State of Pakistan

“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.” “Ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr.”

September 4th, 2010

Establishment’s Judiciary

Read this article in PDF 

September 3, 2010

By Yousuf Nazar

If there is one case which the Supreme Court (SC) of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry does not consider important or fit enough for a suo-moto action is the yet unresolved investigation of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. It is ironic that it was also the Supreme Court which was guilty of the judicial murder of her father. Another case which the Court never had the courage to pursue was the Mehran-Gate case when the President and a serving Army Chief conspired to steal Rs.140 million from a bank to rig the democratic process; again against Benazir. Some things never change in Pakistan. But Iftikhar Chaudhry challenged Musharraf? Yes, but did he challenge the status-quo or the establishment?  Let me define establishment. The core of the establishment is the Army GHQ and the intelligence services. Top civil bureaucrats and selected members of feudal and business families are  members of the establishment. Due to Pakistan’s unique demographics, socio-economic conditions, and inter-marriages in the families of these elites, the establishment’s policies have been and continue to be greatly influenced and dominated  by the interests of northern and central Punjab. Read more »

May 2nd, 2010
April 25th, 2010

General Parvez Kayani owes some explanation about Army officers’ role in Benazir’s tragedy

It is time to reform the Army and the intelligence services


By Yousuf Nazar

The UN report has some highly disturbing and incriminating pieces. Most importantly, they make it abundantly clear that it wasn’t just one individual or a few individuals who were part of what now appears to be a grand cover-up. The report incriminates not just Musharraf but the top guns of the ISI, MI, and the IB as well as the police and the interior ministry.  For those who have always maintained that Army is a well disciplined and organised institution, it has become increasingly difficult to make the self-contradictory assertion that the series of acts, commissions and omissions, were just the acts of few individual officers.

It is time to come clean and undertake a purge. Maybe, General Kayani was on the sidelines watching as Musharraf presided over a disastrous and murderous presidency but there is no justification whatsoever for condoning criminal acts in the name of protecting an institution. If Pakistan is to move forward, its kleptocrats need to realise that it has become a mafia enterprise with little respect in the international community and no amount of assistance from the United States can save it from failure as a state. That has been and remains its biggest challenge.

Zia also received a lot of money from the Americans but that did no good for Pakistan. In the final and ultimate analysis, it was the systematic destruction of Pakistan’s institutions, brutalisation and criminalisation of the society, and the rise of extremism and religious bigotry that the history and the people of Pakistan would never forgive him for. In exchange for some aid and arms, Pakistan compromised its most fundamental interests in the 1980s and is doing so again. In the 1980s Russia was the “evil empire” that we had to fight and since 2001, it has been al Qaeda and the Talibans, both classical US bogies that have followed the Truman doctrine.

The present breed of Generals must eat humble pie and face the reality. If Pakistan does not get it right now and continues its descent into a rudderless and ungovernable state towards Balkanization, they would bear the most and ultimate responsibility because let us be serious and acknowledge that it is the Generals who have ruled the country since 1977 and continue to do so in one form or the other.

Let’s quote a few paras:

Paras 117 to 120 on pages 29 and 20:

117. On three different occasions, Professor Mussadiq asked CPO Saud Aziz for permission to conduct an autopsy on Ms Bhutto, and the CPO refused each request. On the second request, CPO Saud Aziz is reported to have sarcastically asked the Professor whether an FIR had been filed,  a matter that the CPO should know, not the Professor. DCO Elahi, who was also present outside the operating room, supported CPO Saud Aziz’s position. The authorities however deny that the CPO deliberately refused to allow an autopsy. They insist that they wanted to get permission from Ms Bhutto’s family. As will be discussed below, the police’s legal duty to request an autopsy does not require permission from a family member.

118. Because he could not obtain police consent to carry out an autopsy, Professor Mussadiq called in X-ray technician Ghafoor Jadd, who took two X-rays of Ms Bhutto’s skull with a portable X-ray machine. He did this without notifying or seeking the consent of CPO Saud Aziz. Though not present at the time, a radiologist examined the X-rays the next day.

119. Ms Bhutto’s death certificate was completed and signed by the senior registrar, Dr Aurangzeb, who recorded the cause of death as “To be determined on autopsy”.

120. An ISI officer, Rawalpindi Detachment Commander Colonel Jehangir Akhtar, was present at the hospital through much of the evening. At one point, the ISI Deputy Director General, Major General Nusrat Naeem, contacted Professor Mussadiq through Colonel Jehangir’s cell phone. When asked about this by the Commission, Major General Nusrat Naeem initially denied making any calls to the hospital, but then acknowledged that he had indeed called the hospital, when pressed further. He asserted that he had made the call, before reporting to his superiors, to hear, directly from Professor Mussadiq that Ms Bhutto had died. 

Question: Since Col. Jehangir Akhtar was present at the hospital, how much did he tell Maj. General Nusrat Naeem? Did Nusrat Naeem brief Gen. Kayani who was the COAS? Did Kayani speak or meet with Nusrat Naeem that evening? 

Now some more crucial  quotes from the report before we comment further:

Para 133 on page 33.  Sources informed the Commission that CPO Saud Aziz did not act independently in deciding to hose down the crime scene. One source, speaking on the basis of anonymity, stated that CPO Saud Aziz had confided in him that he hadreceived a call from Army Headquarters instructing him to order the hosing down of the crime scene. Another source, also speaking on the basis of anonymity, said that the CPO was ordered to hose down the scene by Major General Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad, then Director General of MI. Others, including three police officials, told the Commission that CPO Saud Aziz did not act independently and that “everyone knows” who ordered the hosing down. However, they were not willing to state on the record what it is that “everyone knows”. This is one of the many occasions during the Commission’s inquiry when individuals, including government officials, expressed fear or hesitation to speak openly.

Question: Did Gen. Kayani speak or meet with MI Chief Maj. Gen Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad that evening or later?

Para 156-157  at page 38:

At about 1700 hours on the day following the assassination the government held a televised press conference, conducted by Brigadier Cheema, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Interior at which he announced that:

a. Ms Bhutto died from a head injury sustained when from the force of the blast she hit her head on the lever of the escape hatch; and,

b. Mr Baitullah Mehsud linked with Al-Qaida was responsible, presenting an intercepted telephone conversation between Mr Mehsud and one Mr Maulvi Sahib in which Mr Mehsud was heard congratulating Mr Maulvi on a job well-done.

157. The decision to hold the press conference was made by General Musharraf, during a meeting on the morning of 28 December at a facility in General Headquarters known as Camp House. That meeting, at which General Musharraf was briefed on the intercept and on medical evidence, was attended by the Directors General of the ISI, MI and the IB. Brigadier Cheema was summoned to a subsequent meeting at ISI Headquarters and directed by the Director General of the ISI to hold the press conference. In attendance at this second meeting, in addition to Brigadier Cheema, were Interior Secretary Kamal Shah, Director General of the ISI, Director General of the IB, Deputy Director General of the ISI and another ISI brigadier. 

Question: Did Gen. Kayani attend the above meeting? If not, did the DGs of  ISI, MI, and IB brief Gen. Kayani about the above meeting? What did Gen. Kayani know about Benazir’s assassination at that time? Did he seek brief from the DG MI? If not, wasn’t that unsual?

The bottom line is how much Gen. Kayani knew, when and what and did the Generals named in the report kept him informed or acted on their own?

April 25th, 2010

Article 239 of Pakistan’s Constitution needs no interpretation; the Text is as follows:

239. (1) A Bill to amend the Constitution may originate in either House and when the Bill has been passed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House, it shall be transmitted to the other House.(2) If the Bill is passed without amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of  the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall, subject to the provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.

(3) If the Bill is passed with amendment by the votes of not less than two-thirds of  the total membership of the House to which it is transmitted under clause (1), it shall be reconsidered by the House in which it had originated, and if the bill as amended by the former House is passed by the latter by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership it shall, subject to provisions of clause (4), be presented to the President for assent.

(4)  A Bill to amend the Constitution which would have the effect of altering the limits of a Province shall not be presented to the President for assent unless it has been passed by the Provincial Assembly of that Province by the votes of not less than two-thirds of its total membership.

(5) No amendment of the Constitution shall be called in question in any court on any ground whatsoever.

(6) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that there is no limitation whatever on the power of the Majlis-e-Shora (Parliament) to amend any of the provisions of the Constitution.

April 25th, 2010

The debate on the 18th Amendment is ISI’s smokescreen to hide its role in Benazir’s assassination

Originally published by Let US Build Pakistan Blog 

By Omar Khattab in Islamabad

Suddenly the media has swept the entire nation into the vortex of an acrimonious debate between lawyers on the issue of the 18th constitutional amendment. Akram Sheikh, a Jamaat-e-Islami stalwart and an ISI-backed “leader” of the lawyer community, has been using extremely offensive language against the likes of Aitzaz Ahsan and Ali Ahmed Kurd. It appears that he has succeeded in enraging pro-18th Amendment people by making them use harsh language.

Read more »

April 18th, 2010

Benazir’s murder: They all were involved, one way or the other…

By Yousuf Nazar

The biggest conspiracy theory that I have come across in the recent years is that Benazir Bhutto fell victim to a terrorist attack.  Ninety percent of our media analysts have been, deliberately or unconsciously, part of the larger conspiracy to lay the blame for most violence in Pakistan on terrorism and extremism or on the mullahs but do not have the guts to point to the root causes, the principal accused and the main culprit …. the military establishment.

Najam Sethi, the senior journalist, analyst, editor, etc. wrote in his editorial for the Daily Times on Dec. 29, 2007:

“A spokesman of Al Qaeda has informed the media that his organisation has killed Ms Benazir Bhutto — “a precious American asset” — reminding Pakistan that it is in the midst of a global war. (Al Qaeda Afghanistan commander and spokesman Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid telephoned the Italian news agency AKI to make the claim.) This owning up once again proves Daily Times right when it reported before the arrival of Ms Bhutto from Dubai on October 18 that the terrorist elements in South Waziristan had vowed to kill her through a suicide-bomber. Now it develops that Al Qaeda had to deploy an elaborate piece of disinformation to disarm Ms Bhutto’s suspicion that Al Qaeda was intending to attack her.”

There was no such call and the story was planted as I had written on my blog on 14th Jan. 2008 and 26th Dec. 2008.

Today on April 19, 2010, another so-called stalwart and editor of another newspaper, Shaheen Sehbai has written a piece which while rightfully criticising Zardari for his [criminal] failure to investigate BB’s murder wrongly and deliberately gives undue and disproportionate attention to the role of Rehman Malik and does not even remotely suggest that Musharraf and his buddy Nadeem Ejaz be arrested and put on trial for at-least the cover-up if not for the actual crime. This would be the first step. Need I say that only the guilty have the motive to cover up.

It is so easy to lambast Mullah Radio, Rehman Malik, Zardari, or a petty official like CPO Saud Aziz.  The UN report serves a purpose. It puts an independent and impartial seal on what Benazir Bhutto and the people of Pakistan already knew and this was no conspiracy theory. Musharraf killed Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf, with the help of his officials, his media supporters, and the CIA tried to put the blame on Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda did not change BB’s exit route from Liaqat Bagh. It was blocked by the police vans. Al Qaeda did not wash the crime scene. It was ordered by the Army Head Quarters. Al Qaeda did not prevent autopsy. An ISI officer was at the hospital directing the whole operation.

There will perhaps never be any real investigation or trial. If Pakistan was not a banana republic, public prosector’s list of accused and witnesses would have looked like this:

Charge: Murder of Benazir Bhutto and cover up of the crime

Principal accused: General Pervez Musharraf

Principal co-accused: DG MI Nadeem Ijaz,  DG ISI Nadeem Taj, Intelligence Bureau Head Ijaz Shah

Principal collaborator: Rehman Malik

Principal Accessory in cover-up: Asif Zardari

Co-Accessory: Yousuf Raza Gilani

Criminally silent spectators: Supreme Court judges, Nawaz Sharif

Key Witnesses: Parvez Kayani, Condi Rice, Karzai, Zalmay Khalizad, Naheed Khan

April 16th, 2010
April 15th, 2010

Why the Supreme Court has not taken any interest in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination investigation?

By Yousuf Nazar

It will be late night or early morning in Pakistan when the much awaited United Nations report on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is released by the UN.  There is a litmus test that will determine, for me at least, whether the report has any relevance or meaning. I will come to that later in this article. The United Nations commission was charged with examining the facts and circumstances behind the December 2007 assassination. The Commission is headed by Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz of Chile, and its other members are Marzuki Darusman, the former attorney-general of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, a veteran of the Irish National Police who has also served the UN in a number of capacities.

The UN fact-finders were asked to probe Ms. Bhutto’s assassination in a gun and bomb suicide attack in the closing days of Pakistan’s 2007 elections, as well as her narrow escape from a similar bombing two months earlier, when she paraded triumphantly through Karachi after returning home from eight years in exile.

Given that it was a fact finding mission with limited access to some of the key officials, the report is unlikely to go much further than to catalogue prior assessments (including that dubious report of the Scotland Yard which was full of qualifications), but it is expected to criticize Pakistan’s security establishment for failing to protect Ms. Bhutto and the crime scene. The UN findings also come at a sensitive time for Asif Zardari who has been trying to improve relations with the security services. It has never suited either Zardari or Nawaz Sharif to push for a real investigation because many top retired and serving generals would have come under criticism and neither of the two wants to displease the khakis. But what about Iftikhar Chaudhry? Isn’t he supposed to restore the rule of law because nobody is above law. But maybe, the past president enjoys immunity whereas the incumbent does not. Who knows? I am not an expert in constitutional law.

Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has taken suo moto notices of all kinds of cases including big money contracts, government appointments, flogging of a girl in Swat as shown in a video report, alleged rape of a 8th class student from district Narowal, by her male teacher, etc.  Just a day before Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s last death anniversary, Justice Chaudhry paid a surprise visit to Tando Adam Prison and directed Chief Justice Sindh High Court to take notice of Superintendent Prison’s not knowing of the number of inmates. How well meaning and considerate!

Their Lordship(s) demonstrated undue and indecent haste in blocking the government’s move to elevate Punjab High Court’s Justice Khawaja Sharif to the Supreme Court. They were swift to punish an-FIA official who happened to be a friend of Asif Zardari. But Benazir Bhutto’s murder investigation and snail-paced trial by a lower court has not attracted any attention from their Lordship(s). Maybe, they think the government is doing its job properly. Or perhaps their view is Mohatarma allah ko piyari ho gein, banda ab kiya kar sakta hey? Or  their Lordship(s) think Benazir’s murder did not violate anyone’s fundamental rights under Article 184 of the constitution, so it is therefore a subject that does not deserve their attention. Or none of the above?

The real reasons are simple. Any meaningful investigation into Benazir Bhutto’s assassination cannot be completed without interviewing not only some foreign leaders (like UAE’s Sheikh Maktoom, Condi Rice, Karzai) but also interrograting some key Generals including Pervez Musharraf, former ISI Chief Nadeem Taj and MI Head Nadeem Ijaz and of course Pervez Kayani.  But not the least, former head of the Intelligence Bureau - Brig (rtd.) Ejaz Shah who was probably the most critical link in the conspiracy to assassinate Benazir Bhutto. Any investigation without a detailed examination of the activities of Ejaz Shah and Nadeem Ijaz, particularly their phone call records, would be worthless.  Why?

On Nov. 2, 2007, Benazir Bhutto, clearly referred to Ejaz Shah as a suspect in her interview to Al-Jazeera with David Frost. For those of you who have not seen this before, here is the link.

 

This was not a spur of the moment remark. And let me share what I know first hand.  A couple of days after BB’s welcome procession was bombed on October 18, 2007, a friend of mine who was a correspondent of a major Western newspaper dropped by to see me. After some coffee, he said he wanted to unload something off his chest. He explained that the whole thing was off the record ( as he had given his word and he wanted to honour a journalist’s pledge to keep it off the record). He then told me something rather astonishing. He was sitting in the office of  Lt. Gen. Ahsan Azhar Hayat - then Corp. Commander of Sind and presently serving in the GHQ- when BB’s procession was making its way through Share-e-Faisal. According to the correspondent, it so happened that Musharraf called at the same time and expressed his annoyance at the coverage that was being given to her home coming. From what this correspondent told me [and he had no reason to invent or make up this story for my amusement if for argument’s sake some one might quibble], it transpired that Musharraf wanted the procession to be off the TV screens even it meant the street lights had to be turned off. The correspondent did not tell me who Musharraf ordered to do this. But the information was obviously very sensitive and explosive.

I communicated this to BB immediately through a contact [BB narrated this reported incident to many influential persons including the US Ambassador Anne Patterson] and requested me to prepare a dossier on Ijaz Shah. I prepared this and delivered the dossier on October 22, 2007. She asked one of her Islamabad-based party members to deliver a copy of the dossier to Ann Patterson as well.

Benazir’s meeting with Ann Patterson after the imposition of emergency by Musharraf was explosive. The meeting took place on the 19th November, 2007 at Bilawal House, Karachi. Ann was pressing her to cooperate with Musharraf despite the imposition of the emergency. BB’s view was the elections under the circumstances would be a sham. When Ann Patterson continued to press her, BB - in the presence of her aide Zafar Hilaly - shot back:

 ” Do you want me to cooperate with some one who wants to kill me?” The meeting ended on this rather tense note.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist Ron Suskind describes what went on in his book, The Way of the World (pp. 358). The US intelligence agencies taped Benazir Bhutto`s phone calls, prior to her arrival in Pakistan, in a bid to “play under-the-table, cut-throat games more effectively”, the book revealed.  According to the tapes to which Ron had access to,  Musharraf warned Bhutto, ”You should understand something, your security is based on the state of our relationship”. Suskind writes that Benazir Bhutto`s case of returning to Pakistan was strongly backed by Condoleezza Rice-led State Department and equally opposed by Vice President Dick Cheney who considered Bhutto “complicated and unpredictable”. His conclusion on what happend:

The United States should have done whatever was necessary - including sending over a few hundred Secret Service agents or pulling together a small security team - to make sure Bhutto lived to see Election day. It was matter of will. Cheney never made the call Bhutto was hoping for. He and the president, once again, trusted illegitimate power over stated principles. They went with Musharraf.”

Cheney’s link was also a subject of a report by Russian TV (RT) on July 14, 2010. According to RT , Washington is caught up in a political scandal centering on former Vice President Dick Cheney. It follows a move by the new CIA director Leon Panetta to cancel a secret plan to find and kill Al-Qaeda leaders. He says that, while in office, Cheney ordered the agency to withhold information about the anti-terror program from Congress.

RT interviewed investigative journalist and RT contributor Wayne Madsen, “This assassination team may have targeted politicians in other countries. One name mentioned was former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who may have been a victim of this program. The other name is Jonas Savimbi, the former Angolan UNITA leader, who may have outlived his usefulness as far as Mr Cheney is concerned.”

 It is not difficult to reach the organisers of BB’s murder but who will bell the cat? Would their Lordship(s) take suo moto notice and ask the interior minister to apprise the Supreme Court about the investigation and also President Zardari to tell the Court who killed BB if Mr. Zardari knows the killers?

March 31st, 2010
March 27th, 2010
March 27th, 2010
March 17th, 2010

Justice Khawaja Sharif speaks once again, this time against Hindus

March 17th, 2010 by Abdul Nishapuri 

Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Justice Khawaja Sharif, has spoken once again, with the hate speech and prejudice which are his usual characteristics. Justice Sharif is notorious for his unflinching support for PML-N and Taliban and for his hostility towards liberal and secular sections of Pakistani society.

Read more »

February 26th, 2010

The tragic myth of Sovereignty, Al-Jihad Case, Judges and Dictators

By Yousuf Nazar

The government had to take a U-turn and not only had to withdraw the notification of the appointment of the judges but has also yielded to the blackmail. But that does not change basic facts. The position of the Supreme Court and the so-called constitutional experts is wrong and/or politically motivated.  The constitutions and practices in the UK and India do not support the view that has been sold to the naive Pakistani public.  The Indian President and the Lord Chancellor in the United Kingdom are supposed to consult with the Chief Justice but can reject the recommendation of the chief justice. But even from the standpoint of Pakistan’s law, the position taken by Iftikhar Chaudhry is just political power play and has nothing to do with the principles or 1973 Constitution.We feel that we must put the record straight. So please read the following carefully. Read more »

February 24th, 2010

Constitutional reform should aim to uphold the rule of law and not the rule of judges

Comment by Yousuf Nazar 

The report of the News (25th Feb. 2010) is reproduced below: Read more »

February 21st, 2010

Judges surrender to the intelligence agencies: won’t examine evidence against them

This DAWN report needs no comment

DAWN, February 19, 2010 

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan said on Friday it will not examine evidence against intelligence agencies in the missing persons’ case.

A written order released to the media states that evidence and allegations of involvement of intelligence agencies in abducting people will be examined by an ‘appropriate forum at the relevant time.’
 
The written orders were released a week after the last hearing in the case, which was conducted by Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Sair Ali and Justice Tariq Pervez.

The four-page order noted that police officials have expressed their inability to make further probes in certain cases regarding the missing persons’ due to alleged involvement of various intelligence agencies.

Over a thousand people have been missing for the last four years amid allegations of intelligence agencies kidnapping them as part of in relation to the war against terror. The Supreme Court took notice of the complaints and started a probe in 2006.

After assurance of progress from Attorney General Anwar Mansur Sohail, the apex court will now take up the case again next week. —DawnNews