Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan
- Thread starter Beskar
- Start date
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Although I dont think that N.S's decisions has anything to do with his support to CJ but It is really amazing to see how people criticize the SC when it goes against their wishes. The same supreme court legitmized Musharaff's Marshal law, his emergencies (twice), didnt take any actions on the missing person's case (Iftikhar tried but was removed) and it also legitimized the house arrest of an Ex- Cheif Justice'"s along with his childeren...The only difference was It was musharaff who was being benefitted as he was in power.. and the same people didnt had any problems with the SC then.
But now when N.S is in power and SC is giving verdict that suits him, the some of our friends have got problems...
The rule is simple: jiss ki laathi ussi kii bhains
Last edited:
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
read my post again and better!
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Just as Pakistan needs political stability, Nawaz and his CJ, hope to introduce instability back into the system - it will be interesting to see how the leadsership of Armed Forces will view these events.
Will Mr. Musharraf be publically tried? The elements that offered him political support are now unable or unwilling to do so, though I would have offered that much would depend on exactly how the cases will be framed against him because, in a way, Mr. Musharraf, were there a non-partisan supreme court, and had he the correct legal team and political support, should have welcomed the public trial.
Will Mr. Musharraf be publically tried? The elements that offered him political support are now unable or unwilling to do so, though I would have offered that much would depend on exactly how the cases will be framed against him because, in a way, Mr. Musharraf, were there a non-partisan supreme court, and had he the correct legal team and political support, should have welcomed the public trial.
ajpirzada
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,011
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
Army to stay away
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Kayani treated Iftikhar with respect when Musharraf and aides misbehaved with him
By Ansar Abbasi
MURREE: The Pakistan Army would stay distant and neutral from the Supreme Court’s proceedings against the ex-army chief and condemned dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s trial on account of his Nov 3, 2007 unconstitutional action.
While many wonder if the Pakistan Army would defend Musharraf despite what he did to Pakistan, its institutions and to the constitution as a 14-member bench of the apex court is currently adjudicating the former dictator’s Nov 3 actions, the military under General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani intends to stay neutral. It is not interested to drag itself into unnecessary controversy by siding with a man, who is no more associated with the Army and is sought by the country’s superior judiciary for his unconstitutional actions.
The Supreme Court Wednesday summoned Musharraf to appear before the 14-member bench or get himself represented through his counsel to defend his actions of Nov 3 and later. Although the military spokesman when contacted by a member of The News Investigative Reporting Wing did not offer his comment on the question if Pakistan Army would defend its former chief in the apex court, a senior army source simply ruled out any such possibility. “What army has to do with this,” said the source, adding that the Supreme Court has taken up a political case that has nothing to do with the army.
“We have nothing to do with it,” the source said when precisely asked about the Nov 3rd unconstitutional actions of the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, the military source added, is no more in army. “You know better that he is retired now and have no link with army,” the source said, adding that dragging Pakistan Army into this would be uncalled for.
In an interesting twist of fate Musharraf, who had perpetuated his dictatorial rule by misusing his powers as chief of army staff and even at the cost of the reputation of the institution of Pakistan Army, is all alone and is now trying to settle down in London as he fears facing music if comes back to Pakistan.
Musharraf is becoming such a lesson for others that even Washington to whom he had sold his soul and served even at the cost of damaging Pakistan, has been abandoned by his real master. US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke Wednesday said President Pervez Musharraf is now history and that the US will not come to defend him.
The reputation of Pakistan Army was at its worse when Musharraf handed over the military command to the incumbent Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who took no time to get the army out of politics and repeatedly proved military’s neutrality from political and government matters. Kayani, the man who enjoys utmost respect both within the army and outside for his professionalism, kept army out of any electoral manipulation early last year though Musharraf was keen to rig the elections to get his choice parties elected all over Pakistan.
After Musharraf’s departure and the emergence of President Asif Ali Zardari as the major opponent to the restoration of the deposed judges, again it was the incumbent army chief who played his positive role and have had a series of interactions with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to settle the issue to the best interest of the people, the country and the judiciary.
This is also in public knowledge that even during the days when Musharraf was an all powerful dictator, he had also refused to give an affidavit against the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry following his controversial suspension on March 9, 2007. Perhaps not many know that Musharraf and some of his other Generals misbehaved with the chief justice on March 9 in order to coerce him into tendering resignation, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the then ISI chief, was decent and polite with the chief justice. While others were rude towards the CJ, it was Gen Kayani, who had even offered a cup of coffee to Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Army to stay away
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Kayani treated Iftikhar with respect when Musharraf and aides misbehaved with him
By Ansar Abbasi
MURREE: The Pakistan Army would stay distant and neutral from the Supreme Court’s proceedings against the ex-army chief and condemned dictator General (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s trial on account of his Nov 3, 2007 unconstitutional action.
While many wonder if the Pakistan Army would defend Musharraf despite what he did to Pakistan, its institutions and to the constitution as a 14-member bench of the apex court is currently adjudicating the former dictator’s Nov 3 actions, the military under General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani intends to stay neutral. It is not interested to drag itself into unnecessary controversy by siding with a man, who is no more associated with the Army and is sought by the country’s superior judiciary for his unconstitutional actions.
The Supreme Court Wednesday summoned Musharraf to appear before the 14-member bench or get himself represented through his counsel to defend his actions of Nov 3 and later. Although the military spokesman when contacted by a member of The News Investigative Reporting Wing did not offer his comment on the question if Pakistan Army would defend its former chief in the apex court, a senior army source simply ruled out any such possibility. “What army has to do with this,” said the source, adding that the Supreme Court has taken up a political case that has nothing to do with the army.
“We have nothing to do with it,” the source said when precisely asked about the Nov 3rd unconstitutional actions of the then Army Chief General Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf, the military source added, is no more in army. “You know better that he is retired now and have no link with army,” the source said, adding that dragging Pakistan Army into this would be uncalled for.
In an interesting twist of fate Musharraf, who had perpetuated his dictatorial rule by misusing his powers as chief of army staff and even at the cost of the reputation of the institution of Pakistan Army, is all alone and is now trying to settle down in London as he fears facing music if comes back to Pakistan.
Musharraf is becoming such a lesson for others that even Washington to whom he had sold his soul and served even at the cost of damaging Pakistan, has been abandoned by his real master. US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke Wednesday said President Pervez Musharraf is now history and that the US will not come to defend him.
The reputation of Pakistan Army was at its worse when Musharraf handed over the military command to the incumbent Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who took no time to get the army out of politics and repeatedly proved military’s neutrality from political and government matters. Kayani, the man who enjoys utmost respect both within the army and outside for his professionalism, kept army out of any electoral manipulation early last year though Musharraf was keen to rig the elections to get his choice parties elected all over Pakistan.
After Musharraf’s departure and the emergence of President Asif Ali Zardari as the major opponent to the restoration of the deposed judges, again it was the incumbent army chief who played his positive role and have had a series of interactions with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to settle the issue to the best interest of the people, the country and the judiciary.
This is also in public knowledge that even during the days when Musharraf was an all powerful dictator, he had also refused to give an affidavit against the incumbent Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry following his controversial suspension on March 9, 2007. Perhaps not many know that Musharraf and some of his other Generals misbehaved with the chief justice on March 9 in order to coerce him into tendering resignation, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the then ISI chief, was decent and polite with the chief justice. While others were rude towards the CJ, it was Gen Kayani, who had even offered a cup of coffee to Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.
Army to stay away
Interceptor
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe your misinterpreted the reinstatement of judges, which were roughly 3 incl CJP. The Nawaz cases were still carried out by the same supreme court that disqualified Nawaz. Not on the basis that the Judges were bias in anyway on the basis that Nawaz did not defend his case in anyway. I doubt the CJP has any feelings for any politician for that matter incl Aitzaz Ehsan, since even he got some whips in court from the CJP in of his cases.
Interceptor
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 0
Your right about that I cant disagree, but in coalition Gov you can be in all kinds of strains from your partner in Gov. if Nawaz had kept his word and stayed in Coalition with the PPP than they wouldn't have felt the need to go to the MQM. This marathon would have ended much sooner.
ajpirzada
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,011
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
well nawaz league took vote over judges issue. zardari was not interested in any such restoration of judiciary. and we know it was nawaz in opposition who played a big role is this whole long march thing. would not have been possible if he was part of coalition.
Interceptor
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 0
Zardari's party took active part in it, the first long march was organized by the PPP, of course he wanted them restored and he did only 3 judges were outstanding out of the 60. So that is job was well done, Nawaz made some rash decisions when leaving the gov.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Musharraf says he will defend himself in court
* Says not aware of any indemnity deal for him between govt and army
LAHORE: Former president Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf has said he will stand up to any court case brought against him.
The former president made the comments at an interview with Karan Thapar the host of the programme Devils Advocate on CNN-IBN.
Questioned closely if there was any deal or understanding between the civilian government and the Pakistan Army to grant him indemnity against future prosecutions for his actions in office, Musharraf carefully and deliberately insisted that he did not know of such an understanding, but equally left open the possibility that there could be such a deal without his being formally aware of it.
I didnt get involved in any such understanding at all, he said.
He also admitted for the first time that he had a secret understanding with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto which facilitated her return to Pakistan in October 2007.
There was an understanding. I did talk to her, yes. I had been talking to her twice. She was not supposed to come back before the elections, he said.
Asked if she had violated that understanding, he said, Yes. Questioned if she would have lived had she not broken that understanding and had fulfilled the terms of the agreement, the former president said, I think so. I think so. Absolutely. She would have lived.
He also claimed that if Benazir had lived to be prime minister, he would still be president of Pakistan today.
Pervaiz Musharraf: Firman Dar, Sher e Pakistan, Shah e Mardan
Not that I'm partisan on the issue
* Says not aware of any indemnity deal for him between govt and army
LAHORE: Former president Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf has said he will stand up to any court case brought against him.
The former president made the comments at an interview with Karan Thapar the host of the programme Devils Advocate on CNN-IBN.
Questioned closely if there was any deal or understanding between the civilian government and the Pakistan Army to grant him indemnity against future prosecutions for his actions in office, Musharraf carefully and deliberately insisted that he did not know of such an understanding, but equally left open the possibility that there could be such a deal without his being formally aware of it.
I didnt get involved in any such understanding at all, he said.
He also admitted for the first time that he had a secret understanding with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto which facilitated her return to Pakistan in October 2007.
There was an understanding. I did talk to her, yes. I had been talking to her twice. She was not supposed to come back before the elections, he said.
Asked if she had violated that understanding, he said, Yes. Questioned if she would have lived had she not broken that understanding and had fulfilled the terms of the agreement, the former president said, I think so. I think so. Absolutely. She would have lived.
He also claimed that if Benazir had lived to be prime minister, he would still be president of Pakistan today.
Pervaiz Musharraf: Firman Dar, Sher e Pakistan, Shah e Mardan Not that I'm partisan on the issue
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
I did not do anything wrong: Musharraf
* Former president says his lectures abroad aimed at removeing misconception about ISI, army
* LG system good for country
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: Former president Pervez Musharraf said none of his past actions were wrong and had been taken in the supreme interests of the nation.
In an interview with a private TV channel, Musharraf said he would appear before the countrys courts in whatever case he was asked to and expected justice from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
He said the reference against the Supreme Court chief justice was correct. Musharraf said he had not left the country and was only abroad currently because he was on a lecture tour, which he said would help build the countrys image abroad.
Lectures: The former president said his lectures were aimed at removing the misconceptions about the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the countrys military among the international community.
Musharraf said he would visit the country when he felt necessary, adding that he did not fear returning home. The former president said he was popular abroad but no less popular in Pakistan. Musharraf said he had been gifted more than 50 bulletproof vehicles by various heads of states during his rule but he handed over all such assets to the government when he quit office.
To questions about his apartment in London, Musharraf said it was an ordinary housing facility and his son and a friend had pooled money to purchase the apartment.
Responding to another question regarding electricity theft at his Chak Shehzad farmhouse, he said he had been paying the bills according to official rates and would continue to do so. Musharraf said power projects for adding around 2,000 megawatts of electricity to the system were initiated by his government and the current energy crisis and load shedding would be eliminated if the government utilised those projects to the maximum.
Local governments: The former president said the local government system was beneficial for the country and regretted the governments action against the system.
Speaking about the Lal Mosque operation, Musharraf said the extremists had challenged the writ of the state and were dictating terms to the government in the guise of dialogue. He said he had consulted Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain before ordering the operation. Musharraf said the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was one of the factors behind PML-Qs defeat in the 2008 elections.
* Former president says his lectures abroad aimed at removeing misconception about ISI, army
* LG system good for country
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: Former president Pervez Musharraf said none of his past actions were wrong and had been taken in the supreme interests of the nation.
In an interview with a private TV channel, Musharraf said he would appear before the countrys courts in whatever case he was asked to and expected justice from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
He said the reference against the Supreme Court chief justice was correct. Musharraf said he had not left the country and was only abroad currently because he was on a lecture tour, which he said would help build the countrys image abroad.
Lectures: The former president said his lectures were aimed at removing the misconceptions about the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the countrys military among the international community.
Musharraf said he would visit the country when he felt necessary, adding that he did not fear returning home. The former president said he was popular abroad but no less popular in Pakistan. Musharraf said he had been gifted more than 50 bulletproof vehicles by various heads of states during his rule but he handed over all such assets to the government when he quit office.
To questions about his apartment in London, Musharraf said it was an ordinary housing facility and his son and a friend had pooled money to purchase the apartment.
Responding to another question regarding electricity theft at his Chak Shehzad farmhouse, he said he had been paying the bills according to official rates and would continue to do so. Musharraf said power projects for adding around 2,000 megawatts of electricity to the system were initiated by his government and the current energy crisis and load shedding would be eliminated if the government utilised those projects to the maximum.
Local governments: The former president said the local government system was beneficial for the country and regretted the governments action against the system.
Speaking about the Lal Mosque operation, Musharraf said the extremists had challenged the writ of the state and were dictating terms to the government in the guise of dialogue. He said he had consulted Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain before ordering the operation. Musharraf said the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was one of the factors behind PML-Qs defeat in the 2008 elections.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
INteresting questions - should a twice convicted once exonerated by his hand picked CJ, be held accountable? how about 10 percenters? How about PM's who have benefited handsomely from their "loyalty" -- You decide:
Should leaders be held accountable?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Talat Masood
Ever since its inception, Pakistan has shied away from prosecuting leaders for their wrong doings even if they had committed gross crimes as the flagrant violation of the constitution or adventurism of the kind of Kargil or for the tragic events of East Pakistan. The argument repeatedly advanced has been to forget the past and move forward. We once again face the same dilemma. Should General Musharraf face trial for all his actions starting from the illegal take-over of the country, imposing a military structure on the society, killing of Akbar Bugti and his desperate action of November 3 to illegally stay in power, or all this be overlooked.
Those who are opposed to any action against General Musharraf insist that the country is going through a serious crisis and any attempt to bring charges against him will be a huge distraction that the fragile state would not be able to bear. It is also argued that as we are engaged in fighting an existential threat of insurgency any action against a former COAS will have international ramifications and our American mentors will not permit. Pakistans fragility and highly disturbed external and internal conditions demand that Pakistan focus on the present and the future and not look back. It is also said that generals, politicians, bureaucrats and judges were also involved in most of his ill-advised actions. Should they also be charged and will it not open up a Pandoras Box? To justify takeovers by military rulers it is said that they are merely a consequence of the failure of the political parties and their leaders.
On the surface there appears some merit in this type of argument but we need to seriously examine the downside of this logic. The first question that comes to mind is, how long can a state survive without its institutions and individuals being accountable to a system? Moreover, is the very fragility of the state not the consequence of the cumulative actions of the past? And is it not important to look into the past to prevent a recurrence of the same mistakes?
There are many other fundamental issues that need to be addressed. Should Pakistan develop a tradition of selective application of law that is mostly directed toward the downtrodden? It is common knowledge that General Musharraf, after having committed such grave offenses, does not even suffer from an iota of remorse or guilt! On the contrary, he brazenly engages foreign and local media and addresses gatherings lauding the golden era that supposedly was when he was at the helm of affairs. In a recent interview to a foreign channel when asked if he would revisit some of his wrong decisions he had the audacity to point out that the only mistake that he made was that, instead of asking the Supreme Court for a tenure of three additional years he should have asked for five or ten. It appears somewhat quixotic that he even aspires to return to power through the support of the PML-Q, which itself is deeply factionalized and on the verge of a political melt down.
Another sensitive point that is raised is how the army would react to a former chief being subjected to a judicial process. Of course there has been an unwritten indemnity to military rulers entering and exiting from politics of power. But has this been good for the institution or for the country? General Zia got away with the judicial murder of ZAB, got us deeply mired in the Afghan jehad and until 1986 denied political parties the opportunity to operate. Is the country still not deeply suffering because of that? Similarly, was it not a grave fault to allow General Niazi to brazenly roam around when it was an undisputed fact that he had committed massive wrongdoings in East Pakistan? And should we have allowed Kargil to be buried for reasons of political expediency and personal considerations?
The question we have to ask ourselves is, does accountability strengthen or does it weaken a country? Should accountability not be a part of our value system besides being a legal compulsion to stay within the bounds of law?
Is it not in the interest of every one including the armed forces to be imaginative enough to bring about changes that could transform Pakistan?
Then what is it that has prevented us in the past and is holding us back now from proceeding against those who have committed serious crimes against the state including the mutilation of the constitution? It is not to favour the predecessors that the present leadership is being so magnanimous toward them, but in its own interest. The political and military leadership has literally institutionalized immunity to act as a shield for their present and future acts. Any legal action taken against past rulers would be a deterrent and impose a restriction on them and on the successive regimes.
The current national leadership would not like to initiate any action against past rulers as it has a vested interest in defending the status quo. If it was left to them they would seek a permanent state of immunity. This trend is reflected even in the type of legislation that governs accountability of parliamentarians. A reluctance to undertake legal action is at the core of the problem. It has to be realized that when national leaders fail to subject themselves to the rule of law and flout the principle of checks and balances and allow the state to drift into lawlessness then the correction comes through a revolution or wide spread violence and anarchy, something that we are already witnessing.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general. Email: talat@comsats.net.pk
Should leaders be held accountable?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Talat Masood
Ever since its inception, Pakistan has shied away from prosecuting leaders for their wrong doings even if they had committed gross crimes as the flagrant violation of the constitution or adventurism of the kind of Kargil or for the tragic events of East Pakistan. The argument repeatedly advanced has been to forget the past and move forward. We once again face the same dilemma. Should General Musharraf face trial for all his actions starting from the illegal take-over of the country, imposing a military structure on the society, killing of Akbar Bugti and his desperate action of November 3 to illegally stay in power, or all this be overlooked.
Those who are opposed to any action against General Musharraf insist that the country is going through a serious crisis and any attempt to bring charges against him will be a huge distraction that the fragile state would not be able to bear. It is also argued that as we are engaged in fighting an existential threat of insurgency any action against a former COAS will have international ramifications and our American mentors will not permit. Pakistans fragility and highly disturbed external and internal conditions demand that Pakistan focus on the present and the future and not look back. It is also said that generals, politicians, bureaucrats and judges were also involved in most of his ill-advised actions. Should they also be charged and will it not open up a Pandoras Box? To justify takeovers by military rulers it is said that they are merely a consequence of the failure of the political parties and their leaders.
On the surface there appears some merit in this type of argument but we need to seriously examine the downside of this logic. The first question that comes to mind is, how long can a state survive without its institutions and individuals being accountable to a system? Moreover, is the very fragility of the state not the consequence of the cumulative actions of the past? And is it not important to look into the past to prevent a recurrence of the same mistakes?
There are many other fundamental issues that need to be addressed. Should Pakistan develop a tradition of selective application of law that is mostly directed toward the downtrodden? It is common knowledge that General Musharraf, after having committed such grave offenses, does not even suffer from an iota of remorse or guilt! On the contrary, he brazenly engages foreign and local media and addresses gatherings lauding the golden era that supposedly was when he was at the helm of affairs. In a recent interview to a foreign channel when asked if he would revisit some of his wrong decisions he had the audacity to point out that the only mistake that he made was that, instead of asking the Supreme Court for a tenure of three additional years he should have asked for five or ten. It appears somewhat quixotic that he even aspires to return to power through the support of the PML-Q, which itself is deeply factionalized and on the verge of a political melt down.
Another sensitive point that is raised is how the army would react to a former chief being subjected to a judicial process. Of course there has been an unwritten indemnity to military rulers entering and exiting from politics of power. But has this been good for the institution or for the country? General Zia got away with the judicial murder of ZAB, got us deeply mired in the Afghan jehad and until 1986 denied political parties the opportunity to operate. Is the country still not deeply suffering because of that? Similarly, was it not a grave fault to allow General Niazi to brazenly roam around when it was an undisputed fact that he had committed massive wrongdoings in East Pakistan? And should we have allowed Kargil to be buried for reasons of political expediency and personal considerations?
The question we have to ask ourselves is, does accountability strengthen or does it weaken a country? Should accountability not be a part of our value system besides being a legal compulsion to stay within the bounds of law?
Is it not in the interest of every one including the armed forces to be imaginative enough to bring about changes that could transform Pakistan?
Then what is it that has prevented us in the past and is holding us back now from proceeding against those who have committed serious crimes against the state including the mutilation of the constitution? It is not to favour the predecessors that the present leadership is being so magnanimous toward them, but in its own interest. The political and military leadership has literally institutionalized immunity to act as a shield for their present and future acts. Any legal action taken against past rulers would be a deterrent and impose a restriction on them and on the successive regimes.
The current national leadership would not like to initiate any action against past rulers as it has a vested interest in defending the status quo. If it was left to them they would seek a permanent state of immunity. This trend is reflected even in the type of legislation that governs accountability of parliamentarians. A reluctance to undertake legal action is at the core of the problem. It has to be realized that when national leaders fail to subject themselves to the rule of law and flout the principle of checks and balances and allow the state to drift into lawlessness then the correction comes through a revolution or wide spread violence and anarchy, something that we are already witnessing.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general. Email: talat@comsats.net.pk
Interceptor
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 0
Waseem Sajjad was paid Rs 8.2m in two cases
August 08, 2009
* Sajjad highest paid lawyer in cases related to reference against chief justice, Wajihuddin
* National Assembly told new draft foreign policy ready
* Kaira says all circular debts settled
By Tahir Niaz
ISLAMABAD: Opposition Leader in the Senate Waseem Sajjad is at top among lawyers who were paid hefty sums to defend a presidential reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and in defending Pervez Musharraf in the Wajihuddin Ahmed and Others case, having received Rs 8.2 million, the National Assembly was told in a written reply on Friday.
Meanwhile, Sharifuddin Pirzada was the second highest-paid lawyer on Musharrafs defence team, having received Rs 7 million to appear in the Supreme Court in two separate cases the Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan case and Establishment of Islamabad High Court case.
A total sum of Rs 10.68 million was given to lawyers who were hired to defend presidential reference against the chief justice in the SC, while a total of Rs 11.5 million were given to advocates for the Chief Justice of Pakistan Vs President case.
According to the reply, of the 44 advocates who represented the government in the SC between 2005 and 2009, former attorney general Malik Muhammad Qayyum got Rs 6 million for appearing in two cases, Dr Khalid Ranjha Rs 4 million for appearing in one case in the SC, Sahibzada Raza Khan Qasuri Rs 1 million for appearing in the Chief Justice of Pakistan Vs President case.
The government of Musharraf made payments of Rs 41.68 million to 44 advocates to contest cases in the SC on behalf of the government.
A sum of Rs 2.5 million is still to be paid to Sharifuddin Pirzada, Rs 0.5 million to Chaudhry Nasir Ahmed, Rs 0.1 million to Shaukat Ali Mehar, Rs 55,000 to Muhammad Aslam Nagi, Rs 0.7 million to Raja Ibrahim Satti, Rs 0.5 million each to Ghulam Javed Khan, Azam Khan Sultanpuri and Shaukat Farid Pirzada.
Minister of State for Law and Justice Afzal Sindhu told the National Assembly that these lawyers were appointed by the office of the attorney general to pursue government cases from the beginning of 2005 to July 2009.
The majority of the remaining lawyers were paid Rs 0.5 million for appearing in the SC on behalf of the government in various cases.
The House was also told that a new draft forest policy, with an objective to enhance increase the forest area, had been prepared in consultations with all stakeholders. The policy would be tabled at a federal cabinet meeting shortly.
Minister of State for Communication Imtiaz Safdar Warriach said the government was working on improving and expanding the national road network. He said Rs 36 billion were allocated for this purpose during the last financial year, but only Rs 20 billion were released.
Adviser on Petroleum Dr Asim Hussain told the House that $441,000 were spent on the formation of a petroleum policy that was never implemented.
He said the government had prepared an indigenous petroleum policy this year at no cost.
Minister of State for Ports Sardar Nabeel Gabol told the House that Gwadar Port was fully operational, but transportation problems were arising because of the non-availability of a reliable road network.
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan said the federal government has established a separate ministry for postal services.
Minister for Information Qamar Zaman Kaira told the House the government had settled all circular debts payable to independent power producers, and they are now operating at their full capacity.
He said the government collected around Rs 127 billion as revenue through the petroleum development levy during the last financial year. That is totally documented in the budget, he said, adding that the current government did not believe in hiding facts from public representatives and welcomes all proposals to improve the economy and other sectors.
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan said the federal government had created a separate ministry for postal services because of an increase in the workload of the Postal Services Department. He said daily postal services transactions amounted to Rs 4.6 billion.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
August 08, 2009
* Sajjad highest paid lawyer in cases related to reference against chief justice, Wajihuddin
* National Assembly told new draft foreign policy ready
* Kaira says all circular debts settled
By Tahir Niaz
ISLAMABAD: Opposition Leader in the Senate Waseem Sajjad is at top among lawyers who were paid hefty sums to defend a presidential reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and in defending Pervez Musharraf in the Wajihuddin Ahmed and Others case, having received Rs 8.2 million, the National Assembly was told in a written reply on Friday.
Meanwhile, Sharifuddin Pirzada was the second highest-paid lawyer on Musharrafs defence team, having received Rs 7 million to appear in the Supreme Court in two separate cases the Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan case and Establishment of Islamabad High Court case.
A total sum of Rs 10.68 million was given to lawyers who were hired to defend presidential reference against the chief justice in the SC, while a total of Rs 11.5 million were given to advocates for the Chief Justice of Pakistan Vs President case.
According to the reply, of the 44 advocates who represented the government in the SC between 2005 and 2009, former attorney general Malik Muhammad Qayyum got Rs 6 million for appearing in two cases, Dr Khalid Ranjha Rs 4 million for appearing in one case in the SC, Sahibzada Raza Khan Qasuri Rs 1 million for appearing in the Chief Justice of Pakistan Vs President case.
The government of Musharraf made payments of Rs 41.68 million to 44 advocates to contest cases in the SC on behalf of the government.
A sum of Rs 2.5 million is still to be paid to Sharifuddin Pirzada, Rs 0.5 million to Chaudhry Nasir Ahmed, Rs 0.1 million to Shaukat Ali Mehar, Rs 55,000 to Muhammad Aslam Nagi, Rs 0.7 million to Raja Ibrahim Satti, Rs 0.5 million each to Ghulam Javed Khan, Azam Khan Sultanpuri and Shaukat Farid Pirzada.
Minister of State for Law and Justice Afzal Sindhu told the National Assembly that these lawyers were appointed by the office of the attorney general to pursue government cases from the beginning of 2005 to July 2009.
The majority of the remaining lawyers were paid Rs 0.5 million for appearing in the SC on behalf of the government in various cases.
The House was also told that a new draft forest policy, with an objective to enhance increase the forest area, had been prepared in consultations with all stakeholders. The policy would be tabled at a federal cabinet meeting shortly.
Minister of State for Communication Imtiaz Safdar Warriach said the government was working on improving and expanding the national road network. He said Rs 36 billion were allocated for this purpose during the last financial year, but only Rs 20 billion were released.
Adviser on Petroleum Dr Asim Hussain told the House that $441,000 were spent on the formation of a petroleum policy that was never implemented.
He said the government had prepared an indigenous petroleum policy this year at no cost.
Minister of State for Ports Sardar Nabeel Gabol told the House that Gwadar Port was fully operational, but transportation problems were arising because of the non-availability of a reliable road network.
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan said the federal government has established a separate ministry for postal services.
Minister for Information Qamar Zaman Kaira told the House the government had settled all circular debts payable to independent power producers, and they are now operating at their full capacity.
He said the government collected around Rs 127 billion as revenue through the petroleum development levy during the last financial year. That is totally documented in the budget, he said, adding that the current government did not believe in hiding facts from public representatives and welcomes all proposals to improve the economy and other sectors.
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan said the federal government had created a separate ministry for postal services because of an increase in the workload of the Postal Services Department. He said daily postal services transactions amounted to Rs 4.6 billion.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Similar threads
