Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
3 retired Generals to be court-martialed in NLC scam
- Thread starter Devil Soul
- Start date
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
ISPR:
Rawalpindi - September 14, 2012:
An official of ISPR while commenting on NLC issue said that National Logistics Cell (NLC) functions under the control of National Logistics Board (NLB) as an attached department of Planning and Development Division (P&D Div). NLB was established through Government of Pakistan Notification Number 120/19/78-Min dated 12 August 1978. It is headed by Minister of Planning and Development. Its members include Federal Secretaries for Finance, P&D, Communications, Food Agriculture and Live Stock, Deputy Chairman Planning Commission and Officer Incharge NLC. Director General NLC, a serving Major General appointed by GHQ, acts as Secretary NLB. As evident, the Board comprise of six civilian members and two from Army. Being Competent Authority for NLC, the Board meets once a month for approval of all major decisions related to NLC.
In February 2009, PAC discussed the Draft Para Number 214 and observed that NLC management had invested in stocks by purchasing shares of different enlisted companies / institutions, violating the BOD instructions. Thereafter, Secretary P&D Division (Principal Accounting Officer) constituted an inquiry committee to probe into the irregularities. Findings of this inquiry committee were finalized in January 2010. The recommendations of P&D Division inquiry concerning retired Army officers were subsequently referred to GHQ through Ministry of Defence (MoD) on 20 September 2010. Court of Inquiry by Secretary P&D did not accuse any individual of NLC for embezzlement or financial mis-appropriation but for irregularities, lack of transparency and failure in observing rules and regulations. (These facts are available on the official website of PAC).
On receipt of MoD’s letter at GHQ, COAS as a prescribed officer (Pakistan Army Act Section 94 and Criminal Procedure (Military Offenders) Rules 1970) had to decide whether to proceed against the accused under Pakistan Army Act (PAA) or through a Civil Court / NAB. The COAS decided to proceed under PAA. In November 2010, a high level Army Court of Inquiry was convened, presided by an officer of the rank of Lieutenant General for the purpose of finding out initial facts. The inquiry report was submitted to COAS in February 2011. On receipt of the findings of the Court of Inquiry, the COAS considered whether to opt for an administrative action or a formal investigation. Opting for an administrative action would have entailed use of discretionary powers by the COAS, whereas opting for a formal investigation, through time consuming, is obviously much more fair and transparent, allowing a fair chance to both the prosecution and the defendant. The COAS opted for latter course of action.
The next legal step was to order a Summary of Evidence which was ordered in September 2011. The statements made in the Summary of Evidence can be used as evidence in a trial. Therefore, full legal rights were afforded to the defendants including the right to counsel. The process required expert scrutiny of records spread over years, held not only by NLC but also a number of other Government departments. Many a documents produced also required forensic analysis for authenticity. Moreover, the case necessitated not one but recording of four Summaries of Evidence which have now been completed and are under consideration of the competent authority.
Basing on the credibility of the evidence accrued through these Summaries of Evidence, the COAS will decide on the next legal step. It is categorically stated that the case will be conducted strictly in accordance with due process of law and those proven guilty of wrong doings will be brought to justice.
It is further clarified that for recording of the Summaries of Evidence, it was essential to bring the accused officers under PAA. Therefore, accused retired officers were taken on the strength of the Army. This was done in accordance with Pakistan Army Act Section 92, read in conjunction with Section 40. The accused officers have neither been re-hired nor reinstated. Similarly, their calling back for investigations neither constitutes re-commissioning nor entitles them to pay, or any other privileges. It is important to note that the cases involving financial loss to the Government are not time barred and allow application of PAA Section 92 and 90.
It must be appreciated that for first time in the history of Pakistan Army, retired senior officers have been recalled, taken on strength and subjected to thorough process of investigation.
It is also important to note that Pakistan Army Act is a substantive act of the Parliament and not a departmental law. Likewise, another important aspect meriting attention is that Armed Forces world over, without exception, are governed by separate (military) laws. Therefore, the perception being created that the same nature of offence is being dealt with under two different laws is incorrect. Actually, military law world over, is inherently more strict and provides for expeditious disposal of the cases.
To improve its functionality, NLC was guided to apply four important corrections in its functioning i.e. restrict to core business as mandated by the Government, exercise better financial and management control, seek due / formal approval of all decisions from NLB without exception and seek necessary professional advice. As a result, NLC under direction of NLB and Quarter Master General (QMG) in capacity of OIC NLC, has retired all its debt and bank loans amounting to approximately Rs 9.3 Billion and has posted a net profit of Rs 3 Billion at the close of financial year 2011/12. As of today, NLC is on a positive trajectory, involved in important projects all over the Country.
Source: :: ISPR :: Inter Services Public Relations - PAKISTAN
Rawalpindi - September 14, 2012:
An official of ISPR while commenting on NLC issue said that National Logistics Cell (NLC) functions under the control of National Logistics Board (NLB) as an attached department of Planning and Development Division (P&D Div). NLB was established through Government of Pakistan Notification Number 120/19/78-Min dated 12 August 1978. It is headed by Minister of Planning and Development. Its members include Federal Secretaries for Finance, P&D, Communications, Food Agriculture and Live Stock, Deputy Chairman Planning Commission and Officer Incharge NLC. Director General NLC, a serving Major General appointed by GHQ, acts as Secretary NLB. As evident, the Board comprise of six civilian members and two from Army. Being Competent Authority for NLC, the Board meets once a month for approval of all major decisions related to NLC.
In February 2009, PAC discussed the Draft Para Number 214 and observed that NLC management had invested in stocks by purchasing shares of different enlisted companies / institutions, violating the BOD instructions. Thereafter, Secretary P&D Division (Principal Accounting Officer) constituted an inquiry committee to probe into the irregularities. Findings of this inquiry committee were finalized in January 2010. The recommendations of P&D Division inquiry concerning retired Army officers were subsequently referred to GHQ through Ministry of Defence (MoD) on 20 September 2010. Court of Inquiry by Secretary P&D did not accuse any individual of NLC for embezzlement or financial mis-appropriation but for irregularities, lack of transparency and failure in observing rules and regulations. (These facts are available on the official website of PAC).
On receipt of MoD’s letter at GHQ, COAS as a prescribed officer (Pakistan Army Act Section 94 and Criminal Procedure (Military Offenders) Rules 1970) had to decide whether to proceed against the accused under Pakistan Army Act (PAA) or through a Civil Court / NAB. The COAS decided to proceed under PAA. In November 2010, a high level Army Court of Inquiry was convened, presided by an officer of the rank of Lieutenant General for the purpose of finding out initial facts. The inquiry report was submitted to COAS in February 2011. On receipt of the findings of the Court of Inquiry, the COAS considered whether to opt for an administrative action or a formal investigation. Opting for an administrative action would have entailed use of discretionary powers by the COAS, whereas opting for a formal investigation, through time consuming, is obviously much more fair and transparent, allowing a fair chance to both the prosecution and the defendant. The COAS opted for latter course of action.
The next legal step was to order a Summary of Evidence which was ordered in September 2011. The statements made in the Summary of Evidence can be used as evidence in a trial. Therefore, full legal rights were afforded to the defendants including the right to counsel. The process required expert scrutiny of records spread over years, held not only by NLC but also a number of other Government departments. Many a documents produced also required forensic analysis for authenticity. Moreover, the case necessitated not one but recording of four Summaries of Evidence which have now been completed and are under consideration of the competent authority.
Basing on the credibility of the evidence accrued through these Summaries of Evidence, the COAS will decide on the next legal step. It is categorically stated that the case will be conducted strictly in accordance with due process of law and those proven guilty of wrong doings will be brought to justice.
It is further clarified that for recording of the Summaries of Evidence, it was essential to bring the accused officers under PAA. Therefore, accused retired officers were taken on the strength of the Army. This was done in accordance with Pakistan Army Act Section 92, read in conjunction with Section 40. The accused officers have neither been re-hired nor reinstated. Similarly, their calling back for investigations neither constitutes re-commissioning nor entitles them to pay, or any other privileges. It is important to note that the cases involving financial loss to the Government are not time barred and allow application of PAA Section 92 and 90.
It must be appreciated that for first time in the history of Pakistan Army, retired senior officers have been recalled, taken on strength and subjected to thorough process of investigation.
It is also important to note that Pakistan Army Act is a substantive act of the Parliament and not a departmental law. Likewise, another important aspect meriting attention is that Armed Forces world over, without exception, are governed by separate (military) laws. Therefore, the perception being created that the same nature of offence is being dealt with under two different laws is incorrect. Actually, military law world over, is inherently more strict and provides for expeditious disposal of the cases.
To improve its functionality, NLC was guided to apply four important corrections in its functioning i.e. restrict to core business as mandated by the Government, exercise better financial and management control, seek due / formal approval of all decisions from NLB without exception and seek necessary professional advice. As a result, NLC under direction of NLB and Quarter Master General (QMG) in capacity of OIC NLC, has retired all its debt and bank loans amounting to approximately Rs 9.3 Billion and has posted a net profit of Rs 3 Billion at the close of financial year 2011/12. As of today, NLC is on a positive trajectory, involved in important projects all over the Country.
Source: :: ISPR :: Inter Services Public Relations - PAKISTAN
Najam Khan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 8
Sir you missed my question. I'm rephrasing it.
What disciplinary action will be taken of a unit/station commander makes illegal profit (or lets say succeeds in getting profit by violating laws) of the unit/station's money? (Of course he can use it to fill some pockets or can put it into good use by adjusting it in tenders).
And on these grounds he can face court martial or immediate retirement?
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
No Sir, with all due respect, all critics should now also wait for the due process to complete. Wishing for their death is not quite right either.
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
Interesting. Not re-instated.
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Interesting, eh?
Hmm....
So it was a mere audit objection.
See, this is how transperency works. Had there been any intention to burry this under the carpet, a single stroke of pen could have done it and the hate mongers could have been left high and dry, but then it was not done.
BTW, DP (Draft Para) is an unsettled Audit Objection which when remaining unsolved for a certain point of time is refered to the MAG (Military Accountant General) and there on to the PAC, thus changing its name fro audit objection to a DP.
Interesting, interesting....
See, no jungle raj.
Unfortunate PTI..tsk...tsk.
Dont worry, i am sure PTI and its ilks will get plenty of time to implement jungle raj once they are on power. Pakistan dear, you are still to suffer, even after the 'change' PTI promises to bring.
PAA=Pakistan Army Act i.e. the laws and punishments as mentioned and applicable through the MPML.
PAA is just a stricter varient of PPC (Pakistan Penal Code), nothing else.
Someone getting tried under it is as guud as being tried under PPC by a bloody (i am getting used to word - thanx Leader
) civilian court.See, no jungle raj. You'll get your chances PTI, so chilax!
i mean it could have been convenient for the COAS to dispose off the matter there and then, but he didnt.
Wonderful!
An administrative action would have meant that the COAS will penalize the individuals without holding a formal trial, but then it would have given the hate mongers some more ammo, so the logical and in my personal opnion, a better step was to opt for a trial. This way the Nation will also see what happens to the culprits and it will also act as a deterant to any future inititiaves by other Officers.
Shyt!
Now i have to explain what a S of E is.
Quickie: It's just a higher degree of Court of Inqury (C of I), the difference is that it only 'summerizes' the evidence.
Just a fancy name to hiring a lawyer.
So what it means is that they can play lawyer lawyer as one would do in a civil court, the difference being that these lawyers cant be bought, they cant influnce the court ust because they were part of the movemnet that reinstated the CJP and they proceedings are musr quicker as these lawyers/judges dont go on strikes, beat police walas and block roads when they feel like.
And hence the delay.
Bhai aik soldier ki S fo E record karni ho na jo chotti sy late aya tha, tu it takes well over a month (though the rule states that it should be completed ASAP because till the time S of E is not completed the accused is kept under close arrest - coz he can again run away), but as in this case the accused are not rquired to be kept under arrest, therefore the Board must take it time in analysing the evidence.
Oh shyt!
A hate monger just died. RIP my son RIP.
Damn!
Two others just died!
Appreciated?!
Sir, you will just earn a bad name for even bringing someone to justice, that's what our country(men) has come to.
Tey mai hor ki farsi bol reya seen?
May be now you guys can understand the authencity of my posts.
Someone should feel some shame and then die.
P.S. The S fo E and C of I have been finalized. Just wondering how much time it would have taken if the matter was laying with a civilian court.
So just the decision to award punishent is pending. And i dont see any problem with it.
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Which part of the following you did not understand:
"Moreover, the case necessitated not one but recording of four Summaries of Evidence which have now been completed and are under consideration of the competent authority."
V, there's no need to jump the gun. After so much of hue and cry and even after the completion of all the formalities, you guys are still 'wondering' if the accused will be penalized or not? If that's what you mean by your above quoted post then i can only say that you guys have no interest in the proceedings of the trial, rather you are here just to 'enjoy' and fill you daily qouta of mud slinging the military, nothing else.
One needs to understand the workings of the Army before making any types of statements. Also keep in mind that the charges are not concerning embezzlement of funds or siphoning off of money. Rather it is about how the NLC funds were invested by the accused and whether it resulted in a loss to the taxpayers and as the text below suggests, whether any rules were broken.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Sir, all I meant by my post was to ask all sides to respect the due process and hold their guns until after they have been completed. Nothing more, nothing less. That is all.
Once the penalty has been imposed after having assigned guilt, only then can we can opine our views.
I would suggest all to treat this as a sub judice matter.
I hope now the rationale for my post is clear to you.
Court martial ki baat ho rahi hai ya walima ki date set ho rahi hai ?
anyway, usually the martial courts are fast track courts type, the punishment is awarded quickly and much harder than regular courts, the due process is taking too long as far as a general observer sees !!
Many here have the perception that Army is showing favouritism to their own by prosecuting them under the PAA and conducting the ML proceedings. However as you have said, most don't realize that the martial law courts will move about quickly and efficiently because this matter impacts the credibility of the Army and those in uniform. Its to the benefit of the taxpayers that this case remains with the military authorities.
In the past, I have seen certain court martial proceedings up close and must say that they move very quickly and you do not see the typical delay and bureaucratic red tape etc. that usually is a part and parcel of proceedings in the civilian courts.
Xeric
RETIRED THINK TANK
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 8,297
- Reaction score
- 42
- Country
- Location
Correct!
As i have already highlighted that the trial is not becuase the Officers had 'embezzled' the funds. One should be very clear in selection of his words espacially if he is going to post on a well-read forum like PDF. Unlike that other news that Leader posted elsehwere concerning the Audit Objections of the armed forces, the news editor was such a numskull that he was using 'embezzelment/fraud' and 'audit objections' inrerchangeably in such a casual manner as if he was not a news editor rather a school going kid who have no idea what certain words in english actualy means.
Point to be noted is:
NLC management had invested in stocks by purchasing shares of different enlisted companies / institutions, violating the BOD instructions.
And it seems that the instructions were not lucid and thus the lapse occured, and hence the finding of the Inquiry has resulted into (from the ISPR statement):
-NLC was guided to apply four important corrections in its functioning i.e.
1-restrict to core business as mandated by the Government,
2-exercise better financial and management control,
3-seek due / formal approval of all decisions from NLB without exception and
4-seek necessary professional advice.
Leader
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 29,159
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Jungle ka qanon hai, koe kiya keh sakta hai... jab chahye jo chahye jese chahye ker lain... 
I am also of the view that its to protect the retired generals.. though it is true marshal courts are like fast track courts...
the point I raised is simple if they are found guilty why not marshal punishment, even Brig Ali and his associates are awarded only 5 years of imprisonment though their crimes were of very grave nature.
unless Military leadership is not ready to cut its own skin, its not going to carve any benefit for the institution !!
P.S. and ofcourse present itself for accountability to the democratic government. So that every bolt starts to work at its position !!
I am also of the view that its to protect the retired generals.. though it is true marshal courts are like fast track courts...
the point I raised is simple if they are found guilty why not marshal punishment, even Brig Ali and his associates are awarded only 5 years of imprisonment though their crimes were of very grave nature.
unless Military leadership is not ready to cut its own skin, its not going to carve any benefit for the institution !!
P.S. and ofcourse present itself for accountability to the democratic government. So that every bolt starts to work at its position !!
Similar threads
