The media feeding frenzy around NRO was entirely predictable and will surely get worse before it gets better. Now that the Supreme Court has rendered a verdict, the media is sure to make as much drama while they still can. After all, now that the debate about whether or not NRO should be repealed is over, media will soon have to look for a new topic of discussion.
At the same time, it is interesting to look at how the media has framed the NRO in their discussions. Mr. Anas Muhammad blogs on his website GPS Pakistan a very pertinent question about how the media has discussed the NRO debate:
It was surprising to see the media and other segments of society’s enthusiasm over the decision of Supreme Court on the NRO, declaring it null and void. This kind of decision was expected but surprisingly the reason for peoples enthusiasm wasn’t that allegedly corrupt people will face the court of law, rather it was that President Zardari and Rehman Malik along with Hussain Haqqani will again face cases that were dismissed under the National Reconciliation Ordinance.
Out of the list of 8,000 beneficiaries only 34 were the politicians and out of them the main target was the President and the Co-Chairman of Pakistan Peoples Party Mr. Asif Ali Zardari. The debate on the majority of beneficiaries of NRO, the bureaucrats, didn’t even take place on the media. Instead the discussion directly started with the politicians and didn’t take too long to shift to the topic of Presidential immunity and resignation of President on ethical basis.
This brings up a very good question. When the list of NRO beneficiaries was released, it revealed that only 34 of the beneficiaries are politicians. This was immediately met with cries from the usual quarters about how this was a clear example of how corruption is rampant and the major problem in Pakistan.
But 34 politicians only? That’s less than one-half of one-percent. Of all the 8,000 beneficiaries of the NRO, approximately 0.4% were politicians. Why does the media not discuss the other 99.6%?
In fact, at one point the Chief Justice actually requested the media to stop discussing NRO on TV talk shows because it was harming the interests of justice.
Now the Supreme Court has issued its decision on the NRO, and yet still the media continues to only discuss less than one percent of the beneficiaries. While the NRO drama continues to unfold, media should do better. Instead of talking about 0.4% of cases, they should be discussing the broader context. Also, the NRO case should not be used by the media as a means to destabilize the government.
The entire point of the Supreme Court’s decision in the NRO case was to make progress in democratization. Let us not allow anti-democracy types in the media to hijack the NRO for their own agenda.
PDF Tags: Anas Muhammad, Blogs, NRO
’عدلیہ دائرہ کار سے تجاوز کر گئی ہے‘
علی سلمان
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لاہور
آخری وقت اشاعت: ہفتہ, 19 دسمبر, 2009, 05:25 GMT 10:25 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/12/091219_hrcp_asma_as.shtml
عدلیہ کا کام ارکانِ پارلیمان کی اخلاقیات کی جانچ پڑتال نہیں
پاکستان انسانی حقوق کمشن کی چیئرپرسن عاصمہ جہانگیر نے این آر او کے بارے میں سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے پر تبصرہ کرتے ہوئے کہا ہے ’عدلیہ اپنے دائرہ کار سے تجاوز کرگئی ہے اوریہ بہت ہی خطرناک بات ہوگی کہ سپریم کورٹ اراکین پارلیمان کی اخلاقیات پر فیصلے دے۔‘
عاصمہ جہانگیر نے بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام سے گفتگو کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ جس طریقے سے فیصلہ آیا اور مانیٹرنگ سیل بنائے گئے اور سارے اراکین پارلیمان کو ایک طرح سے وارننگ دی گئی کہ ان کے کردار کی چھان بین ہوسکے گی ’وہ سمجھتی ہیں کہ عدلیہ اپنے دائرے سے باہر نکلی ہے۔‘
انہوں نے کہا وہ اس بات کی توقع نہیں رکھتی تھیں کہ عدلیہ اب اس بات کی جانچ پڑتال شروع کردے گی کہ ممبران کے اخلاقیات کیا ہیں۔
عاصمہ جہانگیر نے کہا کہ اراکین اسمبلی تو الیکشن لڑ کر آتے ہیں لیکن جج تو اپنی ساکھ کی وجہ سے آتے ہیں اگر ممبران پارلیمان کے لیے معیار اتنا بلند کردیا جائے کہ کوئی اس پر پورا نہ اتر سکے تو پھر عدلیہ کا معیار تو اس سے بھی بہت بلند ہونا چاہیے۔
انسانی حقوق کمشن پاکستان کی سربراہ نے کہا کہ ’یہ جوڈیشل ایکٹوازم نہیں ہے بلکہ عدلیہ اپنی اتھارٹی کو بہت زیادہ آگے لے گئی ہے۔اب اس نے مانیٹرنگ سیل قائم کرنے کی بات کر دی ہے۔یہ بھی دیکھا جائے گا کہ کس میکنزم کے مطابق کام ہوگا۔‘
’عدلیہ کی سپرویژن تو ہوتی ہے لیکن مانیٹرنگ سیل ہم نے آج تک نہیں دیکھا کہ اس طریقے بنائے گئے ہوں۔‘
انہوں نے کہا کہ وہ سمجھتی ہیں کہ تقسیم اختیارات کا نظریہ متاثر ہوا ہے۔’عدلیہ کو اپنے رویے پر غور کرنا چاہیے اس کا اپنا ایک مقام ہے اور اسے اپنے اس مقام پر واپس چلے جانا چاہیے۔وہ کسی خاص معاملے یا کیس میں اپنی دلچسپی نہ دکھائے۔‘
’وہ انصاف ضرور کریں لیکن یہ مخصوص نہ ہو بلکہ مساویانہ انداز سے ہونا چاہیے کیونکہ یہ نہ صرف ملک کے لیےبلکہ خود ان کے لیے بھی اچھا نہیں ہوگا۔‘
ایک سوال کے جواب میں انہوں نے کہا کہ وہ اس فیصلے کے خلاف اسی صورت میں اپیل کرسکتی تھیں جب اس عدالت سے بڑی بھی کوئی عدالت ہوتی۔انہوں نے کہا کہ سپریم کورٹ کے سترہ رکنی بنچ نے ایسا فیصلہ سنا دیا ہے جس کی کہیں اپیل بھی نہیں ہوسکتی۔
’انسان آخر انسان ہوتا ہے اس سے غلطی ہوسکتی ہے اسی لیے اپیل کا حق رکھا جاتا ہے۔ یہ بھی سوچنے کی بات ہے کہ اتنے بڑے فیصلے کردیئے جائیں اور اس کی کہیں اپیل بھی نہ ہوسکے۔‘
انہوں کہا کہ وہ یہ نہیں کہتیں کہ عدلیہ فیصلے نہ دے لیکن جو بھی کرے بہت سوچ سمجھ کر کرے۔
عاصمہ جہانگیر نے کہا کہ اس سے کوئی انکار نہیں کرسکتا کہ جن لوگوں نے لوٹ مار کی ہے ان کے مقدمات عدالتوں میں چلنے چاہیے اور یوں اجتماعی معافی نہیں ہونی چاہیے لیکن عدلیہ نے جس انداز میں فیصلے کیے ہیں اس پر انہیں تحفظات ہیں۔
دریں اثناء انسانی حقوق کمشن آف پاکستان نے ایک بیان جاری کیا ہے جس میں بعض افراد کے بیرون ملک نقل وحرکت پر پابندی کو بنیادی حق کی خلاف ورزی قرار دیا ہے اور کہا ہے کہ کمشن کو اس بات پر پریشانی ہے کہ حکام نے ایگزٹ کنٹرول لسٹ آرڈیننس کا اطلاق کردیا ہے جسے کبھی بھی منصفانہ نہیں سمجھا گیا۔کمشن کی سربراہ عاصمہ جہانگیر نے کہاکہ پیشگی نوٹس اور مناسب وجوہات بیان کیے بغیر پابندی عائد کرنا اس بنیادی حق کی خلاف ورزی ہے جس کی ضمانت ملک کا آئین دیتا ہے۔انہوں نے کہا کہ جن لوگوں کے خلاف عدلیہ میں مقدمات چل رہے ہوں ان کے بیرون ملک سفر پر پابندی عائد کرنا ضروری نہیں ہے ان کے فرار کو روکنے کے لیے عدالت میں قانونی سطح پر یقین دہانی حاصل کی جاسکتی ہے۔انہوں نے کہا کہ ایگزٹ کنٹرول لسٹ کو ماضی میں سیاسی طور پر حراساں کرنے کے لیےاستعمال کیا جاتا رہا ہے اور اب ایگزٹ کنٹرول لسٹ کا عدالتی فیصلے کی آڑ میں من مانے طریقے سے استعمال کسی آفت سے کم نہیں سمجھا جائے گا۔انہوں نے کہا کہ قومی دولت لوٹنے والوں کے خلاف جو قانونی کارروائی کی جارہی ہے وہ کافی ہے، حکام کو بے جا غصے اور جوش میں آکر ایسے ناجائز اقدام نہیں کرنے چاہیے جنہیں وہ انصاف سمجھتے ہوں۔
Another aspect of the judgment By Asma Jahangir Saturday, 19 Dec, 2009
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/another-aspect-of-the-judgment-929
The NRO case, Dr Mubashar Hasan and others versus the federation, has once again stirred a hornet’s nest.
There is thunderous applause for bringing the accused plunderers and criminals to justice and widespread speculation on the resignation of the president. Very little analysis is being done on the overall effect of the judgment itself.
While, the NRO can never be defended even on the plea of keeping the system intact, the Supreme Court judgment has wider political implications. It may not, in the long run, uproot corruption from Pakistan but will make the apex court highly controversial.
Witch-hunts, rather than the impartial administration of justice, will keep the public amused. The norms of justice will be judged by the level of humiliation meted out to the wrongdoers, rather than strengthening institutions capable of protecting the rights of the people.
There is no doubt that impunity for corruption and violence under the cover of politics and religion has demoralised the people, fragmented society and taken several lives. It needs to be addressed but through consistency, without applying different standards, and by scrupulously respecting the dichotomy of powers within statecraft. In this respect the fine lines of the judgment do not bode well.
The lawyers’ movement and indeed the judiciary itself has often lamented that the theory of separation of powers between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive has not been respected. The NRO judgment has disturbed the equilibrium by creating an imbalance in favour of the judiciary.
The judgment has also sanctified the constitutional provisions of a dictator that placed a sword over the heads of the parliamentarians. Moreover, it has used the principle of ‘closed and past transactions’ selectively.
It is not easy to comprehend the logic of the Supreme Court that in a previous judgment it went beyond its jurisdiction to grant life to ordinances — including the NRO — protected by Musharraf’s emergency to give an opportunity to parliament to enact them into law.
If the NRO was violative of fundamental rights and illegal ab initio, then whether the parliament enacted it or not it would have eventually been struck down. By affording parliament an opportunity to own up to the NRO appears to be a jeering gesture unbecoming of judicial propriety.
The NRO judgment has struck down the law also for being violative of Article 62(f), which requires a member of parliament to be, ‘Sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen’.
Hence, the bench will now judge the moral standing of parliamentarians on these stringent standards set by the notorious Zia regime. This article of the constitution has always been considered undemocratic and a tool to keep members of parliament insecure.
If parliamentarians, who also go through the rigorous test of contesting elections in the public domain, are to be subjected to such exacting moral standards then the scrutiny of judges should be higher still.
After all, judges are selected purely on the value of their integrity and skills. Judges who erred in the past seek understanding on the plea that they subsequently suffered and have made amends. Should others also not be given the same opportunity to turn over a new leaf? How will sagacity and non-profligate behaviour be judged?
Apart from Dr Mubashar Hasan, not even the petitioners of the NRO case are likely to pass the strenuous test laid down in Article 62 of the constitution. This could well beg the question whether it is wise for those in glass houses to be pelting stones.The judgment goes much further. It has assumed a monitoring rather than a supervisory role over NAB cases. In India, the supreme court directly interfered in the Gujarat massacre but it did not make monitoring cells within the superior courts.
Is it the function of the superior courts to sanctify the infamous NAB ordinance, the mechanism itself and to restructure it with people of their liking? It is true that the public has greater trust in the judiciary than in any other institution of the state, but that neither justifies encroachment on the powers of the executive or legislature nor does it assist in keeping an impartial image of the judiciary.
The long-term effects of the judgment could also be counter-productive; perpetrators are often viewed as victims if justice is not applied in an even-handed manner and if administered in undue haste with overwhelming zeal. It is therefore best to let the various intuitions of state take up their respective responsibilities because eventually it is the people who are the final arbiters of everyone’s performance.
Samad Khurram used to be a ardent supporter of Free Judiciary Movement, in fact he was the brain behind CJ’s visit to USA for receiving Harvard Medal, read his article on Judiciary, read him on Lal Masjid Clerics.
The Taliban are here Monday, April 20, 2009 Samad Khurram
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=173372
Back in 2002, I was returning from Friday prayers when I saw an unusual gathering of singing and quasi-dancing mullahs. Unusual because I had always assumed mullahs to be against all types of kufr (art). The amused crowd were listening to chants of “Taliban aa-gae! Taliban aa-gae!” I smirked: As if! Pakistan is a nuclear country with the seventh-largest army. We’re safe.
The mullahs’ songs have been answered – the Taliban indeed are coming. And with them the cowards are bringing a lifestyle that destroys everything Pakistan.
Oh, no! Wait! This guy is on the paycheque of those who are trying to break Pakistan. The Taliban are our heroes, it is America which is in the wrong. Yes, this is the typical self-defence mechanism coming to full force. Having nothing to lose, and having been already declared a CIA agent earlier in life, I suppose I’ll continue. Continuing with a genuine fear that these words are falling on either deaf or hostile ears, it may well be that Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan is over in a year if all this chaos continues.
Perhaps, if Jinnah knew that the country he founded was going to become an arena for public flogging, where the laughs of sadist barbarians will mingle with the screams of women and children, he would not have decided on creating it. Had he known that there would be more suicide bombs in his country than any other place in the world, where militants and bigots would go around threatening women to “dress properly,” where schoolchildren would have to undergo security checks as if they were in a war zone, he would be extremely upset.
All our talk shows discuss the merits and demerits of the 17th Amendment, or bash America and India. Yes, American drones and Indian statements are a threat to our sovereignty. Yes, the balance of power is important, but it is the Taliban who have killed more people than India or the US drones combined, and have made us feel more unsafe than anyone else in the past thirty years. What other definition of sovereignty is there than provision of protection to people and maintenance of the writ of the state? Why can’t we have some programmes that discuss the atrocities of the Taliban, acts of terror that they do and how they have destroyed Pakistan?
No, it’s not the “Hindu Zionists” working on a CIA/Mossad-sponsored conspiracy to break Pakistan. And for the sake of argument, even if they are foreign-funded, does that not mean we should double our efforts to counter them? Remember when India briefly occupied some land in 1965 and how the whole country rallied to defend this invasion? My grandfather had stories of people going with sticks to support the army. I am afraid I will not have any such stories of patriotic resistance to tell anyone when another enemy has taken control of, say, a fourth of the NWFP and roughly one-twentieth of Pakistan.
But remember the great Pakistani Fauj which, under the Ameer-ul-Momineen, Zia-ul-Haq, crushed the Russians? This is only a plan to make America taste the same fate! Yes, thank you Zaid Hamid. For a nation which already lives in denial, your conspiracy theories are all we need to turn us completely schizophrenic.
For the love of God, can anyone explain to me why the great army whose laurels we sing from the day we are born has still not been able to jam radio stations pouring terror in Swat? How is it that these Taliban leaders can appear before journalists in broad daylight and roam freely without any trouble even when they claim responsibility for a suicide bombing?
Perhaps the real question I should ask is, why do I even care? When I took time off from Harvard to be part of the lawyers’ movement I had seen a ray of hope. There were concerned citizens and lawyers who stood for what was right, no matter what the consequences. We fought for a principle and won, with the hope that things will slowly improve. Today the very judges we had faith in released the Lal Masjid cleric whose crimes everyone knows about. If the judiciary was going to release people whose crimes were recorded on TV, perhaps it does explain why the Taliban are growing popular.
Having said that, rays of hope like Afzal Khan Lala, who has refused to move from Swat while he is alive, appear every now and then. However, he stands alone in facing the storm. Other than Ayaz Amir, not a single Pakistani leader has spoken out against the Taliban. Will the real leader who can get rid of these monsters stand up, please? Imran Khan? Qazi? Nawaz Sharif? This silence is criminal!
What’s worse is that these leaders of ours have unanimously approved a state within a state run, which is not accountable to anyone, absolved the Taliban of all crimes and provided them a safe haven to kill more Pakistanis. The so-called Nizam-e-Adl Regulation was endorsed by the National Assembly without any proper debate.
The sad story, friends, is that the Taliban are here, and unless we stand up against them in every possible way, Pakistan will be lost for good. And it will not be lost because of Zardari’s real or perceived corruption or anything else like that, but because of the silence of the lambs – we ALL will be responsible if Pakistan fails.
The writer is a student at Harvard University and turned down an award from the US ambassador as a mark of protest against killings of Pakistanis by US drone attacks.
Email: skhurram@fas.harvard.edu
I wonder where was Mr Athar Minallah and other Civil Society Activists during all this [may please be read in the light of Human Rights Criteria set by Athar and co.]
“QUOTE”
The crackdown, announced late Saturday night after General Musharraf suspended the Constitution, was clearly aimed at preventing public demonstrations that political parties and lawyers were organizing for Monday. “They are showing zero tolerance for protest,” said Athar Minallah, a lawyer, and a former minister in the Musharraf government. REFERENCE: Musharraf Consolidates His Control With Arrests By JANE PERLEZ
Published: November 4, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04cnd-pakistan.html?_r=1&hp
Asif Zardari, husband of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has waited for more than 5 years for the start of his trial on charges of killing his brother-in-law, Murtaza Bhutto in 1997. In April 1999, Zardari was tried and convicted separately on corruption charges. In December 2001 Zardari received bail but was not released; the NAB ordered his continued detention on suspicion of corruption. Despite government claims that NAB cases would be pursued independent of an individual?s political affiliation, NAB has taken a selective approach to anti-corruption efforts (see Section 1.d.). The Musharraf Government in 1999 created by ordinance the NAB and special accountability courts to try corruption cases (see Section 1.d.). The NAB was created in part to deal with as much as $4 billion (PKR 208 billion) that was estimated to be owed to the country’s banks (all of which were state-owned at the time; several have since been privatized) by debtors, primarily from among the wealthy elite. The Musharraf Government stated that it would not target genuine business failures or small defaulters and does not appear to have done so. The NAB was given broad powers to prosecute corruption cases, and the accountability courts were expected to try such cases within 30 days. As originally promulgated, the ordinance prohibited courts from granting bail and gave the NAB chairman sole power to decide if and when to release detainees. The ordinance also allowed those suspected by the State Bank of Pakistan of defaulting on government loans or of corrupt practices to be detained for 15 days without charge (renewable with judicial concurrence) and, prior to being charged, did not allow access to counsel. In accountability cases, there was a presumption of guilt, and conviction under the ordinance can result in 14 years’ imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of property. Those convicted also originally were disqualified from running for office or holding office for 10 years. In August 2000, the Government announced that persons with a court conviction would be barred from holding party office. This provision was used during the general election to prevent certain candidates from entering the contest. REFERENCE: Pakistan Country Reports on Human Rights Practices Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 2002 March 31, 2003 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18314.htm
Pakistan
National Level: The Musharraf Government in 1999 created by Ordinance the NAB (National Accountability Bureau) and special accountability courts to try exclusively corruption cases. These Courts are part of the national judicial system and operate under the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Pakistan. For up-to-date statistics on the number and type of cases files, convicted and acquitted, please refer to the Appendix. The NAB was created in part to deal with as much as $4 billion (PKR 208 billion) that was estimated to be owed to the country’s banks (all of which were state-owned at the time; several have since been privatized) by debtors, primarily from among the wealthy elite. The Musharraf Government stated that it would not target genuine business failures or small defaulters and does not appear to have done so. The NAB was given broad powers to prosecute corruption cases, and the accountability courts were expected to try such cases within 30 days. As originally promulgated, the ordinance prohibited courts from granting bail and gave the NAB chairman sole power to decide if and when to release detainees.
The ordinance also allowed those suspected by the State Bank of Pakistan of defaulting on government loans or of corrupt practices to be detained for 15 days without charge (renewable with judicial concurrence) and, prior to being charged, did not allow access to counsel. In accountability cases, there was a presumption of guilt, and conviction under the ordinance can result in 14 years’ imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of property. Originally, those convicted were set to disqualify from running for office or holding office for 10 years. In August 2000, the Government announced that persons with a court conviction would be barred from holding party office. This provision was applied during the general election to prevent certain candidates from entering the contest. REFERENCE: I. Special Corruption Courts in Asia http://www.u4.no/helpdesk/helpdesk/queries/query19.cfm
The new government’s principal vehicle for detaining former officials and party leaders, however, was the National Accountability Ordinance, a law ostensibly created to bring corrupt officials to account. The ordinance confers sweeping powers of arrest, investigation, and prosecution in a single institution, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and permits detainees to be held for up to ninety days without being brought before a court. The law was later amended to facilitate conviction by shifting the burden of proof during trial from the prosecution to the defense.
There were persistent reports of ill treatment in NAB custody, particularly in the case of high profile detainees who were held early in the year in Attock Fort. Persons convicted under the ordinance were prohibited from holding public office for a period of twenty-one years. An amendment to the Political Parties Act in August also barred anyone with a court conviction from holding party office. The combined effect of these acts, as they were applied, was to eliminate the existing leadership of the major political parties. While administration officials said that parties would be allowed to participate in future elections to the Senate and national and provincial assemblies, local government elections, scheduled to be held in December, were to be conducted on a non-party basis.
The Musharraf government also suppressed political activity by conducting raids on party offices, preventing political rallies from being held, and lodging criminal cases against rally organizers under laws governing sedition and the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance. The sedition law, Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, criminalizes speech that “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Central or Provincial Government established by law.” Section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance prohibits speech that “causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public” or any section thereof, or which “furthers or is likely to further any activity prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order.”
Rana Sanaullah Khan, a member of the suspended Punjab provincial assembly from Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML), was arrested in Faisalabad on November 28, 1999. The arrest came after he criticized the army at a meeting of former legislators and urged his colleagues to launch a protest movement against the military government. He was tortured while in custody, and criminal charges were registered against him under the sedition law and MPO .
On March 15, the government formally curtailed freedom of association and assembly with an order banning public rallies, demonstrations, and strikes. The order’s enforcement against a procession from Lahore to Peshawar that Nawaz Sharif’s wife, Kulsoom Nawaz, had planned to lead, resulted in the arrests of at least 165 PML leaders and activists. On September 21 the ban was also invoked against 250 members of the hardline Sunni Muslim group, Sipah-e-Sahaba, who had planned a march to celebrate a religious anniversary. REFERENCE: Human Rights Developments http://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k1/asia/pakistan.html
“UNQUOTE”
I hope Mr Aitzaz Ahsan hasn’t forgotten this:
PAKISTANI PLIANT/SLAVE JUDICIARY UNDER GENERAL MUSHARRAF’S MARTIAL LAW:
Human Rights Watch is often quoted on the Restoraion of Judiciary and Restoration of CJ Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary. Lets read what HRW has to say about Asif Ali Zardari. I wonder where was was Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary [upgraded by Musharraf during Martial Law rather Musharraf administered his OATH for the Supreme Court] and his Chief Spokesman Mr Ather Minallah who had served under the very General Musharraf during his Pure and Un-edited Martial Law Government. Where were Mr Ather Minallah and CJ Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary when under their very nose below mentioned Human Rights Abuses were rampantly allowed against Makhdoom Javed Hashmi and Asif Ali Zardari. Please call spade a spade.
Repression of Political Opponents http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/pakist14756.htm
Arbitrary Arrest and Detention of Political Opponents
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/pakist9852.htm
Torture and Arbitrary Arrests of Dissidents and Political Opponents
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/31/pakist7008.htm#6
Pakistan: End Persecution of Political Opponents
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/28/pakist9933.htm
Arbitrary Arrest and Detention of Political Opponents
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/pakist12254.htm
PAKISTANI JUDICIARY REJECTED GENUINE BAIL UNDER MUSHARRAF MARTIAL LAW:
What about rejecting the bail to Makhdoom Javed Hashmi [MNA-PML-N]. Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary didn’t say no to Mr Musharraf on Javed Hashmi Case?
SC dismisses 3 appeals of Javed Hashmi for his release on bail Tuesday October 10, 2006 (0139 PST) http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?156686
Nawaz criticises judiciary for rejecting Hashmi’s appeal By Our Staff Reporter October 10, 2006 Tuesday Ramazan 16, 1427 http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/10/nat2.htm
Hashmi’s bail plea rejected By Nasir Iqbal December 6, 2003 Saturday Shawwal 11, 1424
http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/06/top13.htm
Late release of Javed Hashmi on the eve of his daughter`s marriage, an unwelcome gesture: Liaqat Sunday December 24, 2006 (0215 PST)
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?164043
Reality of Abdul Hafiz Pirzada [who was against NRO in Supreme Court] who accepted the Fees [35 Lakh Pak Rupees] from Zardari to defend him in Swiss Case. Read the details in Hamid MIR’S ARTICLE IN TODAY’S JANG [21 DEC 2009]
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/dec2009-daily/21-12-2009/col4.htm
The same Pirzada and Mumtaz Bhutto too [Notorious Uncles of Late. Benazir Bhuto]: Mumtaz Bhutto’s loved Zoulfiqar Bhutto so much that only after a few days of ZAB’s Murder, both Mumtaz and Hafeez Peerzada got married [Courtesy Monthly Herald Pakisatn Divided They Stand by Mazhar Abbas Issue of January 2008].
Mumtaz Bhutto loved late Ms. Benazir Bhutto so much that after the dismissal of her second government [1993-1996] by PPP elected President Tumandar Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan Laghari, he joined the Caretaker Chief Minister of Sindh under President Laghri in 1996 so much for the love of Ms. Bhutto.
Watch in BBC Documentary: Dirty Role played by the Close Friends [Pirzada, Jatoi and Mumtaz] of Late. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto [Murdered by JI, Judiciary, Military, and USA]
نوٹس خستہ مگر یادیں تازہ
آخری وقت اشاعت: Saturday, 4 April, 2009, 18:18 GMT 23:18 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2009/04/090404_090404_bhutto_anniversary.shtml
Read Mubashir Hasan on Murtaza Bhutto Murder [in 1996 DAWN]
“QUOTE”
While the people speculated about the motives behind the killing of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, Dr. Mubashir Hasan, a former Finance Minister and a founder member of the PPP, was very blunt in his remarks: “For those whohave removed Murtaza from our midst, the real problem has been and is Prime Minister Benazir. As long as Murtaza was alive, removing Benazir carried unacceptable risks. Murtaza could take over the mantle of the elder Bhutto’s legend. Else Murtaza and Benazir would be striving for a common cause, separately or jointly. That would have presented formidablepolitical problems. Murtaza gone, the way is clear. Benazir stands perilously weakened. She is the next to go. Such are the brutal pathways of realpolitik.” [Dawn 25.9.1996]
Former interior minister Naseerullah Babar paid glowing tributes to Shoaib Suddle for restoring peace in Karachi when in 1994 the Army was withdrawn from the metropolitan city. He said the ISI was involved in the murder of Murtaza Bhutto. He said he had formed a commission to probe against the ISI but pressure was mounted on him and afterwards the inquiry was givenup. He criticized the MQM decision to join forces with the opposition. He said the MQM should join the government for the sake of peace in Karachi.
Bill to cut president down to size this week’ News Desk
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=14093
“UNQUOTE”
“QUOTE”
Kamran Khan, a correspondent of The News, appeared with a written request that he should be heard as a witness to reply to the statement made by the former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, to clear his name, to which the tribunal said it was not holding a defamation trial. The tribunal said it was not concerned with who had said what and that the former prime minister had named 50 people in her statement and there was no time to allow all those who had been named in her statement the opportunity to hear them. “We have limited time and by March 17 the report has to be submitted to the government and we will not allow you to examine Ms Benazir Bhutto and if we allow that there will be no end to it,” the chairman observed. The chairman asked him to submit a written statement before March 17. He also observed that he (Kamran Khan) should have come forward earlier, when the messages were being sent to him. He was reminded by the tribunal that one of the reporters of The News, Maqbool Ahmed, was given the message to convey to him for his appearance when his name was mentioned in the list submitted by the PPP (SB) party counsel, Manzoor Bhutta. “You kept quiet when you knew about it through the newspapers. You did not wake up until she came and named you by saying ‘if he could be used by me others can also use him.’ “Kamran Khan said he did not know who Maqbool Ahmed was. He said Ms Bhutto had used the tribunal’s platform to say things against him and, therefore, he wanted to reply to her from the same platform, to which the chairman said she had a locus standii, because her brother had been killed and her husband had been arrested in the case.
“UNQUOTE”
Roedad Khan and NRO!
The PML-N has fielded Roedad Khan as the covering candidate. Fourteen nomination papers of 13 candidates were filed in Lahore, 17 of eight candidates in Karachi and one in Peshawar. No papers were submitted in Quetta. Election Commission’s secretary Kanwar Mohammad Dilshad told Dawn that nomination papers of nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan had not been submitted. 32 file papers for presidential poll By Iftikhar A. Khan August 27, 2008 Wednesday Sha’aban 24, 1429 http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/27/top1.htm
Military Justice in Pakistan:
The ISI and MI heads persisted in their demand for resignation, the CJ said. “I refused, saying that the demand has a collateral purpose.” “I was kept there absolutely against my will till 5pm. [Guess who was DG ISI IN THE NEWS] CJ says chiefs of MI, ISI asked him to quit: Affidavit on March 9 camp office event By Iftikhar A. Khan May 30, 2007 Wednesday Jamadi-ul-Awwal 13, 1428 http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/30/top1.htm
How is it that those behind the deal-making based on this unconstitutional and illegal ordinance were not named and shamed/charged outright? Indeed, as reported widely at the time, the present chief of army staff was the DG ISI when the final draft of the NRO was being presented to Benazir in Dubai and was part of Musharraf’s team sent to convince her. Let us be grateful for small mercies By Kamran Shafi Tuesday, 22 Dec, 2009 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/let-us-be-grateful-for-small-mercies-229
Isn’t it funny that the best indian nusic comes from pk. songs pk has more music than what best of bollywood has to offer.