Gilani may face another contempt case

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani may face yet another contempt charge in addition to the one he is already confronted with for not implementing the NRO verdict.
The apprehension was expressed by legal experts after Thursday’s proceedings by a seven-judge Supreme Court bench grappling with the issue of implementation of the NRO judgment.
The court decided to issue an appropriate order on April 16 after expressing displeasure over the response the prime minister had submitted on March 21 in which he threw the ball back to the judiciary’s court by requesting it to first settle the contempt matter and then raise the issue of implementation of the NRO verdict.
The prime minister is currently facing contempt charges for not pursuing graft cases on the pretext that he had received the advice to that effect under the normal rules of business.
The NRO judgment requires the government to revive mutual legal assistance with Switzerland by writing a letter to open money-laundering cases of $60 million in which President Asif Ali Zardari is also an accused.
On March 8, the prime minister was specifically directed by the court to disregard the advice given by the secretaries concerned and implement the directive contained in paragraphs 177 and 178 in the NRO judgment.
“The prime minister should not be looking around seeking advices instead of implementing the order,” Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan said, adding that the prime minister wanted to expose himself to another contempt proceeding.
“Are our orders to be interpreted by the secretaries and the prime minister? Does the prime minister have the authority over and above the court of law?” Justice Ijaz asked.
“Now the prime minister is aggravating the situation,” Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed. “We are afraid this is not the compliance of our earlier order of March 8,” Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, who is heading the bench, said while dictating the order.
“Since there is no compliance we will pass an appropriate order on April 16,” the order said.
As the order was passed after brief proceedings it was again dissected and interpreted as usual as legal experts began to foretell what future may hold for the prime minister this time.
“Today’s hearing clearly shows that the court is heading towards issuing another contempt notice,” said a senior counsel who wished not to be named.
However, Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood was more specific. “Not only can the Supreme Court issue a separate contempt notice, it can even appoint a commission or direct its registrar or any other senior government official to write the letter on behalf of the government to the Swiss authorities for reopening the cases.”
The appointment of the commission was also mentioned in one of the six options the court had outlined earlier, he said.
Mr Mehmood also said the prime minister in the existing contempt case did not face a serious threat because he was not hit by Article 63 (1 g) of the Constitution.
The article deals with the eligibility of candidates to contest elections and to be members of the parliament; and those who are guilty of defaming or ridiculing the judiciary or compromising the integrity or the independence of the judiciary are deemed disqualified.
At present, Mr Mehmood said, the prime minister was facing a civil contempt in which he was not accused of ridiculing the judiciary. “Therefore, prima facie this provision does not apply to this particular case,” he said. But in case a fresh contempt was issued, he added, it could be a judicial contempt which was more serious than the existing one.
And the plea that the prime minister acted on the advice given to him for not writing the letter would not be available if a new contempt was issued, he said.
While passing the fresh contempt charge, Mr Mehmood feared, the Supreme Court might also take stock of Mr Gilani’s recent public addresses, especially the one in Mailsi in which he had publicly stated that he would opt for a six-month jail term for not implementing the court orders, instead of going to the gallows for committing violation of the Constitution.
On Thursday, Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq repeated before the court what the prime minister had requested in his reply asking the bench to undertake further proceedings on the NRO implementation after finalisation of the contempt case.
“Though the contempt proceedings and the implementation case are different yet the issue involved is essentially and materially the same,” the prime minister’s application said.
The prime minister’s statement that the state of Pakistan could not surrender its president for a trial by a foreign magistrate and that the issue of president’s immunity was of public concern and, therefore, should be referred to parliament was also annexed with this application.
Justice Nasir said the court wanted in black and white whether or not the prime minister had complied with the court orders and explained that the contempt case and implementation matters were altogether different issues.

Name of PM’s son figures in chemical import case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court turned down on Thursday a request by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) for withdrawal of a case against the import of a proscribed chemical — a scandal that allegedly involves the prime minister’s younger son, Ali Musa Gilani.
Musa Gilani was recently elected member of National Assembly from Multan on a seat vacated by former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi after joining the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf.
Earlier, the name of the prime minister’s elder son, Abdul Qadir Gilani, had surfaced in the 2010 Haj corruption case.
A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez, had taken up a petition moved by the regional director of ANF Islamabad.
The court ordered the ANF to submit an investigation report on out-of-turn quota for import of the raw material granted to two pharmaceutical companies by the federal health ministry allegedly under the influence of Musa Gilani.
The ANF Commander, Brig Faheem, informed the court that a quota of 9,000kg, instead of 1,000kg, had been granted to Berlex Labs International and Denis Pharmaceutical.
Commonly known as poor man’s cocaine, the chemical is also used to manufacture a medicine called ‘Ephedrine’ to cure common cold, flu and asthma.
Advocate Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, representing the ANF, submitted before the court that Brig Faheem intended to withdraw the petition.
“Who gave you the authority to withdraw the case and under what reasons you have decided to withdraw it; something is wrong,” the chief justice suspected.
“Are you scared when you should be setting an example,” the chief justice said.
Brig Faheem said he was not scared and added that the name of Tauqir Ahmed Khan had surfaced during investigations. The man said he was personal secretary to Musa Gilani and got the quota approved by the health ministry against rules and regulations.
Brig Faheem read out a report of an inquiry committee which determined that the two pharmaceutical companies had misused the quota and allegedly sold it to smugglers, instead of using it for the medicine.
“The situation is bringing a bad name for the country as such things are happening at the official level,” the chief justice regretted.
The report said every pharmaceutical company was entitled to a quota of 500kg of the ingredient used to make Ephedrine tablet, but the health ministry had doled out a quota of 9,000kg to Berlex Labs and Denis Pharmaceutical while ignoring 20 other pharmaceutical companies.
The issue was raised in the National Assembly in 2009 and former health minister Makdoom Shahabuddin had set up a fact-finding committee.
The ANF’s investigation officer informed the court that he had issued a notice to Musa Gilani on March 12 last year to join investigation for evidence because Tauqir Khan claimed that he was private secretary to the prime minister’s son. Neither Musa Gilani nor Tauqir Khan appeared.
A letter written by Health Secretary Zafar Abbas to the ANF was also read out. It said evidence against Tauqir Ali Khan should be brought for prior approval for proceedings.
The court adjourned the matter to April 20

Eight die in sectarian attack and clashes in Quetta

QUETTA, March 29: At least eight people, a woman and a policeman among them, were killed and 13 others injured in what appeared to be a sectarian attack on a group of Hazara people and in ensuing clashes between police and protesters here on Thursday.
And two officials of a UN organisation were killed in an attack near Mastung.
According to police, the Hazara people were coming to the city from Hazara Town when four men on motorcycles opened fire on their van on Spiny Road.
“Five people in the van were killed,” DIG (Operation) Qazi Abdul Wahid said, adding that seven people were injured. The assailants escaped after the attack.
Law-enforcement personnel who rushed to the place took the injured to the Bolan Medical College and Civil Hospital. The injured were later shifted to the Combined Military Hospital (CMH). Most of them had suffered multiple bullet wounds.
“It appears to be a sectarian attack,” another police officer said after initial investigation.
Those killed in the attack were identified as Zafar, Alam Khan, Ghulam Sakhi, Hafizullah and Bakhat Jamal.
Hundreds of people belonging to the Hazara tribe gathered on roads to protest against the attack.
They blocked the Brewery Road by erecting barricades and burning tyres.
Several vehicles were torched. The mob set a girls college on fire and attacked a number of government buildings.
Some people fired at police when they were trying to disperse the mob. Constable Khadim Hussain was injured and he later died in hospital.
Two people, Mubarak Shah and Nazir Hussain, were killed and six others injured when police fired back.
Heavy contingents of police and Frontier Corps were deployed at various places in and around the city after the incidents.
FAO OFFICIALS: Two officials of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Hafizullah and Mohammad Zahid, were killed and another was injured in an attack on their vehicle near Mastung bypass.
According to sources, they were coming to Quetta from Kalat when men on a motorcycle fired at them with automatic weapons.
Levies personnel took the bodies to the Mastung Civil Hospital and later handed them over to relatives. The injured man was brought to a hospital in Quetta.
Agencies add: A spokesman for the Taliban’s Jundullah faction claimed responsibility for the Quetta shooting.
Balochistan Governor Nawab Zulafiqar Ali Magsi and Chief Minister Aslam Khan Raisani condemned the killing.
In a statement issues here, the chief minister termed it a heinous act aimed at sabotaging peace of the province and said the government would take strict action against the elements involved in it.
The governor asked the inspector general of police to apprehend the attackers.

Haqqani will have to come for testimony, says SC

Supreme Court of Pakistan. - File Photo

ISLAMABAD: Former ambassador Husain Haqqani will have to come to Pakistan to testify before the judicial commission investigating authenticity of a controversial memo as the Supreme Court held on Thursday that its earlier order of obligating him to return home whenever called would remain in the field.
A ten-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, assembled to take up a request by the commission`s secretary, granted another six weeks to the commission to complete its job of finding the truth behind the controversy.
The commission`s two-month deadline is expiring on Friday. Now it will have to complete its inquiry by mid-May.
Advocate-on-Record Chaudhry Akhtar Ali submitted an application of Mr Haqqani seeking a court order for the commission to record his testimony through video link — a facility earlier provided to Mansoor Ijaz, a central character of the memo scandal.
“The circumstances have drastically changed since I left the country and that risks to my life are manifold,” Mr Haqqani said in the application.
When asked to argue the case, Chaudhry Akhtar said that Mr Haqqani`s counsel Asma Jehangir would argue it, but currently she was out of the country on general adjournment.
Advocate Akram Sheikh, representing Mr Ijaz, and Naseer Ahmed Bhutta appearing on behalf of Hafeez-ur-Rehman, drew the attention of the court to some contents of the application and said these were derogatory towards members of the commission headed by Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
The court adjourned further hearing for an indefinite period, but took exception to Mr Haqqani`s letter directly addressed to the chief justice received by court registrar on March 28.
Mr Haqqani had claimed confidentiality on the contents of the letter.
“The manner in which such letters are directly addressed to the chief justice or the judges has already been discouraged when a similar letter was sent by Mr Ijaz,” the chief justice observed.
“Instead of addressing any letter directly to the chief justice or judges of this court, correspondence should be done with the court in official capacity,” the court said and made it clear that its earlier order of January 30 would remain intact.
The order relates to the lifting of a travel ban allowing Mr Haqqani to leave the country to meet his family in the United States but only after he had undertaken to return to Pakistan any time on four days` notice to join the proceedings, if and when required by the commission.
The court extended the second deadline after Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq, who is also appearing before the commission, said he had no objection to the six-week extension.
But Advocate Salahuddin Mengal, one of the petitioners in the memo case, said that one week`s extension was sufficient because the commission had already done its major work.
After hearing both the parties, the court, however, agreed with the request made by the commission`s secretary for the six-month extension to complete the inquiry on the secret memorandum allegedly written by Mr Haqqani to former US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen to pre-empt a military takeover.
On January 30, the Supreme Court allowed two months time in addition to 30 days given to the commission on an application also filed by its secretary.
The commission, which is yet to record the statement of Mr Haqqani, has already given him four opportunities to accept or deny documents produced by Mr Ijaz during his testimony.

Changing tides?

In the aftermath of Pakistan’s loss to India in the Asia Cup recently it makes sense to look at the apparent change in tide.

The Pakistan-India rivalry in ODI cricket can be defined in popular perception by two watershed moments: Miandad’s six and Tendulkar’s uppercut. Before Miandad’s Sharjah heroics, India were the dominant team in Asia; his six changed that. The roles were reversed following the 2003 World Cup, as India beat Pakistan because Tendulkar failed to score a century.

The context of Miandad’s innings is important to remember. India had won the World Cup in 1983, and followed it up with the World Championship in 1985 (a tournament which included all Test playing nations), during the course of which they won both the matches played against Pakistan. Just twelve days after winning that tournament they defended a score of 125 against their great rivals, on a Friday in Sharjah of all places. These were the three (1st of the four ODIs played between the two nations prior to that match in1986. It was with this as background in which Miandad scored a match-winning hundred which included the six of the last ball of the over.

Yet it would be churlish to think that one innings, or shot, changed the pattern of this rivalry. Pakistan really weren’t that far behind India; they had beaten them in their previous encounters in November 1985. The overall record prior to April 18th 1986 was 7 wins and 8 losses for Pakistan. From then till Tendulkar’s uppercut it read 44-21. What changed the course of the war were a series of battles. In the two matches following Miandad’s classic, Pakistan would chase down India’s totals with lower-order partnerships, winning both matches (Sharjah, Indore) by just three wickets. The coup de grace was to follow, though. In front of a packed Eden Gardens, Salim Malik came in with Pakistan five-down, and needing 78 to win at over 10-an-over. He would go on to score an oft-forgotten epic: 72 off 36 balls to deliver Pakistan victory with three balls to spare. Yes, he scored SEVENTY-TWO of the 78 runs required. This included a 50-run partnership with Wasim Akram, in which the left-armer scored three of three balls! This match gave Pakistan a 2-0 lead in the ODI series.

These were the battles which turned the tide. Four consecutive tight chases won by Pakistan – oh, what we’d give for even one now – culminating in a 5-1 series victory in India (the first time either side had won an away bilateral series). A month later Pakistan would win its first Test series victory in India (and India’s only home series loss between 1985 and 2000), and the mental block was well and truly in place.

Tendulkar’s innings stopped the rot, but despite claims to the contrary hasn’t turned the tide in India’s favour. Since the encounter in the 2003 World Cup Pakistan has won 17 and lost 18 of the matches played. This, when not seen in isolation, is interesting reading. Pakistan’s overall win-loss ratio between Miandad and Tendulkar’s shots was 1.08; India’s equivalent was 0.80. Since the 2003 meeting Pakistan’s ratio stands at 0.90 while India’s is 1.19 (all records with Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and other minnows excluded).

The reason for the change in patterns is simple: India post-2003 is a better side than Pakistan, just as Pakistan were the better side before the tournament in South Africa. So, as much as it may come as a surprise, Pakistan, both pre and post 2003, have performed better against India than other sides; and/or India have underperformed against Pakistan.

In the first decade of this century, Pakistan and India reached an equilibrium where India’s batting resources could be challenged by Pakistan’s bowlers – usually Shoaib Akhtar, and in one glorious spring, Rana Naved – allowing Pakistan’s lesser batting to fight on equal footing. Now that India are refusing to make the mistakes that Pakistan made following the 2003 World Cup, i.e. allowing their youngsters to be developed alongside their legends, and Pakistan are bereft of the talents of the level of Mohammad Yousuf and Inzamam, suddenly the tide seems to be turning in India’s favour. This is evidenced by their victories in the last three matches between the two sides (the common factor in all three being the failure of Pakistan’s pacers to take wickets with the new ball).

If this streak is to be their equivalent of 1986-87, then we shall talk for years of how the blitz of an Indian great changed the perception and psychology of the rivalry.

Yes, Harbhajan Singh is going to be India’s Javed Miandad.

Mehrangate: IB chief denies knowledge of ‘secret funds’ misuse

Air marshal (retd) Asghar Khan. – File Photo

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday resumed hearing the case of the Inter Services Intelligence’s (ISI) alleged misuse of secret funds in reference to a petition filed by Tehrik-i-Istiqlal chief Air Martial (retd) Asghar Khan, DawnNews reported.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez was hearing the case.
Asghar Khan had filed the petition in 1996, accusing the ISI of financing several politicians during the 1990 elections to create the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) and prevent Benazir Bhutto’s PPP from winning. The ISI allegedly dished out Rs140 million for the purpose. The petition was based on the affidavit of former ISI chief Asad Durrani.
The SC today ordered the Attorney General to present the details of the Intelligence Bureau’s (IB) alleged misuse Rs 290 million within half an hour after the AG informed the court that .the judicial investigative reports relating to Habib Bank and Mehran Bank are missing from the records. A search of these documents is in the process, the AG had said.
The SC also turned down the AG’s request to allow him time till Monday to prepare his response pertaining to IB’s alleged corruption.
The apex court also summoned IB chief Aftab Sultan on an immediate basis.
“If the ex-Army chief and ex-ISI chief can be presented in the court then IB chief is also accountable to the court,” the court remarked.
Appearing before the court, the IB Chief said that he had no knowledge of the alleged funds being issued by the agency.
The agencies deal in cash and not through banks, said Sultan.
Moreover, the agency’s secret files do not hold any records of the purpose of particular funds being used, he added.
Tariq Lodhi was the head of the IB at the alleged time of issuance of the funds in question, the IB chief added.
“Secret funds are meant to be used for national interest, not for being used against democracy,” Chief justice remarked.
The bench subsequently adjourned the hearing till April 23.
“To this day, not a single election in this country has been free and fair,” petitioner Asghar Khan told reporters outside the court premises after the hearing was adjourned.

Rental Power Projects declared illegal by SC

Supreme Court of Pakistan – File Photo

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday declared Rental Power Projects (RPPs) as illegal and also ordered them to be shut down, DawnNews reported.
The SC was announcing the verdict of the case of corruption in Rental Power Projects (RPPs) which had already been held in reserve on December 14, 2011.
A two-member bench comprising of the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain was hearing the suo motu case.
The apex court said that the rules and regulations were violated in these projects due to which the national exchequer witnessed losses of billions.
Prior to RPPs, the electricity generation system had sufficient potential, but “instead of taking curative steps for its improvement,… billions of rupees were spent on BHIKKI and SHARAQPUR RPPs, which proved complete failures”, read Friday’s verdict.
The verdict further holds the finance ministry, WAPDA, PEPCO and GENCOs responsible for “causing huge losses to the public exchequer, which run into billions of rupees by making 7% to 14% down payments to, and purchasing electricity on higher rates, from RPPs.”
Furthermore, the bench also declares the RPPs “incapable of meeting the demand of electricity on a short term basis.”
Moreover, the SC ordered to initiate proceedings against the Former Water and Power Minister Raja Pervez Asharaf and all others involved in the case.
“The contracts of RPPs are ordered to be rescinded forthwith and all the persons responsible for the same are liable to be dealt with for civil and criminal action in accordance with law”, adds the apex court’s decision.
The verdict adds: “Functionaries of PEPCO, GENCOs, PPIB and NEPRA…who had derived financial benefits from the RPPs contracts…[were] involved in corruption and corrupt practices”, and are also “liable both for civil and criminal action”.
On December 15, 2011, chief justice had taken suo motu notice on applications of Housing Minister Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat and Khwaja Asif who alleged that corruption had been committed in the affairs of the RPPs.
On Novermber 24, 2011, Raja Pervez Asharaf told the court that Pakistan needed an addition of 1200 MW every year as the power requirement would increase to 1,30,000 MW by the year 2030.
Appearing before the two-judge bench, comprising of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, the former minister defended himself, saying the country’s power shortage solution was in in hydel power generation and not in thermal which was costly.