The News for the Prosecution

Jan 1st, 2012 | By | Category: Jang, The News

The News (Jang Group)Is The News (Jang Group) reporting on court proceedings or trying to influence an issue that is sub judice? This question must be asked in light of a report by Ahmad Noorani of 31 December, ‘Asma focused on army bashing, not maintainability of petitions.

The short, four paragraph piece in Saturday’s newspaper contains a sensational headline and opening paragraph which can only be read in a way that will influence the readers to believe that Asma Jahangir is anti-military – a dangerous accusation in these times.

Mr Noorani’s article appeared on the same page as another piece that terms the respected international human rights NGO ‘Human Rights Watch’ as taking ‘a highly objectionable and partisan position against the superior judiciary of Pakistan’ after Pakistan Director Human Rights Watch Ali Dayan Hasan expressed concern about the Supreme Court’s verdict. According to The News, the ‘highly controversial statement’ insisted that “all arms of the state must act within their constitutionally determined ambit and in aid of legitimate civilian rule”. Does Jang Group really find the Constitution ‘highly objectionable’?

Just below this piece, in fact, was another piece attacking Human Rights Watch, this time terming it as ‘a foreign organisation working in Pakistan under the cover of human rights’. In an utterly bizarre and inexplicable practice, The News then goes on to quote its source against Human Rights Watch – none other than Mr Ahmad Noorani!

The News goes on to attack the person of Human Rights Watch director Ali Dayan Hasan. After printing his statement:

“No one from the government approached me to issue this press release and it was issued by my organisation considering the fears and threats to constitution, democracy and human rights in Pakistan”

The News injected a rumour that “It was also being said that he had issued this press release on directions of the federal government”. As with very many Jang Group sources, these cannot be verified and The News offers no evidence to support the claims their mysterious ‘sources’.

It should be noted that the person who appears to behind a few of these biased and sensational articles, Ahmad Noorani, has a track record of reporting incorrect information and biased articles attacking the present government.

As the issue of the memo case is presently sub judice, journalists should report only the facts and not attempt to influence proceedings or to anticipate the course of the inquiry or predict the outcome. Let the court do its work. It does not need Jang Group prejudicing the courts statements and decisions and thereby undermining the very independence of the court itself..

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment »

  1. Jang Group & Musharraf have same attitude towards Human Rights Watch – Musharraf Shows His True Colors

  2. How quickly Jang Group forgets that it quotes the very HRW whenever it suits Jang Group (The News) quotes Anti-Islamic, Blasphemous & Anti-Pakistan NGO.

  3. A request from the Moderator “Kindly Include this Vital Information on Snow white clean Former Chief Justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui”


    The story of the storming of the Supreme Court on Friday November 28, 1997, by ministers, parliamentarians, and supporters of the second government of Mian Nawaz Sharif is a subject upon which all those who were members of the executive, legislature, and judiciary at that point in time do not care to dwell. That same sorry day, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Sajjad Ali Shah, the main object of the storming, wrote to President Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari narrating the facts of the incident, requesting him to take action under Article 190 of the Constitution and provide security cover for the court and its judges by calling in the army for their protection. He also narrated how “a Judge of this Court”, Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, had overstepped his mark by hearing petitions which he should not have heard without the authority of the Chief Justice, how he had passed administrative orders without proper authorization, and how he, with some of his brethren acquiescing, had deliberately caused a division amongst the judges of the apex court of the land. He asked the president to take the necessary steps for action against Siddiqui by the Supreme Judicial Council. – The matter dragged on and on through the tenures of Chief Justices Ajmal Mian and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and the government of Nawaz Sharif. When Justice Irshad Hassan Khan took over as Chief Justice last year under this military government he revived the matter in September, a thousand days down the road, and ordered the Islamabad Inspector-General of Police to institute an inquiry to be conducted by a Superintendent of Police “to identify the miscreants involved in this incident and thereafter proceed in accordance with the law.” The results of such an inquiry and the tracing of the masterminds could have well been anticipated. On March 25 this year a story in the national press, dateline Islamabad, told us that the inquiry team “filed a sketchy report and that too, too late, reportedly because of political considerations to engineer the restructuring of the ousted ruling party.” Reportedly the interior ministry had refused access to Mushahid Hussain and Saifur Rahman, both incarcerated at the time, and their plan to request that Nawaz Sharif be produced for interrogation was thwarted by his exile to Saudi Arabia. REFERENCE: Leghari and the storming By Ardeshir Cowasjee 08 April 2001Sunday 13 Muharram 1422 (DAWN)

    The third judge, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, reached Quetta in the evening and he also appended his signature. Incidentally, all three judges in Quetta were inducted in the Supreme Court on my recommendation and had been administered their oath by me.Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui passed a similar order in the Peshawar bench. Justice Mukhtar Junejo was also a member of the bench but refused to sit on the bench in that case. Justice Siddiqui took over powers of Chief Justice and issued his own roster and directed that the matter be heard by a full court except the CJP who was restrained and Justice Ajmal Mian who was the intended beneficiary and was conveniently present in Islamabad on one week’s leave as he wanted to defuse the tension and resolve differences among the judges supporting the CJP and those supporting the prime minister. The Constitution can be amended. In fact, that is the only way to remove ambiguity in the language. Nobody talks about the attack on the Supreme Court in November 1997 and how it happened and what was the conspiracy between certain judges and the government. The judges followed the directions of Justice Saeeduzzaman because the government gave its nod. These are the circumstances to be considered while evaluating the judgment in Malik Asad’s case. None of these 10 judges regretted the attack on the Supreme Court. The whole offensive was filmed by hidden cameras fixed on the premises of the Supreme Court and was seen by the president, the prime minister and the COAS. Photographs were published in newspapers showing federal ministers leading the mob. I sent a reference to the president against Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui on grounds of misconduct but the prime minister refused to act. REFERENCE: A defining moment for the judiciary By Sajjad Ali Shah [The writer is a former Chief Justice of Pakistan] July 21, 2007 Saturday Rajab 05, 1428

  4. What was Leghari’s successor in office, Rafiq Tarar, doing in Quetta on the day the order suspending Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was handed down by the Quetta Bench of the Supreme Court? Why did Tarar and two others fly to Quetta in a special plane on that disastrous day? Leghari is right. Questions are being asked. Why were the police at the Quetta airport ordered not to manifest his arrival (which instructions they in fact manifested)? Where did Tarar stay on the night of November 26 (his departure on November 27 having been manifested by the airport police)? What reward was he given for his day’s efforts? Why, on January 20, was a story leaked by the government to the press about the obstruction of justice early in 1997 in an alleged rape case involving a servant in the then Justice Ajmal Mian’s Karachi house when he, as CJ, was presiding over the bench hearing contempt of court cases against Nawaz Sharif and others? Why were stories leaked about the foreign sholarship sponsored by the government to the wife of the good J-1 Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui? Why is the Muslim League inner circle boasting that the ‘package’ . REFERENCES: The second Tumandar Ardeshir Cowasjee Week Ending : 28 February 1998 Issue : 04/09

  5. A request from the Moderator “Kindly Include this Vital Information on Snow white clean Former Chief Justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui” Former President Rafiq Tarar Sabotaged & Subverted the Judiciary.

  6. The day, the Chief Justice Siddiqi refused to take oath under the PCO, the News and Jang newspapers reported that an investigation is being initiated against former Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and his wife on charges of corruption under normal laws. These report said that some agencies were probing that Justice (Retd) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui “tried to sabotage the government’s efforts to eradicate corruption and restore real democracy in the country”. Quoting government sources, the papers said that on the change of government on October 12, the armed forces and the judiciary had affirmed to work selflessly for the country’s reconstruction. It was thus agreed to maintain a system of accountability to check those who had penetrated in the judiciary through political corruption and other “misdeeds”. As Chief Justice, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui had assured that he would take effective action against corrupt elements in the judiciary. But soon it was noticed that there was no change in the system of dispensing justice. There were visible indications to show that speedy justice and accountability promises were unreal and ineffective.

  7. Judges in Politics

  8. Judges in Politics

  9. Judges in Politics

  10. HEGEMONY OF THE RULING ELITE Judges in Politics

  11. WHAT THE PUBLIC DONT KNOW ABOUT THE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE (R) SAEED UZ ZAMAN SIDDIQUI — In 1993, justice Sajjad A. Shah gave the lone dissenting opinion when Supreme Court restored Sharif government by a majority decision. Two judges; Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqi asked chief justice Nasim Hasan Shah to take disciplinary action against Sajjad A. Shah for the language he used in his dissenting note. Chief justice didn?t take any action against Sajjad A. Shah but it caused a permanent rift. Supreme Court takes recess during summer vacations and if chief justice is out of country during recess it is not necessary to appoint an acting chief justice. In the summer of 1997, chief justice Sajjad A. Shah proceeded to an overseas trip. Incidentally second senior most justice Ajmal Mian was also abroad. Justice Saeeduzaman Siddiqi was in Islamabad when he was told that chief justice had left the country. He adjourned the proceedings, consulted lawyers and then called all supreme court registries to stop working. He declared that there was a constitutional crisis since no acting chief justice was appointed. He sent a letter to the federal government advising it to issue notification for appointment of acting chief justice. As he was the next senior judge, he was appointed acting chief justice. This caused a lot of bad blood between Saeeduzaman Siddiqi and Sajjad A. Shah and on his return Sajjad A. Shah conveyed his disapproval in writing. Reference: Judicial Jitters in Pakistan ? A Historical Overview Hamid Hussain Defence Journal, June 2007.

    December 01, 1997 was the darkest day in the history of Pakistan?s judiciary. Two orders were issued for the constitution of benches; one by chief justice Sajjad A. Shah heading a five member bench for hearing the cases while the other by justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqi heading a fifteen member bench to decide about the fate of Sajjad A. Shah. On December 02, two parallel courts were set up inside supreme court. Reference: Judicial Jitters in Pakistan ? A Historical Overview Hamid Hussain Defence Journal, June 2007

  12. Pakistan: “Greater rights’ abuses will ensue unless Pakistan’s elected institutions assert themselves” by Raza Rumi Published in: The Friday Times DECEMBER 30, 2011

  13. A request from the Moderator “Kindly Include this Vital Information on Snow white clean – Ahmad Noorani also shamelessly quoted “the same anti Pakistani HRW” – Malik Qayyum in new row over rigging Muhammad Ahmad Noorani Saturday, February 16, 2008 ISLAMABAD: The Human Rights Watch, a New York-based organisation, on Friday released a highly controversial audio tape of Attorney-General of Pakistan Malik Mohammed Qayyum in which he talks about a rigging plan for Monday’s elections. The audio, released on the website of HRW, was obtained by it from secret sources and the organisation accused the attorney-general of saying “that the upcoming parliamentary elections will be massively rigged”. Malik Qayyum, while talking to The News, termed the recording fake and a conspiracy against him because he was a close aide of President Musharraf. He said the release of this fake audio was a conspiracy against him and the president. The Human Rights Watch claims that the conversation was recorded when a journalist was interviewing Qayyum and he took another call, putting the journalist on hold. The said journalist was recording the call and thus conversation of Qayyum with an unidentified person was recorded ultimately. In the recording, Qayyum appears to be advising an unidentified person on what political party the person should approach to become a candidate in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Human Rights Watch said that the recording was made during a phone interview with a member of the media on November 21, 2007. Qayyum, while still on the phone interview, took a call on another telephone and his side of that conversation was recorded. The recording was made the day after the Election Commission announced the schedule for the polls. The election was originally planned for January 8 but was postponed after the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif returned to Pakistan on November 25.

    An English translation of the recording, which is in Urdu and Punjabi, follows: “Leave Nawaz Sharif (pause)… I think Nawaz Sharif will not take part in the election (pause)… If he does take part, he will be in trouble. If Benazir takes part she too will be in trouble (pause)… They will massively rig to get their own people to win. If you can get a ticket from these guys, take it (pause)… If Nawaz Sharif does not return himself, then Nawaz Sharif has some advantage. If he comes himself, even if after the elections rather than before (pause). Yes.”

    The HRW press release also claimed that its repeated attempts to contact Qayyum by phone were unsuccessful. It said in February 2001, the Sunday Times published a report based on transcripts of 32 audio tapes, which revealed that Qayyum convicted Benazir Bhutto and Zardari for political reasons. The transcripts of the recordings reproduced by the newspaper showed that Qayyum asked the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s anti-corruption chief, Saifur Rehman, for advice on the sentence: “Now you tell me how much punishment do you want me to give her?”

    London-based Brad Adams, director Asia region-HRW, was asked by The News to comment on Malik Qayyum’s view that the release of the audio just two days before the elections was a conspiracy.

    Brad replied that his organisation had got this audio recording some three days back and as being an international NGO, it had first confirmed the voice signatures of Malik Qayyum and then tried its best to contact him for his version.

    Brad, however, refused to mention or give any hint regarding the source from which it had taken the audio. Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director of HRW, when asked by The News that whether his NGO had got this recording from some of its staff here in Pakistan or from some intelligence agency, said that he could not speak about the source.

    To a question that Pakistani government sees the release of the recording as a conspiracy, he said: “Its silly to talk like that, the government should feel sorry what it has planned for elections.”

    Malik Qayyum told The News that HRW did not take his version and that it did not know about the identification of the person to which he was talking, which automatically raised questions about the authenticity of the recording.

  14. Jang Group Attacks Human Rights Watch & Fundamental Rights. – Now the people of Pakistan would need the permission of The News International/Daily Jang/GEO TV to express opinion? – Same Jang Group uses the same Human Rights Watch when it suites:) – People of Pakistan should know the real face of the Former Chief Justice of Pakistan i.e. Justice (R) Saeed uz Zaman Siddiqui and Inc.

  15. LOL:) Listen to this 🙂 Mansoor Ijaz says “Imran Khan” is the best and PTI Singer/Leader Salman Ahmed is like a brother to him and what he says about OBL is quite shocking and very detrimental Mansoor Ijaz: The Invisible Hand in US-Pakistan Relations by deepakchopra

Leave Comment