Daily Times Condemns Media Rumour Mongering

Oct 16th, 2010 | By | Category: Daily Times, Geo TV, Jang

The following editorial appeared in today’s Daily Times and echoes our analysis of yesterday on the issue of media’s role in the executive-judiciary tensions. Of particular interest is the statement by the Daily Times editorial staff:

Even the prime minister’s statement that this was a conspiracy to pitch the two institutions against each other was not considered enough.

It is worth taking a moment to consider what it means to our country if unsubstantiated rumours are considered more authoritative than the word of the Prime Minister. Let me tell you, that is not a good situation.

EDITORIAL: Media’s rumour mongering

The Supreme Court’s “restraining order” to stop government functionaries from any moves to undermine the judiciary have brought to the fore the unsavoury role being played by a section of the electronic media in the political arena. On Thursday, the chief justice of Pakistan felt compelled to call an extraordinary session of the Supreme Court past midnight, acting on rumours spread by a TV anchor in his programme that the government plans to de-notify the restored judges who had been sent home after General Musharraf’s imposition of emergency on November 3, 2007. During yesterday’s hearing, the attorney general tried his best to convince the apex court that no such move was being contemplated by the government. Even the prime minister’s statement that this was a conspiracy to pitch the two institutions against each other was not considered enough. The surprising factor was that the honourable court took the rumours, not backed by any evidence, seriously and acted promptly.

Unfortunately, the media group from where these rumours originated, through its opinion pieces presented as news items and highly partisan anchors, has time and again attempted to provoke the judiciary to declare the president illegal and dismiss the government. One might recall the September 27 hearing of the NRO verdict implementation, when this channel stopped its routine transmission and this same anchor started painting a doomsday scenario only to eat his words later when the Supreme Court partially accepted the government’s plea and postponed the NRO verdict implementation hearing for two weeks. The media generally, and this media group in particular, has crossed all limits and ridden roughshod on any and every thing we knew as ‘media ethics’.

There has been tension between the government and the judiciary since the judges’ restoration. If this kind of yellow journalism and rumour mongering is allowed to provoke the august court and create confusion and chaos in society, how can we expect sanity to prevail? Intellectuals and saner elements of society, who care for the future of the country, consider a clash of institutions to be extremely destabilising. Seeing a section of the media working on an agenda to somehow incite this clash in order to throw out an elected government is disturbing. When already there is so much strain between the government and the judiciary owing to several cases before the court involving the government, this kind of scare mongering is intolerable. Disseminating unsubstantiated claims and calling opinions upon them on the powerful medium of television and manipulating public opinion to accept a certain view is a coup of sorts via the media. If state institutions start reacting to each ‘breaking news’, it might lead to more confusion and chaos than there already is. It is neither in the interests of such media groups, nor in the interests of the institution of journalism nor the country. Whether one likes a particular party or regime or not, weakening the system by inciting a clash of institutions is not in the country’s interest. We are engaged in a belated effort after many years, under a democratic dispensation, to strengthen the institutions of the state and get them to work within the parameters prescribed for them in the constitution. To establish their limits and define their relationships is a work-in-progress. This kind of journalism is definitely not helping that cause.

Tags: , , , ,

11 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. One question that should be asked and is being ignored “who aired the news” and CJ “orders” government to find out about the news, but what does Law says about “Burden of Proof” and since the Judiciary has become suddenly fond of Islam so lets have a look,

    ““The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff and the taking of oath is upon the defendant.” (Al-Bayhaqi)”

    Guilty by Suspicion is against the Spirit of Islamic Law because when you raise finger then it’s the responsibility of those who allege to produce witness. Benefit of doubt is always given to those who is under trial.

    الْبَيِّنَةُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِى وَالْيَمِينُ عَلَى الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ

    The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, and the oath is upon the one who is accused (Tirmidhi)

    Therefore the ruler is forbidden from imposing a penalty on anyone, unless they perpetrate a crime which Shari’ah considers to be a crime, and the perpetration of the crime has been proven before a competent judge in a judiciary court, because the evidence could not be admissible unless it is established before a competent judge and in a judiciary court.

  2. Same Media: CJ’s meeting with PM against traditions By Sabir Shah
    http://fkpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/aitzaz-the-pimp-cj-the-prostitute/

    LAHORE: The arrival of Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani at Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s dinner hosted for Justice (retd) Khalilur Ramday in Islamabad on Tuesday night may have mellowed down the government-judiciary tiff a bit by spreading smiles all over but it has certainly pained thousands of litigants across the country who have pinned high hopes in an otherwise widely-deemed independent judicial system since March 2007.

    These litigants, many of whom had provided energy to the chief justice by practically expressing solidarity with him on the roads after he was deposed twice by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf in 2007, today feel that if the prime minister can meet the Supreme Court judges with such ease while he is actually defending the NRO beneficiaries in his cabinet despite explicit Supreme Court orders to treat the allegedly corrupt elements in accordance with the law, then a commoner should also have the right to meet the judges and defend himself or herself in a ‘more congenial’ and ‘more informal’ environment.

    Already disturbed by an unprecedented backlog of cases in courts due to one reason or the other, the premier’s meeting with the chief justice over a sumptuous dinner may have actually rubbed salt in the wounds of waiting litigants.

    While Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in August 2009, had exhorted his country’s judiciary “to wipe every tear of every waiting litigant” by eliminating the scourge of a huge backlog of cases, his Pakistani counterpart is making every effort to prevent his cabinet members from facing the law rather than convincing the country’s president to appoint judges in time to minimise the miseries of waiting litigants.

    Having accorded a warm welcome to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Tuesday’s dinner, the chief justice has thus disappointed many who have been lauding the brave and revolutionary actions initiated by him to uphold the supremacy of law and relaying the seed of an independent judiciary by swimming against the tide in a country like Pakistan, which has been ruled by military and civil dictators for most part of its history.

    One, however, wonders if the chief justice’s action is in line with the set procedures governing the role, functions and ethics of judges, a subject which is still being widely debated on the planet.

    A peek into the international standards codifying the character of court judges reveals in 1985, the United Nations (UN) had drafted the first universal standards of conduct for the judiciary under the title “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”.

    Just 15 years later, the UN had established a working party of chief justices from different countries. In 2002, their efforts resulted in guidelines called the “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct”, named after the location of their first meeting.

    According to the preamble, these principles were intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. This document presented six central ethical values like independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality and competence along with diligence.

    Not fewer than 16 instructions were given under the “propriety” head alone, including whether and to what extent judges may accept gifts, hold public lectures, be a member of a professional association or maintain private contacts.

    In America, the Codes of Conduct were issued at the level of the states back in the early 20th Century, followed by a Federal Judicial Code in 1973, though the Judiciary Act was passed long ago in 1789.

    In Europe, the European Council took on a leadership role and expressed a first recommendation to its member states on the independence, performance and role of judges in 1994.

    Based upon this proposal, the “European Charter on the Statute for Judges” was issued in 1998. This charter contains a catalogue of regulations which aim at ensuring the competence, independence and impartiality that individuals legitimately expect of law courts and judges entrusted with protecting their rights.

    While the Bangalore Principles are now used as a model in many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the European associations of judges have taken a more sceptical view. According to them, the Bangalore Principle, too, widely restricted the judges’ civil rights and, too, strictly regulated their private lives.

    The European judges have also opposed the idea that breaches of ethical rules could possibly be severely punished. There is a cultural-psychological background to such reservations. The Bangalore Principles are strongly inspired by common law thinking in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, even though a considerable number of judges from Continental Europe, the countries of which normally apply civil law, participated in drafting the rules.

    The interest in judicial professional ethics has particularly been aroused in the crisis-prone countries of Latin America, where a true regional code of conduct does not exist yet, but the Statute of Ibero-American Judges of 2001, does at least contain a separate chapter on judicial ethics. Some countries, however, have tackled the issue in concrete terms at the national level. In Mexico, a few years ago, a Federal Code of Judicial Ethics was adopted.

    Prior to this, Costa Rica (2000), Guatemala (2001) and Panama (2002) had introduced similar sets of rules and regulations in Central America. In South America, this applies to Chile (2003), Venezuela (2003) and Peru (2004), as well as various Argentinean provinces. Similar reforms are currently being discussed in Paraguay.

    Jurists and legal experts have widely been deliberating upon the subject today that if any court system becomes farcical once the citizens lose faith in it, despise its judges and resort to other means to enforce their rights.

    They are of the opinion that if judges have lost authority and personal credibility through unethical conduct, they will hardly be able to convince the citizens of the accuracy of any sentences they pass, besides observing in noted law journals that once a judiciary gives itself standards of conduct and makes them available to the public, this generally signifies an important trust-forming measure that spells out in black and white what behaviour citizens may expect of their judges.

    Since the time of US President Thomas Jefferson in 1803, supreme courts the world over have been overturning executive actions deemed unconstitutional by them and have found it difficult to directly enforce their rulings because of their reliance on both executive or legislative branches of the government for this purpose, but neither the US executive nor the judiciary there has ever tried to meet up openly to defuse the resultant tensions.

    One notable instance of Nona quiescence in world court history was witnessed in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the US Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester versus Georgia case, after President Andrew Jackson had sided with the Georgia courts to defy Chief Justice John Marshall’s orders.

    The 1954 judgment regarding desegregation of public schools in Brown versus Board case was also defied in the Southern part of America.

    In more recent history, many had feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to comply with the court’s order in United States vs Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes, but the US judiciary and executive never met to find a ‘way out’.

    For those who think there is a heavenly judicial system in place in the US, they should know that American Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints as lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do the law-enforcement officials.

    In addition, there are other mechanisms by which the executive and legislative branches can restrain the US Supreme Court orders. The Congress could increase the number of justices, giving the president power to influence future decisions via appointments (as in Roosevelt’s Court Packing Plan discussed above) and can also pass a legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain cases.

  3. Who played what role in the drama By Umar Cheema & Dilshad Azeem
    http://fkpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/aitzaz-the-pimp-cj-the-prostitute/

    ISLAMABAD: Who persuaded Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to reverse the almost fatal advice of some top legal minds and seek a quick reconciliation with the chief justice of Pakistan? This question is widely being asked and everyone is coming up with one name — Barrister Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan.

    According to sources, Aitzaz Ahsan played a key role and Gilani accepted his advice, saving his government from a catastrophe. The reported disagreement of Attorney General Anwar Mansoor with the decision also played an important role, the sources say.

    The lawyers’ leader not only rejected the legal interpretation of the government advisers on the judges’ appointment, he also informed the PM that it was in violation of the Constitution and that the PM should try to hold a meeting with the chief justice to remove misunderstandings. The same advisers had misled the PM, informing him that the executive order for the restoration of judges required ratification from parliament.

    The advisers under question — Law Minister Dr Babar Awan and PM’s adviser Latif Khosa —- are facing grave accusations of receiving money from their clients to buy the judges for favourable verdicts. Instead of correcting their conduct, they apparently nurtured grudges against the chief justice.

    Background discussions reveal that Aitzaz was instrumental in breaking the ice as he advised the prime minister that he was being misled through selective interpretation of some clauses of the Constitution. The Law Ministry had diverted the attention of the PM and the president from Article 260 of the Constitution that makes it binding on the president to honour the recommendations of the chief justice on the question of judges’ appointment.

    According to the sources, as Aitzaz invited the PM’s attention to Article 260, the chief executive of the country was caught by surprise, realising that he was being kept in the dark.

    The law minister was called to ascertain why the said article was not mentioned in the discussion. The minister said since the article was incorporated into the Constitution through the Legal Framework Order (LFO), it did not carry weight. However, Aitzaz intervened, arguing that Article 260 was an operative part of the Constitution.

    Latif Khosa, who is said to be not so close to the law minister and is instead vying for the same slot, was on the same page. Khosa kept parroting the Al-Jihad Trust case to convince his bosses about the seniority issue. But Aitzaz countered his argument, saying that the latest judgment on this question was delivered in 2002 when the court granted the chief justice of Pakistan the sole authority to determine the fitness and competence of judges for elevation to the office of the high court chief justice or to the Supreme Court.

    As the prime minister realised that a great blunder had been committed, Aitzaz advised him to seek a meeting with the chief justice and assured him that things would be settled. The PM’s gate-crashing into the CJ’s dinner was in this backdrop.

    According to the sources, the PM’s arrival was sudden and unexpected. A senior staffer of the PM first rang the Supreme Court registrar, expressing Gilani’s desire to see the chief justice who was subsequently informed. The CJ was caught by surprise to hear this but he returned the message that he was hosting a farewell dinner in honour of Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, so an urgent meeting was not possible.

    Another message from the PM office said the PM still wanted to meet him urgently. The CJ replied that the PM could come after the dinner. But the PM reached the Supreme Court in the next 15 minutes, surprising all and sundry present there, thus breaking the ice.

    The sources said even the attorney general saw the PM in disbelief since he too was unaware of his plan. As far the attorney general’s role in this crisis is concerned, he had reportedly told the PM that a blunder had been committed by issuing the notifications and the government was destined to be defeated in the case.

    It was learnt that the attorney general was initially reluctant to plead the case but had to concede to doing so as the so-called advisers were ready to fill the gap through other means.

    When contacted, AGP Anwer Mansoor neither clearly negated nor categorically endorsed the development. “I had a lot of interactions with the prime minister to give him my opinion on the issue and solve the crises.” The premier, the AGP said, may have considered it better to have a face-to-face meeting with the CJ.

    “It can be a consequence of what I have been telling the government but I did not issue an invitation to him as Gilani Sahib, himself, said while addressing me in the presence of many others. It was a surprise for me too.” However, the sources insisted that the AGP and Aitzaz had played a role in facilitating the PM’s Tuesday participation in the CJ’s dinner.

  4. Crap All Round WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2010
    http://cafepyala.blogspot.com/2010/10/crap-all-round.html

    The Jang Group has become so obsessed with quickly seeing the back of the government and is probably salivating so much over the prospects of threatened long marches that sometimes it gets muddled up in its excitement…

    This is the heading from yesterday’s daily Jang about Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani trying to reassure people – dreading a government-Supreme Court showdown in court today (October 13) – that nothing bad would happen. The headline reads: “13 March Ko Kuchh Nahin Hoga…” [Nothing will happen on March 13…].

  5. Breaking News: The News (Jang Group) removes its 19 January 2010 false story to escape legal action 16 October 2010 http://criticalppp.com/archives/26153

    Why? The reason is simple. The Supreme Court has ordered an inquiry to investigate those who created and disseminated the rumour; the court has asked Geo TV / Jang Group to produce their record as a part of that inquiry. By removing a culpable piece of evidence, Geo TV / Jang Group are trying to play smart. Ain’t they?
    However, we have been able to retrieve the removed story (which was reported by none other than the Ansar Abbasi / Muhammad Saleh Zaafir duo) from another website (which thankfully copy-pasted this report from The News):

  6. How Jang Group/GEO TV Played with Fire?
    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-jang-groupgeo-tv-played-with-fire.html

  7. 5 the news http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/oct2010-daily/17-10-2010/main2.htm Sunday, October 17, 2010, Zi Qad 08, 1431 A.H
    Hamid Mir says “every journalist” knows about the news and if the committee called they won’t reveal the source. Means Jang Group is ragging everybody in their own mess whereas court says: SC hearing for restoration notification on 18 Oct Saturday, 16 Oct, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/06-sc-hearing-for-restoration-notification-on-18-oct-rs-01

  8. Hamid Mir says “every journalist” knows about the news and if the committee called they won’t reveal the source. Means Jang Group is dragging everybody in their own mess:

    نوٹیفکیشن کی منسوخی کی خبریں  اسلام آباد کے بیشتر صحافی آگاہ تھے

    Sunday, October 17, 2010, Zi Qad 08, 1431 A.H.
    اسلام آباد (رپورٹ :…حامد میر)
    http://search.jang.com.pk/details.asp?nid=475946#

    اسلام آباد (رپورٹ :…حامد میر)گزشتہ 9/ ماہ کے دوران وزیراعظم یوسف رضاگیلانی کئی مرتبہ ججوں کی بحالی کا نوٹیفکیشن منسوخ کرنے سے انکار کرچکے ہیں لیکن چند ماہ قبل انہوں نے اس آپشن کا ذکر اسمبلی میں کھڑے ہوکر کیا تھا؛ کابینہ کے اکثر وزراء نے انہیں اس سلسلے میں دوبارہ بیان نہ دینے کا مشورہ دیا تھا۔ وہ سمجھتے تھے کہ قومی اسمبلی میں اس آپشن پر مزید بحث سے پورا نظام تباہ ہوسکتا ہے۔ خوش قسمتی سے ایسا ہی ہوا اور وزیراعظم نے بعد میں عدلیہ کے ساتھ مفاہمت کی پالیسی اختیار کی۔ بعد میں مفاہمت کی یہ پالیسی کارگر ثابت نہ ہوسکی کیونکہ حکومت این آر او کے متعلق سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے پر عمل سے گریزاں تھی۔ صدر آصف علی زرداری کے چند قریبی ساتھیوں نے نہ صرف وزیراعظم بلکہ ملک کے چند سینئر وکلاء سے بھی ججوں کے متعلق نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کے آپشن پر بات کی تھی اور اسی طرح یہ ”مشاورت“ دارالحکومت کی سب سے سلگتی ہوئی خبر بن گئی۔ پہلی مرتبہ ایسا 9/ ماہ قبل ہوا تھا۔ 12/ اکتوبر کو ایک مرتبہ پھر اسی آپشن پر صدر زرداری کے ساتھیوں نے بحث کی اور اس پیش رفت سے باخبر اسلام آباد کے چند صحافیوں نے مختلف سرکاری حلقوں سے اس خبر کی تصدیق کی کوشش کی لیکن کوئی بھی ریکارڈ پر بات کرنے کو تیار نہ ہوا۔ تاہم، ڈھکے چھپے انداز کے ساتھ حکومتی وزراء عدلیہ کو بدنام کرنے کیلئے کھسر پھسر کی مہم چلانے میں مصروف ہیں تاکہ یہ تاثر دیا جا سکے کہ عدلیہ منقسم ہوچکی ہے۔ گزشتہ ہفتے ایک وفاقی وزیر نے چند صحافیوں کو یہ خبر دینے کی کوشش کی کہ سے بات چیت کے دوران یہ تک دعویٰ کردیا کہ 18/ ویں ترمیم کے متعلق سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے میں اس بات کا امکان ہے کہ 6/ سے زائد جج صاحبان؛ چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری کے فیصلے سے اختلاف کریں گے۔ وزیر موصوف نے یہ بھی دعویٰ کیا کہ چند جج صاحبان حکومت کے ساتھ ”رابطے“ میں ہیں۔ جب ان سے پوچھا گیا کہ 2007ء میں پرویز مشرف کی طرح آخر حکومت کو جج صاحبان کے ساتھ خفیہ رابطوں کی ضرورت کیوں پیش آئی تو وزیر موصوف مسکرائے اور کہا کہ وقت آنے پر آپ لوگوں کو پتہ چلے گا کہ ہم پرویز مشرف سے مختلف ہیں اور آپ کو چونکا دینے والی خبریں ملیں گی۔ ایک اور وزیر نے تصدیق کرتے ہوئے بتایا کہ ” جی ہاں! چند لوگوں نے ہمیں مشورہ دیا تھا کہ ہم آخری آپشن کے طور پر ایگزیکٹو آرڈر واپس لینے پر غور کریں لیکن یہ آپشن اس صورت میں استعمال ہوتا جب سپریم کورٹ توہین عدالت کے مقدمہ میں وزیراعظم کے خلاف اقدام کا فیصلہ کرتی۔ تاہم، انہوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ 14/ اکتوبر کی شام کو عدلیہ کی جانب سے کوئی خطرہ نہیں تھا اور ہم نہیں جانتے کہ آخر کچھ صحافیوں نے یہ دعویٰ کیوں کیا کہ حکومت نے کچھ ججوں کو برطرف کرنیکا فیصلہ کرلیا ہے“۔ 19/ جنوری 2010ء کو دی نیوز میں شایع ہونے والی یہ خبر پہلی مرتبہ اسلم خان نے دی تھی۔ ایک مرتبہ پھر محمد مالک نے دی نیوز کیلئے 25/ ستمبر 2010ء کو خبر دی کہ ججوں کی بحالی کے متعلق نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کا انتہائی اقدام کا منصوبہ بنایا گیا ہے۔ لیکن حکومت میں سے کسی نے بھی صدر مملکت اور وزیراعظم سے اکثر و بیشتر ملاقاتیں کرنے والے سینئر صحافی کی خبر کے متعلق کوئی وضاحت پیش کی اور نہ ہی اس خبر کی تردید کی۔ ہفتہ کو دی نیوز سے بات چیت کرتے ہوئے لطیف کھوسہ نے بتایا کہ ”حکومت کے کسی عہدیدار نے ایک لمحے کیلئے بھی نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کی بات نہیں سوچی۔ لیکن ان کے دعووں کے باوجود پیپلز پارٹی کے چند وزراء اور صدر مملکت کے مشیر نجی طور پر اب بھی عدلیہ کے خلاف بات کررہے ہیں۔ میڈیا کے ساتھ ان کی نجی بات چیت سے یہ بات سمجھنے میں آجاتی ہے کہ عدلیہ کے خلاف ان کے لیڈروں کی اصل سوچ کیا ہے اور ان کے ذہن میں کیا منصوبے ہیں۔ حالیہ اتھل پتھل کے بعد، حکومت اب صحافیوں کو ہر طرح کی مختلف خبریں دے رہی ہے۔ صدر زرداری سے قریبی تعلق رکھنے والے ایک وکیل نے الزام عائد کیا کہ چند جج صاحبان میڈیا کو خفیہ طور پر معلومات پہنچا رہے ہیں کیونکہ (ان کے مطابق) پیپلز پارٹی کے اہم رہنماؤں نے ماضی قریب میں ان ہی چند ججوں سے رابطہ کیا تھا۔ تاہم، حقیقت یہ تھی کہ ان میں سے کوئی بھی جج فروخت ہونے کیلئے نہیں گیا تھا اور اعلیٰ عدلیہ کا کوئی بھی جج جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری کے خلاف سازش کا حصہ بننا چاہتا تھا۔ اب پیپلز پارٹی کے ذرائع کو اس بات کا خدشہ ہے کہ جن ججوں سے حکومت نے رابطہ کیا تھا انہی ججوں میں سے کسی نے شاید چیف جسٹس کو ان کوششوں سے آگاہ کردیا ہے جن کے تحت انہیں اپنی وفاداریاں تبدیل کرنے کیلئے کہا جا رہا ہے۔ یہی وجہ تھی کہ سپریم کورٹ میں سماعت کے دوران چیف جسٹس نے کہہ دیا کہ ”میڈیا جھوٹ نہیں بول رہا اور میں جانتا ہوں کہ یہ خبریں درست ہیں“۔ باخبر ذرائع کا دعویٰ ہے کہ ججوں کی بحالی کا نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کے منصوبے کی بات میڈیا میں آنے سے پہلے ہی جج صاحبان کو اس کا علم ہوچکا تھا اور یہی وجہ تھی کہ انہیں فوری اقدام کرنا پڑا۔ جج صاحبان کو جنرل پرویز مشرف کے دور کا تلخ تجربہ یاد تھا۔ اس دور میں بھی اٹارنی جنرل نے عدالت میں یقین دہانی کرائی تھی کہ کوئی بھی سخت اقدام نہیں کیا جا رہا لیکن بعد میں ایمرجنسی نافذ کردی گئی۔ یہی وجہ تھی کہ اس مرتبہ عدلیہ کو فوری اقدام کرنا پڑا۔ صورتحال سے پریشان، صدارتی مشیروں نے نے اب اس پورے معاملے کو توڑ مروڑ کر پیش کرنا شروع کردیا ہے تاکہ عدلیہ کو بدنام کیا جا سکے۔ صدر زرداری کے ایک سینئر مشیر نے اندازا لگاتے ہوئے کہا کہ شاید چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چوہدری 18/ ویں ترمیم پر متفقہ فیصلہ چاہتے تھے اور یہی وجہ تھی کہ انہو
    ں نے ججوں کو متحد کرنے کیلئے اس پورے بحران کو استعمال کیا۔ ماہرین قانون کا کہنا ہے کہ عدالت میں تحریری طور پر یہ یقین دہانی پیش کرکے وزیراعظم پوری قوم کو ریلیف دے سکتے ہیں کہ ججوں کی بحالی کا نوٹیفکیشن واپس نہیں لیا جائیگا۔ یہ بات واضح ہے کہ جو لوگ بھی وزیراعظم گیلانی کو نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کا مشورہ دے رہے تھے؛ اب وہی لوگ انہیں مشورہ دے رہے ہیں کہ وہ پیر کو عدالت میں تحریری بیان نہ دیں۔ حکومت کے ایک ”قانونی عقاب“ نے بتایا کہ وزیراعظم نے جمعرات کی رات ایک وضاحت جاری کردی جو کافی تھی؛ ملک کے وزیراعظم کے ساتھ سیکشن افسر جیسا برتاؤ نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ دی نیوز کے ساتھ ہفتہ کو گفتگو کرتے ہوئے وفاقی وزیر قانون بابر اعوان نے کہا کہ نوٹیفکیشن واپس لینے کی خبر ”غلط معلومات“ تھی لیکن وزیر قانون کی حیثیت سے ججوں سے رابطے کی تصدیق کی۔ انہوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ کسی بھی دوسرے جج کے ساتھ چیف جسٹس کے خلاف بات نہیں ہوئی کیونکہ میں شریف الدین پیرزادہ نہیں ہوں اور وزیراعظم گیلانی کو شوکت عزیز اور صدر زرداری کو پرویز مشرف نہ سمجھا جائے۔ اس پورے معاملے کی تحقیقات کیلئے حکومت نے کمیٹی قائم کرنے کا اعلان کیا ہے۔ تاہم، صحافیوں نے اس بات پر اتفاق کیا ہے کہ کمیٹی میں پیش ہونے کی صورت میں وہ اپنی خبر کے متعلق ذرائع کا نام منکشف نہیں کریں گے کیونکہ یہ صحافت کا ایک طے شدہ مسلمہ اصول ہے۔ سینئر صحافیوں کا کہنا ہے کہ اگر وہ کمیٹی میں پیش ہوئے تو وہ یہ بتائیں گے کہ انہوں نے جو کچھ بھی خبر میں بتایا ہے وہ انہیں صدر اور وزیراعظم کے حلقوں کی طرف سے بتایا جا رہا تھا۔

  9. Today Hamid Mir filed a news in Jang that نوٹیفکیشن کی منسوخی کی خبریں اسلام آباد کے بیشتر صحافی آگاہ تھےSunday, October 17, 2010, Zi Qad 08, 1431 A.H.اسلام آباد (رپورٹ :…حامد میر – Hamid Mir says “every journalist” knows about the news and if the committee called they won’t reveal the source. Means Jang Group is dragging everybody in their own mess. Hamid Mir and GEO/Jang ruined Sheikh Rasheed’s Election Campaign recently and now Ansar Abbasi quotes مشرف اور بینظیر نے نواز شریف کو اقتدار سے باہر رکھنے کا منصوبہ بنایا تھا، شیخ رشید 10 نکاتی خفیہ ڈیل منظرعام پر لے آئےاسلام آباد (انصار عباسی) Sunday, October 17, 2010, Zi Qad 08, 1431 A.H.

    What’s this: Hamid Mir/Jang Groups’s Somersaults on Freedom of Expression. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/05/hamid-mirjang-groupss-somersaults-on.html

  10. This “alleged story” has also been removed from the The News Website

    “QUOTE”

    SC’s resolve unnerves Presidency; US media takes on Pak judiciary PPP’s local, foreign supporters feeding American media which forced Nixon to quit before trial or impeachment

    By Ansar Abbasi

    News Analysis

    Friday, April 02, 2010

    http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28123

    ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s latest resolve to get its decision on the NRO implemented after showing restraint for over three months, has unnerved certain powerful elements in the ruling PPP that has unleashed a propaganda campaign against the Supreme Court in general and Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary in particular.

    Background briefings are being given to a select class of pro-government local media persons besides encouraging the foreign journalists to target the country’s superior judiciary and its top most judge. While the majority of the journalists within Pakistan remain steadfast but an influential official in the country’s US embassy has succeeded in getting anti-judiciary stories published in the US media. A credible source in the Pakistan embassy in Washington told The News that more is expected to appear in the US media against the Pakistani judiciary and the chief justice and in favour of President Zardari, who interestingly has been far more criticised by the international media than within Pakistan.

    Interestingly what has already been published in the leading US newspapers against the Pakistani judiciary and its decision on the NRO is flawed, based on half-truths, highly biased and far from the facts. All these biased writings of the US media, which takes pride in the independence of the judiciary and does not tolerate even the slightest corruption charge against any of its public office holders, are hard hitting against the Pakistani judiciary. Most reports are based on unnamed sources including those belonging to the PPP.

    Time magazine, which claims to be following the highest standards of journalism, had the cheek to say while quoting an unnamed PPP leader that Nawaz Sharif’s recent public objection to the constitutional package was the consequence of the chief justice’s pressure who, according to the magazine, had threatened Sharif that otherwise the courts would re-open all the cases against the Sharifs. For most of the leading lawyers, what Time magazine published is nothing but a piece of mere propaganda. Qazi Anwar, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who claimed to have met the chief justice at least twice during recent weeks, is opposed to Nawaz Sharif’s view on judges’ appointment but has also said that the chief justice does not desire any consultation on matters that are the property of parliament.

    It is also interesting to find that Time magazine simply missed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s recent appreciation of the work of the Senator Raza Rabbani-led Constitutional Reforms Committee.
    Another respected and influential US newspaper, Washington Post, also targeted the Pakistani judiciary on March 30. The newspaper while quoting unnamed analysts talked of “political motivations” behind the Supreme Court’s push to revive the cases against President Zardari.
    The newspaper, however, conveniently ignored the fact that it was the 17-member full court that had decided unanimously against the NRO, which was even opposed by the Zardari-led government. The report carried by the newspaper also ignored the fundamental question of implementation of the court’s order.

    Another Washington-based publication, The Hill, known for its coverage of lobbying activities, talked of “A Pakistani coup in black robes” written by George Bruno. Reading Bruno’s piece speaks volume about the idiotic work produced in the US publication merely for the sake of propaganda, under the influence of Pakistani lobbyists paid by the Pakistan Embassy in Washington.

    The write-up also talked of the politicisation of the Pakistani judiciary and what it called “the stark political ambitions of a formerly respected chief justice”. Ignoring that the Pakistani judiciary under Chief Justice Iftikhar is enjoying all time high popularity, the propaganda piece said that attempts emanating from the Supreme Court to openly undermine the elected government of Pakistan not only threaten the future of Pakistan’s still fragile democracy, but as a corollary, threaten the global imperative of containing terrorism, which remains contingent on a stable, moderate, economically viable and democratic Pakistan, the Islamic world’s sole nuclear power.

    Without being aware of the constitutional position and the principles as laid down in the past judgment of the superior judiciary for the appointment of judges and showing complete ignorance of the government’s recent admission that it was unlawful on its part to issue notification for the appointment of Supreme Court judges in disregard to the recommendation of the chief justice, The Hill said: “Most recently, Chief Justice Chaudhry, contrary to the Constitution of Pakistan, usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president of the country and functionally seized an executive branch of power.”

    The writer proves that he neither knows the facts of the case nor has any idea of the constitutional provisions in this regard. Yet again showing total ignorance, it said that Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of parliament and the president from serving if they are not of good character and if they violate Islamic injunctions and are not sagacious, righteous and non-profligate. The Hill did not say where the CJP say this but apparently it has a connection with the NRO judgment that was a decision of the 17-member full court and not of CJP alone. Secondly, what it said about the good character of the MPs, president and other as per Article 62 of the Constitution has altogether different connotations. In its NRO decision, the court said that the every body is of good character, sagacious, righteous and non-profligate unless he is proven otherwise in a court of law. But it seems The Hill does not have the time to go through the detailed judgment of the NRO.

    George Bruno introduced himself as the co-director of the University of New Hampshire’s Partners for Peace programme. He has also claimed to have served as US ambassador to Belize besides serving in the Clinton administration but his work on the Pakistani judiciary shows that his credentials need to be verified. His article also got space in the New Jersey Star-Ledger besides the Wall Street Journal Asia. In the latter’s case Lee A. Casey shared a by-line with him. Contrary to what the US media writes about the Pakistani rulers and the widely respected judiciary, the US takes pride in the independence of its judiciary that has not only refused to accept the question of immunity in the case of President Clinton but also did the same in the case of President Nixon.

    It was primarily the US media that forced Nixon to resign without being tried or impeached. The US media also ignores the role of Washington and London in the introduction of the widely condemned NRO, which was promulgated to close down corruption cases against a select class of politicians, bureaucrats and past rulers including the incumbent president of Pakistan.

    The Supreme Court of Pakistan declared the NRO void ab initio after the parliament refused to enact it and the government declined to protect or defend it. One wonders if the US media would allow the introduction of an NRO-like legislation in its own country. If not, then why does the US media not like for itself what it finds great for us? It is time the media stopped listening to lobbyists serving vested interests in Washington or to befool the people of Pakistan.

    “UNQUOTE”

  11. Standard of “The News International” and Infighting amongts Jang’s Reporters

    “QUOTE”

    “In conclusion, I regret that a newspaper of your standing and record sought fit to make the aforesaid scandalous allegations without even the courtesy of a phone call to consider the version of the person Mr Klasra so callously sought to defame.” Yours sincerely Fakhruddin G Ebrahim

    Karachi judge denies president’s defamatory allegations
    Saturday, October 02, 2010 Shawwal 22, 1431 A.H. By Ahmad Noorani http://www.thenews.com.pk/02-10-2010/Top-Story/1030.htm

    “UNQUOTE”

    “QUOTE”

    Neither Zardari misquoted nor ‘retired judge’ named
    By Rauf Klasra Sunday, October 03, 2010 Shawwal 23, 1431 A.H.
    Dr Abbasi said, “Mr Klasra, your story is 99.9 percent correct. This is what I had said in the meeting and this was the response of the president.” After Raja Pervez Ashraf, this is second case in which a person has volunteered to confirm something without being named or asked to. I simply followed the ethics of journalism by not quoting any judge’s name in my story as I will repeat not because I was afraid of someone. I did so simply because Mr Zardari did not name the unknown judge, who according to him had trapped and deceived him. Had he quoted anyone name, I might have used his name even in the start of my story and also took his version.

    “UNQUOTE”

Leave Comment

?>