If Faizabad ruling was implemented, serious incidents would not have happened later:

[ghazi52]

.,,..,

If Faizabad ruling was implemented, serious incidents would not have happened later: CJP Isa​

Haseeb Bhatti
September 28, 2023

This photo combo shows Justice Aminuddin Khan, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Athar Minallah.


Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa said that if the court’s verdict on the 2017 sit-in by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) at Islamabad’s Faizabad had been implemented, future “serious incidents” could have been averted.

“If this verdict was implemented at that time, then serious incidents would not have taken place later,” the CJP observed while hearing a set of review petitions challenging the apex court’s verdict.

A three-member bench — including Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah — took up the pleas.

During the hearing, the defence ministry through the federal government, the PTI and Ijazul Haq — son of former military dictator Ziaul Haq — joined the Intelligence Bureau and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to withdraw their pleas, prompting the CJP to ask “why is everyone so afraid to speak the truth”.

Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, who was representing the federal government, assured the court that the decisions of the Faizabad judgement would be implemented.

Hafiz Ahsaan was present as Pemra’s counsel while the MQM’s lawyer did not appear before the court.

Accepting the plea of Awami Muslim League (AML) chief Sheikh Rashid’s counsel to adjourn the hearing, the Supreme Court adjourned it till November 1 and directed the respondents’ counsels to submit a written response by October 27.

Authored by Justice Qazi Faez Isa years before he took oath as the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), the searing judgement had instructed the defence ministry and the tri-services chiefs to penalise personnel under their command who were found to have violated their oath.

It had also directed the federal government to monitor those advocating hate, extremism and terrorism and prosecute them in accordance with the law.

Adverse observations were also made against several government departments for causing inconvenience to the public as the 20-day sit-in paralysed life in both Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

Pleas were subsequently moved against the verdict by the Ministry of Defence, the IB, the PTI, Pemra, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Rashid and Ijazul Haq.

However, earlier this week, the IB and Pemra approached the apex court, seeking the withdrawal of their review petitions in the case, stating that they did not wish to pursue the matter further.

Meanwhile, Rashid, via Advocate Mehr Khan Malik, had also requested the Supreme Court to adjourn the hearing.

His plea had stated that since the AML chief’s counsel, Amanullah Kanrani, had taken over the charge of the law minister for Balochistan, he was not in a position to appear before the apex court.

Prior to the hearing, when asked by a reporter if the PTI intended to withdraw its plea as well, Barrister Ali Zafar replied in the affirmative: “We do not wish to pursue the review petition.”

The hearing​

At the outset of the hearing, CJP Isa observed that Rashid’s counsel had been appointed as a minister, therefore he should have arranged another lawyer in his place.

He then noted, “I want to make a few things clear. This is a regular bench, not a special bench. Review petitions are immediately fixed [for hearing] but these were not fixed for four years.

“One of the judges who pronounced the verdict has retired, therefore, this case was not fixed before that bench,” he clarified.

At this point during the hearing, AGP Awan informed the court that the federal government wished to withdraw its review petition.

Upon the CJP inquiring if there was a reason to do so, the AGP responded, “There is no specific reason. We only want to withdraw the review petition. The federal government does not want to defend the case.”

The top judge then asked,“ Why does [the government] want to withdraw [the plea] now?

“First, it was said that there were mistakes in the verdict. Now, at least tell the reasons for withdrawing it,” he added.

To this, the AGP replied that the government at the time of filing the review pleas was different. CJP Isa then asked why the attorney general did not submit a written application for the withdrawal, to which the latter responded that he was “giving his statement”.

Here, the Pemra counsel informed the court, “I am also withdrawing my review petition.” The CJP asked on whose directions he was doing so and remarked, “Comments are made on YouTube channels.”

At this point during the hearing, the PTI’s Barrister Zafar also informed the court that the party did not wish to pursue its review plea.

CJP Isa asked the lawyer if he had the authority to withdraw the petition and observed, “If you want to become a respondent [in the case], the court will allow you.”

However, Zafar responded, “No, we do not want to become a respondent in this case.”

At this point during the hearing, a former Pemra chairman came to the rostrum.

CJP Isa reiterated, “Previously, it was said that the verdict is full of mistakes. Now, are the mistakes no longer there in the verdict?” Is there any reason to withdraw the review petitions?

“The ones who have remained in authority make speeches on TV and YouTube. They say ‘we were not heard’. Now we are sitting here to listen [so] come and speak.”

The top judge then observed that the court would keep Pemra’s petition pending, adding, “So that no one says tomorrow that we were not heard.”

Here, the advocate-on-record, on behalf of Rashid, requested the apex court to continue pursuance of the petition.

The chief justice then directed the advocate to inform the court in the next hearing if he wanted to hire another lawyer or if he wanted to present cover arguments.

At this point during the hearing, Ijazul Haq’s counsel appeared before the court.

The CJP noted, “We only said on the ISI’s report that a few politicians gave irresponsible statements. We did not take anyone’s name. You assumed on your own that your mention was there.

“Do you want to say that you did not favour the sit-in? Are you saying that the ISI’s report was not correct?” he asked the lawyer. He then directed the counsel to submit an affidavit stating that his stance was correct.

Here, CJP Isa asked, “Attorney General sahib, why not there be a fine applied on all, including you?

“The court’s time was wasted. The country was also kept disturbed. Now, you all are coming and saying that you want to withdraw the pleas,” he said.

“Was your statement wrong at that time or today? Even if the petitions are withdrawn, what will happen to our verdict?”

The chief justice went on to add, “We were sitting [and thinking] that perhaps we had made a mistake in the verdict.”

Addressing AGP Awan, the CJP said, “Malik sahib, this was not expected from a senior person such as you.”

At this point during the hearing, Justice Minallah asked, “Have all the institutions decided that what is written in the verdict is correct?

“The country can only develop through the protection of fundamental rights,” he remarked.

Here, CJP Isa observed that the court would keep the withdrawal pleas pending and directed, “If someone wants to say anything, they may say in writing.

“Everyone is quiet here and on the TV, they will say ‘We were not heard’,” he quipped.

The top judge then asked AGP Awan why he did not raise the question of why the review petitions were not fixed for hearing before. He noted that the ECP was a “constitutional institution and has a huge status”.

“Write that we were given an order [and] that a review petition was filed. Write where the order came from as well. If you want to say that bury it and ignore [the matter], then write that as well.

“Should we also bury what happened on May 12 and how many people were killed?” he asked, referring to the 2007 violent riots when around 50 people were killed and over 100 wounded in sporadic armed attacks on rallies organised by members of political parties and legal fraternity.

“It is not correct to say new government or old government. The government stays the government, regardless of the party in power,” the CJP observed. He added that the ECP was also not “former or current” but that it was an “institution”.

“There should be accountability for everyone. We can start from ourselves,” CJP Isa said.

“Why is everyone so afraid to speak the truth? Except for a few, everyone wants to withdraw their petitions,” he remarked.

Here, AGP Awan asserted, “The court’s verdict should be implemented.”

The top judge then said, “It is very interesting that those who should have filed a review petition did not do so. Tehreek-i-Labbaik did not file any review petition [and] accepted the verdict.

“Late Khadim Rizvi deserves to be praised for this. Everyone makes mistakes [but] accepting them is a huge thing,” he added.

Recalling that Pemra was told that the decision to file a review plea was made during a board meeting, the CJP remarked, “This is the routine in Pakistan that the order has come from above.”

CJP Isa then proceeded to ask, “Where is the apology letter from the election commission for filing the review petition?”

When the ECP’s director general (law) spoke, the top judge interjected asking if he did not trust his counsel. At this, the ECP official apologised.

“Simply saying that we are withdrawing the plea is not enough. Either you say that we are taking action against those whose signatures were present on the agreement made with the protestors, or tell [us] that we have taken action on so and so points of the verdict,” CJP Isa observed.

“Or do you want matters to stay the same till the next chaos?” he asked, while recalling that “a new object — containers — was introduced into Pakistani politics” during the May 12, 2007 riots.

“The MQM did not appear before us today. There was an MQM minister. Today, no one came on his behalf,” the CJP noted.

At this point during the hearing, AGP Awan read out aloud the 2019 verdict of the Faizabad sit-in.

The chief justice then observed, “After this sit-in, many other similar incidents emerged. If this verdict was implemented at that time, then serious incidents would not have taken place later.”

To this, the AGP assured the court that the federal government would “move in the right direction by acting upon 17 directives given in the verdict”. The CJP then recalled a Quranic verse, wherein he said it had been urged to stand with those speaking the truth.

“Today, you all have acknowledged the verdict as the truth. Now, it is your test whether you stand with it or not,” CJP Isa said while addressing the respondents.

He then observed that the court was not disposing of the review petitions today. The CJP once again confirmed with Zafar if the PTI “accepted the verdict as the truth and did not want a review”, to which the latter replied in the affirmative.

The Supreme Court then said it was accepting Rashid’s counsel’s plea to adjourn the hearing and directed the lawyers absent today to ensure their appearance at the next hearing.

Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till November 1 and the respondents’ counsels were directed to submit written responses by October 27.

CJP Isa observed that the AGP and other respondents have assured the court that they would bring the implementation of the 2019 verdict on the record.

He then asked AGP Awan how much time he needed to do so, in response to which the lawyer sought a period of two months. However, his request was rejected.

At one point during the hearing, CJP Isa said, “Do not destroy the institutions — this is not an order but a request.”

Addressing the ECP’s lawyer, he asked, “Why is a constitutional institution met with so much hesitation?

“If you think that you can use the court for your benefit, this will not happen. If you have filed a petition, then also face the court. Punishment and reward is a later matter, first confess the crime.

“I do not want to talk about one sahib a lot — it is possible that the cases are fixed before us,” he added.

The pleas​

The IB’s review petition had urged the court to set aside the adverse observations made against the department, adding that it was a premier civilian intelligence agency which was responsible for state security.

It had contended that the impugned order created a “bad impression” on the public that the IB was involved in unlawful activities and politics, after transgressing constitutional boundaries.

It had said the observations made in the verdict were based on “vague facts” and that during the sit-in, the department was in close contact with the federal and Punjab governments and forewarned them about the plans and intentions of the TLP, with a view to foiling their attempt to storm/lockdown Islamabad.

Meanwhile, In response, the defence ministry had requested the court to set aside the explicit or implicit observations about the armed forces and/or the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The ministry’s petition had said that a host of factors may affect morale. However, it said, what was fatal was the belief amongst the rank and file that their officers while acting like “self-proclaimed saviours” were violating the fundamental rights of citizens and instead of serving “Pakistan and thus all its citizens”, supporting a “particular political party, faction or politician”.

“…When the source of such remarks is the highest court in the land, it can promote fissiparous tendencies and has the capacity to destroy the ability of the armed forces to act as a cohesive fighting force,” the review petition had argued.

It had further said there was no evidence before the court to suggest that the armed forces or ISI were, in any manner, involved with either the sit-in or a particular outcome of the general elections of 2018 or the abridgement of free speech or intimidation or censorship of the press.

In its petition, the ECP had contended that it had comprehensively applied and enforced the Constitution, law and code of conduct by issuing a letter to the TLP on Aug 16, 2017, asking the party to provide details of its bank account and even had issued notices to it with a warning to cancel its registration.

Meanwhile, the PTI had questioned the mention in the verdict of the 2014 joint sit-in organised by it and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek in Islamabad, and had said the impression one gets from it was that the party conducted an illegal protest for publicity and deliberately made wrong allegations.

The petition contended that the party had nothing to do with the TLP Faizabad sit-in and therefore the remarks should be expunged.

Rashid had approached the court to remove his name from the judgement. In his petition, the AML chief pleaded that if the words concerning him in para-4 of the judgement were not expunged, he would suffer adversely in his life.

If Faizabad ruling was implemented, serious incidents would not have happened later: CJP Isa

Hearing on pleas against verdict adjourned till Nov 1; IB, Pemra, defence ministry, PTI seek to withdraw review pleas.

www.dawn.com

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.,.

Analysis: ​

Revisiting the Faizabad Dharna case​

The Faizabad Dharna case judgement provides an opportunity for Pakistan to reaffirm its commitment to its founding principles and pave the way for a brighter, more accountable future.

Usama Khawar
September 28, 2023

In the intricate web of Pakistan’s legal landscape, few cases have left as profound an impact on the nation’s judicial and political narrative as the Faizabad Dharna case. As the review petition is finally taken up by the Supreme Court, it is essential to revisit the unprecedented nature of this case and explore the potential consequences and pathways it may lead to.

The Faizabad Dharna case emerged from the prolonged and contentious sit-in staged at Islamabad’s Faizabad interchange in 2017. The protest itself started out as a political stand-off, but soon evolved into a litmus test for the resilience of democratic institutions, the sanctity of the Constitution, and the boundaries of freedom of expression.

In the wake of the stand-off, the SC initiated a case under its suo motu jurisdiction, which allows the court to take cognisance of matters on its own volition, usually in cases of public importance or violation of fundamental rights. In such cases, however, the review jurisdiction before the SC is exceedingly limited, and the judgement is unlikely to be substantially altered or overturned.

Unprecedented aspects of the Faizabad Dharna case​

A judge takes on the establishment

The political context of the Faizabad Dharna case cannot be overstated.

At the time, Nawaz Sharif, a three-time elected prime minister, had been disqualified, and preparations were underway for his imprisonment. Political parties were undergoing significant changes, with one being dismantled and another, the PTI, enjoying robust support.

Much of the superior judiciary and media had largely aligned with the establishment’s narrative. Even the elected governments at the time of the Dharna, led by Shahid Khaqan Abbasi at the Centre and Shehbaz Sharif in Punjab refrained from challenging the establishment’s dominance, which extended to religious extremists.

Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s verdict came at the peak of this hybrid experiment, with a new prime minister cementing the ‘same page’ between the executive and the establishment. The judiciary itself had become an active participant in this collaboration. Notably, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, a high court judge, had previously been removed from office by his peers when he exposed pressure from the establishment and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

In this charged atmosphere, religious extremists affiliated with the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) roamed the streets, inciting and committing acts of violence. Under these circumstances, taking a stance against the establishment, questioning the executive, critiquing mainstream political parties, including the PTI, and even scrutinising the judiciary was an extraordinary act of courage, given the formidable forces aligned against such dissent.

Judgement against generals in power

Unlike previous cases where judgements against military generals came after they were removed from power, this verdict targeted the current dispensation of the military establishment.

Previous cases, such as the declaration against Yahya Khan in the Asma Jillani case, the judgement against General Aslam Baig in the Air Marshal Asghar Khan case, and the direction for initiating a treason trial against General Musharraf in the PCO judges case, had all been heard after the military officials’ respective tenures.

In contrast, this decision was delivered while the military had become an even more dominant force in Pakistan’s political landscape, and the generals had been promoted, marking a significant departure from established norms of holding generals accountable only after their removal from office.

Tackling the role of armed forces and intelligence agencies

One of the most striking aspects of the judgement was its unflinching examination of the roles played by the armed forces and intelligence agencies, including the ISI and Military Intelligence (MI). The judgement did not shy away from these critical issues and addressed them head-on.

Justice Isa questioned the role of state agencies, particularly the ISI, in failing to counter the threat of violent extremism posed by groups like the TLP and others. He expressed disappointment in the alleged interference of ISI in matters of political significance, highlighting that military agencies should never be seen as supporting any particular political party. The judgement underscored the importance of armed forces adhering to their constitutional role and maintaining their integrity.

Additionally, the judgement provided specific directions for initiating action against members of the armed forces who had violated their oaths and ventured into political activities. It also called for bringing intelligence agencies under legal frameworks.

Support for civilian institutions

The Faizabad Dharna case judgement extended support to civilian institutions, such as the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) and the Election Commission of Pakistan. It aimed to shield these institutions and the media from undue influence by intelligence agencies. This emphasis on safeguarding a free press and independent institutions is crucial for upholding democratic principles.

A direct challenge to religious extremism

The judgement took a bold stance against religious extremism and bigotry propagated by groups like the TLP. It did not mince words and issued strong directives to counter religious extremism. This resolute approach highlighted the judiciary’s commitment to curbing radicalism and preserving social harmony.

Consequences and potential pathways​

The Faizabad Dharna case and its subsequent developments have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan’s judicial, political, and broader landscape.

Impact on Justice Isa and the judiciary

It is no secret that Justice Isa and his family went through a tough time, courtesy of the establishment, sometimes with a little help from his fellow judges. Even Prime Minister Imran Khan eventually admitted that the reference against Justice Isa was a mistake pushed by the establishment’s agenda. But what’s even more striking is the massive split it caused within the apex court.

This internal bickering seriously dented the SC’s reputation and authority. To put this into perspective, by the end of Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial’s term, he found it increasingly challenging to enforce his orders related to the general elections.

These divisions didn’t just stay within the court’s walls — they had significant consequences for civil liberties in Pakistan, especially post-May 9. Today, court orders are often brushed aside, and even the most ancient legal safeguard, habeas corpus, doesn’t hold much weight in politically charged cases. This erosion of the court’s authority and the impact on civil liberties paints a vivid picture of how the Faizabad Dharna case left its mark on Pakistan’s legal and political landscape.

Implementation of the judgement: Confrontation with the establishment

One possible path forward involves Justice Isa insisting on the implementation of his judgement. This would entail taking action against members of the armed forces who violated their oaths. Such a move could lead to a direct confrontation with the establishment.

However, direct confrontation may jeopardise Justice Isa’s ability to address other critical matters and pursue his reform agenda effectively. It could also provide opportunities for the establishment to find collaborators within the judiciary. This path is rife with challenges, as it could lead to a protracted and divisive battle.

Navigating the complexities of holding generals accountable

The Musharraf treason trial serves as a poignant reminder of the intricate and multi-faceted consequences that pursuing accountability, particularly involving retired generals, can entail for politics, democracy, and the judiciary.

This watershed moment in Pakistan’s history, where a former military ruler was held accountable for subverting the Constitution, resulted in significant political upheaval, including the removal of prominent figures like Nawaz Sharif from office and the mysterious demise of a high court judge, Chief Justice Waqar Seth, involved in the trial.

As discussions about holding retired generals like General Bajwa and General Faiz Hamid accountable persist, the Musharraf trial offers valuable insights into the complexities and potential risks associated with such endeavours, emphasising the need for a cautious and transparent approach to safeguard democratic principles and the rule of law.

Balancing act: Avoiding confrontation

On the other hand, if Justice Isa opts to not push the matter to its ultimate conclusion, he may face accusations of compromising or backing down. This approach may seem pragmatic, as it avoids a direct clash with the establishment, but it risks undermining the pursuit of justice, accountability, and the credibility of the judiciary.

The imperative of truth​

Regardless of the path chosen, Pakistan faces an undeniable imperative — the need for an honest reckoning or some form of truth and reconciliation. Addressing the underlying issues and acknowledging the proverbial elephant in the room — the military’s undue influence in politics—is crucial for Pakistan’s democratic progress.

Without such a reckoning, Pakistan’s democratic process will continue to face challenges, and civil liberties will remain at risk. It is a crossroads where Pakistan must choose to confront its past and chart a course towards a more accountable and just future, where institutions operate within their defined roles, and the rule of law prevails.

In the words of the founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan was envisioned to be based on “fundamental principles of democracy, not bureaucracy or autocracy or dictatorship.”

The Faizabad Dharna case judgement provides an opportunity for Pakistan to reaffirm its commitment to those principles and pave the way for a brighter, more accountable future. It is a moment of reckoning that cannot be skirted around, for the nation’s progress depends on addressing the principle contradiction it faces. All else is secondary.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Man,,,, if only there was some sort.... I dont know, perhaps action the Court could have taken after it's ruling was disregarded.

I'm no lawyer or judge i think it starts with "Contempt" maybe a preposition next followed by Court.

Man, my memory is getting fuzz.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.,

‘Darkest chapter’: Ex-PM Abbasi on 2017 Faizabad sit-in​

Dawn.com
September 30, 2023

Former prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has spoken at length about his time as premier during the Faizabad protests of 2017 and how he navigated the government through what he said was the “darkest chapter” in the country’s history.

Daily life in Islamabad was disrupted for 20 days (from Oct 2 to Nov 27, 2017) when protesters belonging to religiopolitical parties — including the TLP, Tehreek-i-Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah (TLYRA), the Tehreek-i-Khatm-i-Nabuwwat, and the Pakistan Sunni Tehreek — occupied the Faizabad Interchange which connects Rawalpindi and Islamabad through the Islamabad Expressway and Murree Road, both of which are the busiest roads in the twin cities.

The agitators claimed that during the passage of the Elections Act 2017, the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat oath was deliberately modified as part of a larger conspiracy. The amendment to the oath was deemed a ‘clerical error’ by the government and was subsequently rectified through an act of Parliament.

The government had attempted to negotiate in vain with the protesters to end the sit-in several times. Finally, it launched an operation to disperse the protesters, in which at least six people were killed and scores others injured. After the botched operation, the government decided to call in the army for help.

Negotiations were undertaken with protesters once again, and the government accepted a number of their demands in return for ending the protest. The agreement document bears the signatures of then interior minister Ahsan Iqbal, TLP chief Khadim Hussain Rizvi, and Gen Faiz Hameed, who was a major general at the time, among others.

Speaking on Geo News programme ‘Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath’ on Friday night, the senior PML-N leader advised the PML-N to lodge a formal complaint against former army generals — provided that the party was serious in pursuing the matter — “instead of delivering speeches and making statements against them”.

He said action could not be taken against one person or officer but rather the entire matter surrounding the Faizabad sit-in needed to be reviewed.

“You will have to review the entire matter. Whose responsibility was it? Who did what was not supposed to be done and who did what was supposed to be done?” Abbasi said, adding that he was in complete support of a probe into it.

The former prime minister highlighted that the PTI ruled for at least three years after the Faizabad sit-in while the PML-N for around 16 months, but neither of them investigated the matter.

“Now we have an interim government,” he said. “They can investigate it too.”

Ex-PM Abbasi said Ahsan Iqbal and Marriyum Aurangzeb were ministers during the time when the Faizabad sit-in was staged. Iqbal was the interior minister and Aurangzeb was the information minister.

“We are ready to present ourselves [to any investigative body]. We will come and tell the facts of whatever we remember.”

“See it’s about facts and the law. If someone has done something, there is a complaint and a complainant against them, then there is evidence, then you have to register a case, and you have to cite the law through the inquiry that takes place. Then things move forward.”

When asked if this statement — to move on from speeches and statements and register a case — was his advice to the PML-N, the former PM said, “Yes, absolutely they will have to do it.”

“If the party has evidence — or if I have it — it is your responsibility to present that evidence and become a complainant and file a case. Then the investigation will take place.”

Later in the show when Abbasi was asked about former finance minister Ishaq Dar’s statement on moving on from the matter, he said, “Perhaps leaving everything up to Allah is the [appropriate] way to end the matter and move on.”

“What the country needs is to set these issues aside but to also learn from them and think about the country’s future,” he added.

The PML-N leader was of the view that such matters should not be discussed on television, reaffirming that if he was summoned, “I will lay before them all the facts and so will Ahsan Iqbal”.

Abbasi termed it the party and PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif’s choice in pursuing the matter.

“This started in the 2021 Gujranwala rally. If we want to pursue this, a formal complaint should be registered,” he maintained.

Sit-in ‘humiliated’ sitting govt​

Reminiscing over the Faizabad sit-in, Abbasi said his government had to face a lot of humiliation over it as the then finance minister Miftah Ismail was abroad for a fundraising campaign and he used to face many questions about the situation back home.

“Roads connecting Islamabad to Pakistan remain blocked. People were unable to reach airports or travel back and forth. Even lawyers were not able to reach courts. It was chaos.”

“As far as I remember, there were two separate sit-ins at Faizabad and when I was PM, it was the second sit-in. Some people converged on a bridge and we spoke to them. But talks would continue,” he said.

“CCTV cameras were even disconnected. That was not possible without expertise. We had planned that we would block the supply of food to them. But a petition was filed the next day and the IG and other officials were summoned.

“We had decided to settle the matter amicably. I am a witness to all this. The way the police launched action was commendable. I saw everything from a helicopter. Punjab police had 30,000 officers at their disposal but they did not have a single vehicle there. There were only 250 officers. I went to Lahore from there.”

The former PM was of the view that the government was paralysed that day and was not in a position to take any action.

“I saw that the capital police were not ready to take any action and paramilitary forces were not available,” he said. “We had a talk with [then army chief] Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa and he pointed out that the army was not meant to handle such matters. They only have guns. The matter was settled somehow later but the writ of the state was affected.”

Abbasi said that later it had become a tradition to paralyse the capital of the country “for your own ulterior motives”.

He said the Punjab police refrained from action fearing any loss of lives.

“When Islamabad police came for action, they had come with ill intent. Demonstrators in fact had chased the capital city police away,” Abbasi said, highlighting that a court order was issued to disperse protesters by the beginning of the next week which was not the wish of the government.

“When Ahsan Iqbal asked the commissioner and IG Islamabad, they said we have to take action otherwise we will face contempt,” he added.

“Then we held a meeting and decided to limit the protests. But the next day a petition was filed, and an order was issued followed by police action. I am witness to how ill-intent action was taken by the police.”

The former premier said he had asked then-minister Iqbal to not sign the agreement, warning that it would turn into a tradition later. “Then they (army and Iqbal) had a discussion [and] after he talked to me, Iqbal signed the agreement as he felt it necessary to sign it at that time. If you go deep down, the situation was quite difficult.”

Abbasi said the Inter-Services Intelligence (IS) — the country’s premier intelligence agency — was also part of the negotiations and all the signatures were approved by them.

“It was unusual for them to sign the agreement, especially from top officials,” he said. “Usually an officer like the district commissioner signs such accords.”

Abbasi also shed light on how former interior minister Chaudhry Nisar’s home was attacked by the sit-in protesters but the Rangers and police personnel posted there repulsed it.

Dark chapter​

“There were National Security Council meetings, and it was decided in one of the meetings that the then-law minister Zahid Hamid’s resignation would be forwarded,” he said. “I won’t say it was at anyone’s behest. But it was said that the resignation was necessary to settle this matter. It was an unfortunate thing that we had to do. This was one of the black chapters in our history.”

Abbasi said initially, Hamid had offered him his resignation himself in a bid to diffuse the matter.

“I wouldn’t say it was someone’s desire but after consultations, it was said that the resignation was necessary to finish the matter and that it won’t end before that.”

In reply to a question, he said it would be hard to say after the passage of six years whether it was pre-poll rigging or someone conspired. “Khadim Rizvi is not amongst us now. He would know what actually happened.”

Shutting news channels during sit-in​

Ex-PM Abbasi made it clear that he did not have any knowledge of the shutting down of TV channels during the sit-in.

“When channels are closed down in Pakistan, Pemra or the government isn’t behind it,” he said. “You even know on whose directions they are closed.”

He added that he never took part in shutting down or for that matter the opening up of channels as well. “Marriyum Aurangzeb was the minister then it was her job, not mine.”

PML-N future strategy​

When asked about the PML-N’s future strategy, Abbasi said he could not defend the party’s position and only the party president would be liable to do that.

“He should give an answer. If our narrative has changed why has it? These things are serious. If yesterday we had a narrative and today we changed it, we will have to tell the public why we drifted away from it.”

He said all the dots connected to one point which was the “theft of the 2018 elections”, concluding that the 2018 elections were the reason where the country is currently standing today.

The PML-N leader said his party’s 16-month performance would definitely have an impact on its vote. “The voter asks us questions that we don’t have answers to and definitely this will affect the elections.”

Gen Bajwa​

Ex-PM Abbasi also shed light on how retired Gen Bajwa had himself acknowledged that they (the army) had created a hybrid system. “He even said he got Imran Khan’s government the required numbers for the confidence motion and all these things are on record.”

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,.,

SC gives open call to submit facts surrounding Faizabad sit-in​

Written order says 'any party or any one' may do so by October 27 before hearing on review petitions resumes on Nov 1

Hasnaat Malik
October 02, 2023

The Supreme Court (SC) has invited all persons and organizations to disclose facts pertaining to the Faizabad sit-in by October 27, 2023 as the court will resume proceedings on eight review petitions filed against the February 2019 verdict on November 1.

In a written order issued on September 28, the court invited all individuals and parties - civil, private or governmental - to submit in writing through affidavits if they wish to disclose facts pertaining to the matter.

The court observed that "adjournments have been sought" and "certain parties are not in attendance" while "some have publicly stated that they knew what had happened, yet the judgment did not consider their point of view".

"This is surprising given that it was noted in paragraph 17 of the judgment that: All the hearings in this case were conducted in open court. We had permitted those aggrieved and those whose interest may be affected to come forward and had also permitted them to file documents and written submission," the apex court noted in its written order.

"In any event we are providing another opportunity to all to submit in writing through affidavits if they want to disclose facts pertaining to this matter. The learned AG [Attorney General of Pakistan] however states that the matter attends to events of a certain period and its scope should not be extended," stated the written order.

Last week, as the court took up review petitions pending since 2019, a three-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan as well as Justice Athar Minallah, it was informed that the Ministry of Defence, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) wished to withdraw their pleas.

Similar applications had earlier been filed by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) while the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) and currently 'detained' Awami Muslim League leader Sheikh Rashid had sought adjournments citing various reasons for which their counsels could not appear.

In its written order, the top court recounted the questions that were raised at the previous hearing:

• Why the matter was not taken up by the apex court in the past four years
• The simultaneous filing of these review petitions and the reason behind doing so
• Whether constitutional and statutory bodies acted independently in filing the same
• Whether, as claimed by some, the February 2019 judgment has been implemented

The apex court invited "any party or any one" to submit before it any facts they wish to disclose by October 27 before the matter resumes for hearing on November 1.

Case history

Several review petitions were filed against the verdict authored by now Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on February 6, 2019. This judgment pertained to a sit-in staged by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) in Faizabad in 2017.

In this scathing judgment, authored by Justice Isa, it directed the country's intelligence agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Military Intelligence (MI), and the army's media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), not to exceed their constitutional mandate.

The judgment specifically addressed the role of intelligence agencies during a 20-day sit-in organized by the TLP at the intersection of Rawalpindi and Islamabad in November 2017. The TLP had initiated the protest in response to alleged changes made in lawmakers’ oath, affirming that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is the last messenger of Allah, through the Elections Bill 2017 - during the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz's (PML-N) government. The protesters demanded the resignation of the then-law minister, Zahid Hamid.

These protests disrupted daily life in the twin cities for 20 days, leading to multiple rounds of negotiations between the government and protesters. Ultimately, Zahid Hamid resigned on November 27, 2017, meeting the TLP's demands.

On November 21, 2017, the SC initiated suo motu proceedings regarding the sit-in. On November 22, 2018, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Isa and Justice Mushir Alam reserved their ruling. The Supreme Court unveiled its 43-page judgment authored by Justice Isa on February 6, 2019.

In this 2019 judgment, Justice Isa emphasized that the Constitution explicitly prohibited members of the armed forces from engaging in any form of political activity, including supporting a political party, faction, or individual. The verdict directed the Government of Pakistan, through the Ministry of Defence and the respective chiefs of the army, navy, and air force, to take action against personnel under their command found in violation of their oath.

Additionally, the judgment instructed the federal government to monitor individuals advocating hate, extremism, and terrorism, prosecuting them in accordance with the law. The judgment also included adverse observations about various government departments and public sector entities, as the 20-day sit-in severely disrupted life in Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that no entity, including government departments or intelligence agencies, could infringe upon the fundamental right of freedom of speech, expression, and press beyond the boundaries outlined in Article 19 of the Constitution. Justice Isa emphasized that those resorting to such tactics under the mistaken belief that they served a higher goal were deluding themselves.

He concluded by asserting that Pakistan is governed by the Constitution, and obedience to the Constitution and the law is the inviolable duty of every citizen, no matter where they are, and of every person within Pakistan at any given time.

At least eight review petitions were filed against the judgment shortly after it was issued.