in the ranks of the corrupt. Publicity of his image of a relaxed man sitting with his dogs may have waited until he had shown some results.”
If we look at today’s piece Mr Sehbai seems to be doing exactly the same except this time round he is advising Prime Minister Gilani by asking him to come “out of the shadows of Zardari on the one hand and keep the loyalties of as many PPP MPs as possible so that his government’s majority in parliament is not threatened. The Opposition is helping him out, to a degree.” And further, “ The PM should, therefore, stop all such deals and decisions until he becomes a PM in his own right and the decisions are seen as collective decisions to be implemented in a transparent manner and not dictated to suit the deep pockets of presidential friends who have already made billions. The PM, when he gets out of the shadows of the Presidency, will have to catch these big fish to establish his credibility. Nothing short of a massive hunt for such wheeler dealers with a criminal mind will bring Gilani some credit. He has lived too long as a sheepish lame duck.”
So what we at PMW see is a pattern. Mr Sehbai runs campaigns and conspiracies against individuals and then uses his column to propagate these campaigns. This is not journalism, this is campaigning.
PDF Tags: Conspiracy Theory, Dawn, Gilani, Pervez Musharraf, Shaheen Sehbai, The News
NRO: Kamran Khan & Dirty Role of Barrister Khalid Anwer.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/nro-kamran-khan-dirty-role-of-barrister.html
Mr Khalid Anwer is a renowned ‘Lawyer’ and as per his Legal Firm Profile ” Khalid Anwer & Co. is a premier law firm having a total strength of eleven lawyers in Karachi and associate firms in Lahore and Islamabad. It was formerly known as A.K. Brohi & Co. It is one of the oldest and most prestigious law firms in Pakistan.” Everybody who know Pakistan History also know that “The Law of Necessity” was basically the brainchild of Late. A.K. Brohi who used this at the behest of General Zia/Jamat-e-Islami to commit the judicial murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Once again it is proven beyond doubt that Human Memory is very weak particularly of Jang Group/Kamran Khan when they discuss PPP/NRO/Zardari and that’s what happen during a talk show on NRO with Legal Wizzard Mr Khalid Anwer
RAWALPINDI: Any case can be initiated against President Zardari under Section 4 of Article 248 of the Constitution, but neither the Supreme Court has mentioned it nor the media discussed it, said former Law Minister and constitutional expert Khalid Anwar on Wednesday. He was talking to Kamran Khan in Geo News programme ‘Aaj Kamran Khan Kay saath’. He said there should be no doubt that the Supreme Court’s decisions should be implemented. He said the government made a mistake by not implementing the short order of the SC. Now the apex court can take a suo moto notice on why the government didn’t act as the short order was announced a month earlier. Khalid Anwar said under the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot issue notice to the president of Pakistan, but it can order the government to get the court verdict implemented. On this the government would apply in the court that the president has got immunity under the constitution, and the SC can issue a stay order in this regard after receiving the government’s application to review the decision. On this application the court will decide whether the president has got the immunity or not. REFERENCE: Any case can be filed against Zardari, says Khalid Anwar Thursday, January 21, 2010 News Desk http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26800
Thursday, January 28, 2010, Safar 12, 1431 A.H
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jan2010-daily/28-01-2010/main3.htm
Mr Kamran Khan/Jang Group/GEO TV/Mr. Khalid Anwer “conveniently” forget as to what the same Jang Group had published 9 years ago on the “Dirty Role of Barrister Mr. Khalid Anwer” and that news was published on 05-02-2001 on its front page.
“QUOTE”
LONDON: The “Sunday Times“ has published transcripts of conversations in 1999 between top minions of the Nawaz Sharif government and a High Court judge hearing the case of PPP leader Benazir Bhutto, bugged by an intelligence official who later fled Pakistan with the tapes. The disclosure came from a senior Pakistani intelligence officer who has said in a letter to the president, obtained by The Sunday Times, that he was told to bug the Justice Abdul Qayyum`s phones. The bugging allegedly revealed that Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister, was intent on securing Bhutto`s conviction at any cost.
In Pakistan Justice Qayyum challenged the veracity of the tapes saying they could have been concocted or doctored. He refused to comment on the merits of the case as it was being heard by the Supreme Court but said he gave all decisions according to the dictates of his conscience and the requirements of the law. By coincidence, the judge who sentenced him to hang was Qayyum`s father. Since she left Pakistan the government of Musharraf has intensified efforts to track assets Bhutto is suspected of having acquired illegally. Many were received by Zardari, who is in prison.
Transcript (I)
PA to Khalid Anwar: Is Justice Qayyum at Home?
Girl: Who is going to talk?
PA to Khalid Anwar: Khalid Anwar – the federal law minister – would like to talk.
Girl: Please hold on
Justice Qayyum: Hello!
PA: Please hold I`ll connect you with Khalid Anwar.
Khalid Anwar: Asalam-o-Alaikum
Qayyum: Salam-o-Alaikum, how are you sir.
Khalid Anwar: I rang you earlier but you were not at home. Where are you now?
Qayyum: I am in Lahore at the moment
Khalid Anwar: Frankly speaking, I have to discuss two, three issues which
Saif has discussed with me.
Qayyum: Who did?
Khalid Anwar: Saif Sahib has. I can`t talk clearly but in my opinion you would understand it. The fact is that I really respect you and also Saif Sahib does.
Qayyum: Yes, it is all right.
Khalid Anwar: Somebody [Nawaz Sharif]is unhappy over the delay of hearing of his case to Saif that nothing has been done so far and why has it not been concluded. In return Saif defended you and said there is no such delay. There should be no misunderstanding because he is trying his level best. But the gentleman [Nawaz Sharif] is very unhappy, because of the situation. There was discussion regarding this issue and I was wondering that a problem might arise. Now I am thinking if you could reach the final result within the outside limit of two weeks.
Qayyum: Apparently there is no problem we will have to complete the procedure. Cross-examination has been completed entirely. Now their statement under 432 has to be recorded.
Khalid Anwar: So get it done on Monday.
Qayyum: It is being done on Monday. After this we have to give them some time for defence evidence and then the matter will be closed.
Khalid Anwar: What we should do is to start the hearing day to day.
Qayyum: We were hearing it day to day but they have requested for two days time, as there are 356 documents. Now you tell me when we will have to fix the date for defence evidence, some time will be required.
Khalid Anwar: If you are giving them two days so after that you should proceed without any break and stay in Islamabad for the full week instead of two days so that this case is completed within two weeks.
Qayyum: I have been there nearly every day of the last two week.
Khalid: You should just take up this case for the whole week.
Qayyum: I am doing nothing else.
Khalid: I am the one who keeps on asking you all the time and by the Grace of God you have done a good job in banking cases. Whenever I meet the World Bank people you are… Last time you sent me a fax. I was in meeting so I showed it to everybody and said this is what you call performance.
Qayyum: Regarding this, when I come this time , I shall meet and tell you. Our Chief Justice is already there. I also told him that a slight delay is inevitable. For, example, if you ask them for defence evidence, then you will have to give them time, you just cannot say bring that tommorow.
Khalid: Kindly try that the work is done. And next time you call me so that we can have a quiet cup of tea.
Qayyum: I shall definately do it. But I had to tell that the others like me are nowhere close to me.
Khalid: I know how much I respect you.
Qayyum: By the Grace of God we shall conclude this very soon.
Khalid: Kindly do it because from reading between the lines I could gather that there is a lot of pressure on Saif.
Qayyum: No, no… I shall definitely do it.
Khalid: Thank you.
Qayyum: No, sir, I am at your disposal.
Khalid: Allah Hafiz
Qayyum: Thank you sir.
Transcript (II)
Saif-ur-Rehman and Justice Qayyum:
Saif: Aslam-o-Alaikum sir
Qayyum: Same to you. REFERENCE: `Nawaz put pressure to convict Benazir` By our correspondent http://www.chowk.com/interacts/4959
“UNQUOTE”
MORE DIRT ON on Former Judge MALIK QAYYUM, Former Law Minister KHALID ANWER PML-N, Ehtisab Bureau Chief[Accountability Bureau of PML-N] SAIFUR REHMAN [NOW General Musharraf Advisor] AND Justice Rashid Aziz of Lahore High Court.
“QUOTE”
“Ms Bhutto won a major court battle when a seven-member Supreme Court bench upheld her appeal, suspending the five-year jail sentence awarded to Bhutto and Zardari, and ordered a fresh trial into the Cotecna bribery case. The couple was accused of accepting millions of dollars in kickbacks from a Swiss firm. In addition to the jail sentence, the special accountability court headed by Justice Malik Abdul Qayyum had fined them 8.6 million dollars each and disqualified them from public office for five years. The Supreme Court ruling overturning the sentence did not come as a surprise after it was established that trial by the accountability court was manipulated. Bhutto’s legal position was strengthened after the disclosure of a taped conversation between Justice Abdul Qayyum and Saifur Rehman, chief of Mr. Sharif’s accountability cell. The sensational disclosure of 32 tapes which revealed that the judge was pressured to convict the former prime minister and her husband, left the superior court with no choice but to overturn the controversial verdict. However, the retrial order makes it apparent that the bribery charge has not been quashed. REFERENCE: The Judgement and After By Zahid Hussain May 2001 The Newsline [Monthly] http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsMay2001/coverstory1.htm
“UNQUOTE”
“QUOTE”
The Friday Times, Editorial by Najam Sethi, Feb. 15, 2001 – The Sunday Times of London has recently published a story that damns politicians and state institutions alike in Pakistan. The report suggests that an official of the Intelligence Bureau was ordered in 1998 by the head of the Accountability Bureau, Mr Saif ur Rehman, to tap the telephones of Justice Abdul Qayyum of the Lahore High Court (illegal order by politicians, illegal implementation by IB). The IB official later pocketed the tapes and decamped to London, eventually handing them over to the British newspaper. If true, the conversations between Justice Qayyum and Saif ur Rehman, Khalid Anwar (then law minister), Mrs Abdul Qayyum and others are fascinating because they reveal the political bankruptcy of the system and those who are elected or nominated to make it work. The tapes suggest that Justice Qayyum was bullied by the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his minions into convicting former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and her spouse Asif Zardari for corruption in 1998. This means that – irrespective of the substantial evidence laid against the two accused – the trial wasn`t conducted entirely in a free or fair manner as required by law. Ms Bhutto shrieked as much during and after the trial but critics, including TFT, dismissed her allegations against Justice Qayyum as inconceivable. Hence when the review petition comes up for hearing before the Supreme Court on February 26, the court will be hard put to choose between acquitting the couple or ordering a fresh trial. If it clings to a third option – upholding the verdict – it risks being tarred by the same brush.
The role played by each of the actors merits comment. Nawaz Sharif ordered Saif ur Rehman to bug the judge and Mr Rehman had no qualms in barking compliance to the head of the IB who did likewise to his subordinate staff. Everyone acted illegally down the chain of command. Mr Rehman, in particular, stands out like a sore thumb. He is earlier known to have boasted that the “judges were in his pocket“. Apparently, Mr Sharif also leaned on the then chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Justice Rashid Aziz, to advise Justice Qayyum to do the needful or else. The Supreme Judicial Council needs to take a careful look at this allegation.
The law minister, Khalid Anwar, acted in a deplorable manner. What is wrong with asking a judge to hurry up, he asks. Nothing, if this is done in open court and in a transparent fashion. But it is immoral it if it is done amidst dire threats brandished by officials at the Prime Minister`s behest. Mr Anwar also claims that his government never authorised the IB to wire-tap the judges. Nonsense, says former chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah, who reports that when a bug was discovered on his phone, Mr Anwar advised him not to make an issue of it. We might also recall that this is the same gent who, as President Farooq Leghari`s council in 1996-97 in the Bhutto dismissal case before the Supreme Court, cited phone tapping of judges by the Bhutto regime as a major justification for her government`s ouster. Finally, there is the judge in the dock. By all accounts, a most competent and learned man, indeed one on whom undue reliance has been thrust by politicians and judges alike in politically sensitive or legally complex cases. But the tapes have compromised his position. He could try and ride out the vicious gossip or he could call it a day and quietly fade away. If he chooses the first route, the law would require him to face the Supreme Judicial Council and explain his situation.
One last matter. The timing of the revelations – just before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Benazir Bhutto`s review petition – and the dubious role of the IB Deputy Director (how has he suddenly acquired a conscience?) is thought to cast doubts about the veracity of the tapes and the allegations flowing from them. Not so. The tapes are authentic enough. If they weren`t, every one of the alleged culprits would have tripped over the others to sue the Sunday Times for millions of pounds in criminal defamation and the judges involved would have hauled up everyone in sight for gross contempt of court. Nor should it matter whether the spook in question received a hefty cheque or a promise of some lucrative posting in the future for allowing his conscience to get the better of him. The fact is that Ms Bhutto has cunningly exploited the counter-evidence at her disposal for maximum effect like a true politician who may be down but refuses to be out. This case could have far-reaching repercussions. It might give Ms Bhutto a new lease of life. It might stiffen the resolve of lawyers and politicians to agitate for democratic revival and accountability. And it might embolden the judiciary to redeem itself by standing up a little bit to the government. REFERENCE: Democracy in Pakistan: The Missing Link? The Friday Times, Editorial by Najam Sethi, Feb. 15, 2001 http://www.chowk.com/interacts/4948/1/0/a
“UNQUOTE”