20 Ex-Generals Ready to Join Fight for Democracy By Ansar Abbasi
The News, November 09, 2007
DUBAI: A considerable number of prominent ex-servicemen including many retired generals are all set to join the civil society and the legal fraternity to fight for the country's return to democracy and for the restoration of the deposed Supreme Court judges who rejected the new PCO.
More than one dozen retired Generals, including the former colleagues and seniors of General Pervez Musharraf, would even court arrest to resist the brutal suppression of the civil society, lawyers and political parties.
Things are being kept secret right now to avoid any pre-emptive crackdown by the government that is showing zero tolerance to any protest against the second martial law, named emergency by the government. Some senior lawyers are in contact with retired generals, who are enthusiastic to play their role to save the country's future at this crucial juncture.
A leading lawyer, who is in contact with a group of retired generals, told The News from Islamabad on phone that he was expecting some 20 retired Generals to join the lawyers' movement in the days to come. "They (ex-servicemen) have assured us that they would even be ready to court arrest," said the lawyer, who has requested not to be named to avoid the government's possible "pre-emptive strike".
The lawyers community, which is presently facing the worst state-brutality that includes arrest of hundreds of lawyers all over Pakistan, would remain focused on the restoration of the deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and all other judges of the apex court and the high courts who did not take fresh oath under Musharraf's latest PCO.
Although, during the initial days of the recently promulgated emergency-cum-martial law the general demand has been for the lifting of the emergency and holding of early elections, the restoration of the deposed CJ and others and revival of the pre-November 3 judiciary has not been in the focus.
However, the situation has now changed. The lawyers' struggle to revive the pre-November 3 judiciary has now been joined by the two leading political voices – Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif was the first politician to insist that the likes of honourable Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry be reinstated to their positions that they were holding before the imposition of the renewed military rule. Benazir Bhutto, who had not previously talked of the deposed judges' restoration, on Wednesday demanded that the revival of the Constitution and lifting of emergency should come along with the restoration of the deposed judges.
Without the revival of the independent judiciary, it is believed, the cause of sustainable democracy and moderation in Pakistan would remain a far cry.
It is generally believed that the November 3 unconstitutional action was mainly targeted against the "defiant" judges, whose removal and incarceration is believed to be due to their upholding the rule of law, constitutionalism, and the rights of the downtrodden people of Pakistan.
These judges were considered by the masses as the last bulwark against executive excesses in Pakistan. They were involved in enforcing habeas corpus petitions, hearing cases against the missing persons many of whom were recovered from intelligence agencies, hearing petitions against illegal land grab by the mighty and the powerful. In numerous cases, these judges were responsible for hearing petitions regarding violence against women and providing relief.
Friday, November 09, 2007
A Letter From Machiavelli to Musharraf
The Prince of Islamabad
Friday, November 09, 2007
James S Robbins
Memo:
From: Niccolo Machiavelli
To: Pervez Musharraf
Subject: Nice work
General, I have been watching your career with great interest and admiration. Your most recent move of isolating your uncooperative Supreme Court and clamping down on various troublemakers has been well executed and will probably succeed in maintaining your power -- a goal which, as you know, is not just everything, it is the only thing.
I wanted to give you the benefit of my half millennium of observing the political scene. First let me caveat my praise by saying you never should have let matters come this far. This is the difference between true greatness and merely being extremely capable. The great man never needs to dig himself out a hole because he never winds up there. This is why I never bought the notion that Bill Clinton was a political genius. True, he could manoeuvre out of crises, but his troubles were always of his own making and always unnecessary. The clever man escapes conviction but the great man is never impeached. But while on the subject, I liked his "defending the constitution" slogan, keep it in your back pocket.
Your next move is to engineer something like you did in 1999 where you got the Supreme Court to justify your original coup under the aegis of the constitution. I know you have recently arrogated onto yourself the right to amend the constitution unilaterally, thus could put anything you want in there. But it makes much more sense to find a clever lawyer who can read into the existing document whatever you need. This is their business, let them do it. That way when you reopen the court with justices who have taken a loyalty oath to you, they can shut down a lot of criticism by making a favourable ruling with the document as it is. Probably your team will want to make reference to Article 41, Section 6: "The validity of the election of the president shall not be called in question by or before any court or other authority." Seems highly useful, since that was the issue to start with. If you absolutely must amend the document to justify your holding both political and military power, just copy from the Americans the idea that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military. It already exists in Article 258(a): "the supreme command of the armed forces shall vest in the president." Any lawyer worth his expense account can work out a solution for you with that.
I was highly amused at the fretting, mostly in the west, that you would use this emergency as an excuse not to hold elections. Who are these amateurs! Usually one creates conditions of this type in order to win elections, not cancel them. Think Reichstag Fire, 1933. But because they brought up the idea that the elections might be cancelled, you could look very magnanimous by going ahead with them. With the opposition in hiding and the media on a short leash it should be no problem getting the results you want. Use your own judgment on the timing, you have until mid-January at the latest but could have a snap election before that. You don't want to do it right away, but don't wait for the opposition to get its act together either.
You are going to have to suffer some rhetorical hits from the international community, primarily from the do-gooders in Europe and particularly the US who don't know how politics really works. Maybe they will start talking sanctions again. But they won't take serious action unless you do something completely out of control like mass executions of your political enemies. Sometimes that can be useful but I would counsel against it at this time. A few disappearances, sure, especially the Islamists, who will question that? But don't give your international critics an excuse. Keep things low key.
Anyway they may talk about sanctions, but would they really go ahead with them? Why would they, other than to make themselves feel virtuous? Pakistan was under sanctions of one form or another from the mid-1970s on and they didn't make a great deal of difference. If the west cuts military aid, go to China or Russia, they are good for it. If they go for economic sanctions, appeal to the Saudis and other Sunni states with oil windfalls, they will help out.
Furthermore you have cards of your own to play if they want to get rough. Afghanistan is the key here. President Bush needs to have stability in Afghanistan as a part of his legacy. He needs an entry in the "win" column. But as they say in Kabul, Pakistan sneezes and Afghanistan catches cold. You could do a great deal to destabilise the Karzai government. Most Afghan trade passes through Pakistan. NATO troops are supplied via Karachi. And repairing relations with the Taliban is always an option, at least covertly. I don't think Washington would be ready to trade Karzai's survival just to make some silly -- and by that I mean principled -- point about democracy.
There is also the nuclear card, this is a huge one. Washington will not want to throw away the progress made in counter-proliferation. The stakes are too high. Just hint that new sanctions will be answered by refusing to cooperate on nuclear matters with states involved in the Proliferation Security Initiative and they will back off quickly. Remember that the real issues and interests at play from the Americans' point of view have very little to do with democracy. After all, the sanctions originally imposed for the 1998 nuclear tests and the 1999 coup were dropped in the weeks after 9/11 -- with Pakistan still possessing the bomb and you still in power. The Americans are more than willing to make common cause with authoritarian leaders so long as they are effective.
And this brings me to my final point, general. The real reason you are alienating your supporters at home and abroad is that you have not been demonstrating your effectiveness lately. Your approval ratings are down -- well, that's not so bad on its face, it is better to be feared than loved after all. Throwing your critics in jail should help. But you have to show the international community that you still have game.
My advice -- just go get bin Laden. You know basically where he is and who is helping him, how could you not? You also know the man is weak; he is way past his prime. You will suffer no repercussions from taking him down, no more than you have already. If you cut a deal with the tribes who are hiding him to stay out of their business in exchange for his head then they are likely to go for it, especially if you grease it with a large cash payment. Present them with the alternative of taking the gloves off and really cleaning house, Tamerlane style. Yes, they have their pashtunwali, their honour code, but they can find ways around that. Look how they ran the foreigners out of South Waziristan, not much hospitality there. Just incentivise the deal correctly and get the job done. Can you imagine the response from the US if you justified the state of emergency by bringing in Osama in an orange jumpsuit?
May your magnificence accept this little gift in the same spirit in which I send it -- and if you will read and consider it well, you will recognise in it my desire that you may attain that greatness which fortune and your great qualities promise. Oh, and as for Bhutto, watch your back.
The writer is director of the Intelligence Centre at Trinity Washington University and a senior fellow for national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council.
Courtesy: National Review
Friday, November 09, 2007
James S Robbins
Memo:
From: Niccolo Machiavelli
To: Pervez Musharraf
Subject: Nice work
General, I have been watching your career with great interest and admiration. Your most recent move of isolating your uncooperative Supreme Court and clamping down on various troublemakers has been well executed and will probably succeed in maintaining your power -- a goal which, as you know, is not just everything, it is the only thing.
I wanted to give you the benefit of my half millennium of observing the political scene. First let me caveat my praise by saying you never should have let matters come this far. This is the difference between true greatness and merely being extremely capable. The great man never needs to dig himself out a hole because he never winds up there. This is why I never bought the notion that Bill Clinton was a political genius. True, he could manoeuvre out of crises, but his troubles were always of his own making and always unnecessary. The clever man escapes conviction but the great man is never impeached. But while on the subject, I liked his "defending the constitution" slogan, keep it in your back pocket.
Your next move is to engineer something like you did in 1999 where you got the Supreme Court to justify your original coup under the aegis of the constitution. I know you have recently arrogated onto yourself the right to amend the constitution unilaterally, thus could put anything you want in there. But it makes much more sense to find a clever lawyer who can read into the existing document whatever you need. This is their business, let them do it. That way when you reopen the court with justices who have taken a loyalty oath to you, they can shut down a lot of criticism by making a favourable ruling with the document as it is. Probably your team will want to make reference to Article 41, Section 6: "The validity of the election of the president shall not be called in question by or before any court or other authority." Seems highly useful, since that was the issue to start with. If you absolutely must amend the document to justify your holding both political and military power, just copy from the Americans the idea that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military. It already exists in Article 258(a): "the supreme command of the armed forces shall vest in the president." Any lawyer worth his expense account can work out a solution for you with that.
I was highly amused at the fretting, mostly in the west, that you would use this emergency as an excuse not to hold elections. Who are these amateurs! Usually one creates conditions of this type in order to win elections, not cancel them. Think Reichstag Fire, 1933. But because they brought up the idea that the elections might be cancelled, you could look very magnanimous by going ahead with them. With the opposition in hiding and the media on a short leash it should be no problem getting the results you want. Use your own judgment on the timing, you have until mid-January at the latest but could have a snap election before that. You don't want to do it right away, but don't wait for the opposition to get its act together either.
You are going to have to suffer some rhetorical hits from the international community, primarily from the do-gooders in Europe and particularly the US who don't know how politics really works. Maybe they will start talking sanctions again. But they won't take serious action unless you do something completely out of control like mass executions of your political enemies. Sometimes that can be useful but I would counsel against it at this time. A few disappearances, sure, especially the Islamists, who will question that? But don't give your international critics an excuse. Keep things low key.
Anyway they may talk about sanctions, but would they really go ahead with them? Why would they, other than to make themselves feel virtuous? Pakistan was under sanctions of one form or another from the mid-1970s on and they didn't make a great deal of difference. If the west cuts military aid, go to China or Russia, they are good for it. If they go for economic sanctions, appeal to the Saudis and other Sunni states with oil windfalls, they will help out.
Furthermore you have cards of your own to play if they want to get rough. Afghanistan is the key here. President Bush needs to have stability in Afghanistan as a part of his legacy. He needs an entry in the "win" column. But as they say in Kabul, Pakistan sneezes and Afghanistan catches cold. You could do a great deal to destabilise the Karzai government. Most Afghan trade passes through Pakistan. NATO troops are supplied via Karachi. And repairing relations with the Taliban is always an option, at least covertly. I don't think Washington would be ready to trade Karzai's survival just to make some silly -- and by that I mean principled -- point about democracy.
There is also the nuclear card, this is a huge one. Washington will not want to throw away the progress made in counter-proliferation. The stakes are too high. Just hint that new sanctions will be answered by refusing to cooperate on nuclear matters with states involved in the Proliferation Security Initiative and they will back off quickly. Remember that the real issues and interests at play from the Americans' point of view have very little to do with democracy. After all, the sanctions originally imposed for the 1998 nuclear tests and the 1999 coup were dropped in the weeks after 9/11 -- with Pakistan still possessing the bomb and you still in power. The Americans are more than willing to make common cause with authoritarian leaders so long as they are effective.
And this brings me to my final point, general. The real reason you are alienating your supporters at home and abroad is that you have not been demonstrating your effectiveness lately. Your approval ratings are down -- well, that's not so bad on its face, it is better to be feared than loved after all. Throwing your critics in jail should help. But you have to show the international community that you still have game.
My advice -- just go get bin Laden. You know basically where he is and who is helping him, how could you not? You also know the man is weak; he is way past his prime. You will suffer no repercussions from taking him down, no more than you have already. If you cut a deal with the tribes who are hiding him to stay out of their business in exchange for his head then they are likely to go for it, especially if you grease it with a large cash payment. Present them with the alternative of taking the gloves off and really cleaning house, Tamerlane style. Yes, they have their pashtunwali, their honour code, but they can find ways around that. Look how they ran the foreigners out of South Waziristan, not much hospitality there. Just incentivise the deal correctly and get the job done. Can you imagine the response from the US if you justified the state of emergency by bringing in Osama in an orange jumpsuit?
May your magnificence accept this little gift in the same spirit in which I send it -- and if you will read and consider it well, you will recognise in it my desire that you may attain that greatness which fortune and your great qualities promise. Oh, and as for Bhutto, watch your back.
The writer is director of the Intelligence Centre at Trinity Washington University and a senior fellow for national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council.
Courtesy: National Review
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Pakistan's General Anarchy
Pakistan's General Anarchy By MOHAMMED HANIF
New York Times, November 8, 2007
THE power grab last weekend by Pakistan 's president, Pervez Musharraf , cleverly timed to stall the Western reaction for 48 hours, was essentially a coup against himself. Faced with increasing demands to give up his position as military chief and confront the complexities of civilian rule, General Musharraf decided to topple President Musharraf.
In an interview a couple of months ago, General Musharraf said that his army uniform was his second skin: "How can I possibly take it off?" His comment was dismissed at the time as old-school dictator-talk.
But a few weeks ago he submitted an affidavit in Pakistan's Supreme Court stating that if his election as president was not validated, he'd continue to work as the army chief — indefinitely. As the Supreme Court contemplated this ultimatum, General Musharraf got the jitters and decided to lock up most of the court's judges, and also to pull the plug on every independent news source in the country.
To understand the difference between the general and the president, one only has to look at the lists of people detained and released on the night of the coup. The first people to be arrested after the imposition of emergency were not the leaders of Pakistani Taliban , nor their sympathizers in Islamabad. There was no crackdown on sleeper cells that have orchestrated a wave of suicide bombings across Pakistan.
The people he has arrested in the last few days besides judges and lawyers have included peace activists, teachers, artists — basically the kind of people who have done more than anybody else to push ahead his avowed agenda of moving Pakistan away from religious militancy.
On the night he declared the emergency, General Musharraf released 28 Taliban prisoners; according to news reports, one was serving a sentence of 24 years for transporting two suicide bombers' jackets, the only fashion accessory allowed in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled areas. These are the kind of people who on their off days like to burn down video stores and harass barbers for giving shaves and head massages.
In what can be seen only as a reciprocal gesture, the Taliban released a group of army soldiers it had held hostage — according to the BBC, each soldier was given 500 rupees for good behavior.
Why do General Musharraf and his army feel a sense of kinship with the very people they are supposed to be fighting against? Why are he and his army scared of liberal lawyers and teachers but happy to deal with Islamist Pashtuns in the tribal areas?
The reasons can be traced back to the 1980s, when another military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, launched a broad campaign to Islamicize Pakistani society and the armed forces in particular. Back then, I was a cadet at Pakistan's Air Force Academy , where I witnessed, along with hundreds of other aghast cadets, a remarkable scene in which a new recruit, out of religious conviction, refused to shave his beard. (Like most military training institutes in the world, the academy's first right of passage was to turn the civilian recruits into clean-shaven jarheads.)
The issue was eventually referred to the Army high command in Islamabad, and as a result procedures for training institutes were amended — the boy was allowed to keep his beard and wear his uniform. The academy barber never recovered from the shock.
Within months there were other changes: evenings socializing to music and mocktails were replaced by Koran study sessions. Buses were provided for cadets who wanted to attend civilian religious congregations. Within months, our rather depressing but secular academy was turned into a zealous, thriving madrassa where missing your daily prayers was a crime far worse than missing the morning drill.
It is this crop of military officers that now runs the country. General Musharraf heads this army, and is very reluctant to let go.
For those who have never had to live under his regime, the general/president can come across as a rakish, daredevil figure. His résumé is impressive: here's a man who can manage the frontline of the Western world's war on terrorism, get rid of prime ministers at will, force his political opponents into exile and still find the time to write an autobiography. But ask the lawyers, judges, arts teachers and students behind bars about him, and one will find out he is your garden-variety dictator who, after having spent eight years in power, is asking why can't he continue for another eight.
General Musharraf's bond with his troops is not just ideological. Under his command Pakistan's armed forces have become a hugely profitable empire. It's the nation's pre-eminent real estate dealer, it dominates the breakfast-cereal market, it runs banks and bakeries. Only last month Pakistan's Navy, in an audacious move, set up a barbecue business on the banks of the Indus River about 400 miles away from the Arabian Sea it's supposed to protect.
It's a happy marriage between God and greed.
For now, the general's weekend gamble seems to have paid off. From Washington and the European Union he heard regrets but no condemnation with teeth — exactly what he counted on.
General Musharraf has always tried to cultivate an impression in the West that he is the only one holding the country together, that after him we can only expect anarchy. But in a country where arts teachers and lawyers are behind bars and suicide bombers are allowed to go free, we definitely need to redefine anarchy.
Mohammed Hanif, the head of the BBC's Urdu Service, is the author of the forthcoming novel "A Case of Exploding Mangoes."
New York Times, November 8, 2007
THE power grab last weekend by Pakistan 's president, Pervez Musharraf , cleverly timed to stall the Western reaction for 48 hours, was essentially a coup against himself. Faced with increasing demands to give up his position as military chief and confront the complexities of civilian rule, General Musharraf decided to topple President Musharraf.
In an interview a couple of months ago, General Musharraf said that his army uniform was his second skin: "How can I possibly take it off?" His comment was dismissed at the time as old-school dictator-talk.
But a few weeks ago he submitted an affidavit in Pakistan's Supreme Court stating that if his election as president was not validated, he'd continue to work as the army chief — indefinitely. As the Supreme Court contemplated this ultimatum, General Musharraf got the jitters and decided to lock up most of the court's judges, and also to pull the plug on every independent news source in the country.
To understand the difference between the general and the president, one only has to look at the lists of people detained and released on the night of the coup. The first people to be arrested after the imposition of emergency were not the leaders of Pakistani Taliban , nor their sympathizers in Islamabad. There was no crackdown on sleeper cells that have orchestrated a wave of suicide bombings across Pakistan.
The people he has arrested in the last few days besides judges and lawyers have included peace activists, teachers, artists — basically the kind of people who have done more than anybody else to push ahead his avowed agenda of moving Pakistan away from religious militancy.
On the night he declared the emergency, General Musharraf released 28 Taliban prisoners; according to news reports, one was serving a sentence of 24 years for transporting two suicide bombers' jackets, the only fashion accessory allowed in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled areas. These are the kind of people who on their off days like to burn down video stores and harass barbers for giving shaves and head massages.
In what can be seen only as a reciprocal gesture, the Taliban released a group of army soldiers it had held hostage — according to the BBC, each soldier was given 500 rupees for good behavior.
Why do General Musharraf and his army feel a sense of kinship with the very people they are supposed to be fighting against? Why are he and his army scared of liberal lawyers and teachers but happy to deal with Islamist Pashtuns in the tribal areas?
The reasons can be traced back to the 1980s, when another military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, launched a broad campaign to Islamicize Pakistani society and the armed forces in particular. Back then, I was a cadet at Pakistan's Air Force Academy , where I witnessed, along with hundreds of other aghast cadets, a remarkable scene in which a new recruit, out of religious conviction, refused to shave his beard. (Like most military training institutes in the world, the academy's first right of passage was to turn the civilian recruits into clean-shaven jarheads.)
The issue was eventually referred to the Army high command in Islamabad, and as a result procedures for training institutes were amended — the boy was allowed to keep his beard and wear his uniform. The academy barber never recovered from the shock.
Within months there were other changes: evenings socializing to music and mocktails were replaced by Koran study sessions. Buses were provided for cadets who wanted to attend civilian religious congregations. Within months, our rather depressing but secular academy was turned into a zealous, thriving madrassa where missing your daily prayers was a crime far worse than missing the morning drill.
It is this crop of military officers that now runs the country. General Musharraf heads this army, and is very reluctant to let go.
For those who have never had to live under his regime, the general/president can come across as a rakish, daredevil figure. His résumé is impressive: here's a man who can manage the frontline of the Western world's war on terrorism, get rid of prime ministers at will, force his political opponents into exile and still find the time to write an autobiography. But ask the lawyers, judges, arts teachers and students behind bars about him, and one will find out he is your garden-variety dictator who, after having spent eight years in power, is asking why can't he continue for another eight.
General Musharraf's bond with his troops is not just ideological. Under his command Pakistan's armed forces have become a hugely profitable empire. It's the nation's pre-eminent real estate dealer, it dominates the breakfast-cereal market, it runs banks and bakeries. Only last month Pakistan's Navy, in an audacious move, set up a barbecue business on the banks of the Indus River about 400 miles away from the Arabian Sea it's supposed to protect.
It's a happy marriage between God and greed.
For now, the general's weekend gamble seems to have paid off. From Washington and the European Union he heard regrets but no condemnation with teeth — exactly what he counted on.
General Musharraf has always tried to cultivate an impression in the West that he is the only one holding the country together, that after him we can only expect anarchy. But in a country where arts teachers and lawyers are behind bars and suicide bombers are allowed to go free, we definitely need to redefine anarchy.
Mohammed Hanif, the head of the BBC's Urdu Service, is the author of the forthcoming novel "A Case of Exploding Mangoes."
Press in Chains and the Grand Illusion
Bush and Musharraf's grand illusion
Democracy for Pakistan was never the deal -- and as Musharraf's latest power grab throws his nation into turmoil, Bush will gladly go along.
By Juan Cole: Salon.com
Nov. 06, 2007 | In the fall of 1999, as he campaigned for the presidency, George W. Bush was asked by a reporter to name the leader of Pakistan. Bush could not. He famously replied: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected -- not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country, and I think that's good news for the subcontinent." Although Bush didn't know Gen. Pervez Musharraf's name and was confused as to how he got into office, the soon-to-be American president was sanguine about the anti-democratic developments in Pakistan.
More than seven years later, Bush's illusions about Musharraf -- and any illusion of democracy in Pakistan -- have been shattered by the dictator's declaration of a state of emergency. Tantamount to a coup, Musharraf's actions on Saturday have not only thrown Pakistan into turmoil but have also revealed the hypocrisy of Bush's foreign policy, including the proclaimed goal of fostering freedom and the rule of law in the Muslim world.
At a press conference on Monday, Bush said of the weekend coup, "We expect there to be elections as soon as possible." But while Bush admitted that Musharraf's actions would "undermine democracy," he insisted that the general is "a strong fighter" in the war on terror. That dual message was accompanied by the American president tepidly declining to say what he would do if Musharraf did not move toward elections. Also revealing was the fact that Bush had sent the weakest member of his team, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, out to warn Musharraf against the coup, indicating how little he was in reality worried about it. If he had been deeply anxious, he would have called the general himself. Many observers are viewing Musharraf's coup as a major setback for Bush's policy, but in fact it changes almost nothing.
Although the United States has given some $11 billion to Pakistan (mostly in military aid) since 2001, Bush needs Musharraf more than Musharraf needs the United States. The war in Afghanistan is a key reason: A major proportion of the war materiel for the 20,000 U.S. troops, and additional 20,000 NATO troops, in Afghanistan (a landlocked country) goes through Pakistan. U.S., British and Canadian troops on the front lines fighting a Taliban resurgence could be endangered if Pakistan were to cut off the flow of those supplies. On Monday, Rice appeared to back off from earlier warnings to Pakistan that a coup would jeopardize U.S. aid, saying that she doubted cooperation on the war on terror would be affected by Musharraf's actions.
For complete article, click here
Appeal From Asma Jahangir
Appeal for support to lawyers and judges in Pakistan
I am fortunate to be under house arrest while my colleagues are suffering. The Musharaf government has declared martial law to settle scores with lawyers and judges. While the terrorists remain on the loose and continue to occupy more space in Pakistan , senior lawyers are being tortured.
The civil society of Pakistan urges bar associations all over the world to mobilize public opinion in favor of the judges and lawyers in Pakistan . A large number of judges of superior courts are under arrest. Thousands of lawyers are imprisoned, beaten and tortured.
In particular the cases of Muneer A Malik, Aitzaz Ahsan, Tariq Mahmood and Ali Ahmed Kurd are serious. Muneer A Malik, the former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and leader of the lawyers’ movement has been shifted to the notorious Attack Fort. He is being tortured and is under the custody of the military intelligence. Tariq Mahmood, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, was imprisoned in Adiala jail. No one was allowed to see him and it is reported that he has been shifted to an unknown place. Mr. Ali Ahmed Kurd, former Vice Chair of the Pakistan Bar Council is in the custody of military intelligence and being kept at an undisclosed place. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, President of the Supreme Court Bar is being kept in Adiayala jail in solitary confinement.
Representatives of bar associations should approach their governments to pressure the government of Pakistan to release all lawyers and judges and immediately provide access to Muneer A Malik, Tariq Mahmood, Ali Ahmed Kurd and Aitzaz Ahsan. The bars are also urged to hold press conferences in their country and express their solidarity with the lawyers of Pakistan who are struggling to establish the rule of law.
Asma Jahngir
Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan
Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto's Long March Threat, Bush's Call to Musharraf and Musharraf's Partial Acceptance of Demands
Picture: BBC
Benazir calls for reinstatement of judges: Long march unless Musharraf backs down By Amir Wasim: Dawn, November 8, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Nov 7: Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto on Wednesday threatened President Gen Pervez Musharraf with a long march next week if he did not revoke emergency rule and reinstate the sacked judges of the superior courts.
Ms Bhutto announced the decision of holding the march from Lahore to Islamabad during a news conference after presiding over a meeting of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy at PPP’s central secretariat.
It was the first time that the PPP chief had talked about the effect of the proclamation of emergency on the judiciary in categorical terms. Earlier she had only been condemning the government’s decision to curb fundamental rights.
In reply to a question whether she wanted to see deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry back in his office, she said: “After the Constitution is restored, all judges will automatically be restored”.
Ms Bhutto recalled that while announcing imposition of emergency, Gen Musharraf had accused the judges of releasing Lal Masjid militants. On the other hand, she said, she had received a message from a detained judge that the two judges who had ordered the release of the militants had already taken oath under the Provisional Constitution Order.
She called for the immediate release of all arrested persons, including judges, lawyers and political activists. She also condemned the curbs on the media.
The former prime minister said if Gen Musharraf did not accept her demands by Friday, she would go to Lahore and lead a march on the federal capital on Nov 13.
Ms Bhutto also reiterated her previous demands of holding elections in January and repeal of a ban on twice-elected prime minister and the president’s powers to dismiss the assemblies.
She said if Gen Musharraf wanted a peaceful transition to democracy, he would have to fulfil the commitment he had made to her party, the nation, international community and the Supreme Court that he would quit the office of the army chief by Nov 15 and announce the election schedule.
“The ball is now in the government’s court. If Gen Musharraf wants to open the door for negotiations, he must restore the Constitution, retire as chief of army staff and stick to the schedule of holding elections,” she said. Minutes later her party workers were baton-charged and tear-gassed outside the Parliament House during a demonstration.
She also gave a call to her party workers and the people of Pakistan to come out on streets and court arrest. “I appeal to the people of Pakistan to come out in groups of three and four with Pakistani flags or party flags or white flags and court arrest,” she said. “We are not afraid of jails. We will bring out so many people that the regime will find it difficult to put them in jails.”
The PPP chairperson said that her party could no longer trust the government after the imposition of “martial law”. She resolved to hold a public meeting at Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi on Friday despite a ban. “I appeal to the people to reach Liaquat Bagh to carry out the struggle with courage.”
The former prime minister alleged that the government had launched a crackdown on the PPP. She feared that she and other key party leaders could also be arrested.
She requested all the other opposition parties to join the ARD’s protest movement. “I ask all political parties to join me in the long march which will end in a sit-in in Islamabad,” she said.
Ms Bhutto said she was in contact with the leaders of other parties and hopefully they would join the protest.
The ARD was also planning to convene a multi-party conference to devise a joint strategy against the imposition of emergency, the PPP chief told journalists.
In reply to a question, Ms Bhutto said that her party was engaged in dialogue for a peaceful transition to democracy, but her talks with Musharraf reached “deadlock” after he imposed the emergency rule. “Now we find ourselves back in a dictatorship,” she said, adding that no meeting between her and Gen Musharraf had been scheduled.
In reply to another question, she said she had decided to lead the movement despite dangers to her life as the “danger to Pakistan’s survival is much greater.”
She reiterated her demand of calling foreign forensic experts to conduct a probe into the Oct 18 Karachi blasts. She alleged that those who had planned the attack on her rally had used a baby girl to implement their plan. She categorically rejected the government’s stand that it was a suicide attack.
Earlier, PPP secretary general Jahangir Badr announced that Ms Bhutto had been elected chairperson of the ARD. Makhdoom Amin Fahim would be its president.
Hold early polls, quit Army post, Bush tells Musharraf
The News, November 7, 2007
WASHINGTON: President George W Bush personally told President Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday that he must hold parliamentary elections and relinquish his post as head of his country's army.
"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," Bush said, describing a telephone call with Musharraf. "I had a very frank discussion with him." Bush disclosed the call to Musharraf during an appearance with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at Mount Vernon, the Virginia home of the first US president, George Washington.
Musharraf says Pakistan election to be held by mid-February
The Associated Press, November 8, 2007
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Pakistan's elections will he held by mid-February, state media quoted President Gen. Pervez Musharraf as saying on Thursday, indicating the country's state of emergency will be short-lived.
Musharraf is under growing pressure from the United States and his domestic opponents to end the emergency declared Saturday and hold elections in January, as originally planned.
State-run Pakistan television flashed the news that Musharraf had announced that the elections would be delayed by not more than one month after a meeting of his National Security Council.
For Latest Developments and Analysis on the Situation, see:
U.S. official: Pakistan's Musharraf 'indispensable' ally: CNN
Nawaz Asks West to Abandon Musharraf: Dawn
Gathering Storm: New York Times
In Pakistan, the Army is Key By Shuja Nawaz: Boston Globe, November 7, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Demands of Pakistan's Solidarity By Nasim Zehra
Demands of Pakistan's solidarity By Nasim Zehra
The News, November 07, 2007
The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst
The writing is on the wall. At this juncture the numbers may not be large but public rejection and resistance to General Pervez Musharraf's imposition of martial law is growing. Despite the unrelenting crackdown by the State machinery to prevent all forms of protest public defiance is on the rise. The more the State applies coercive force the more it accentuates public anger. They know its 'dictatorship on a roll.' That must be stopped at all costs. It is now just basic cause and effect cycle that is at work. The otherwise docile peaceful educated middle class is bracing itself to face the increasing State repression. If the March 9 dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was a trigger for political activism for the lawyer community, the November 3 imposition of technical martial law is the trigger for the a much wider scale of political activism.
No matter what the Musharraf regime may call the November 3 action, it is martial law. Violating the constitutional process used for imposition of the PCO, Pakistan's army chief chose to declare emergency himself. The calculation must have been that the use of the term 'emergency' and use of the civilian law enforcement forces would dilute international opposition to his move to take Pakistan off the democratic path. Also by giving martial law a civilian facade General Musharraf and his advisors may have hoped to keep the army leadership out of the 'firing line' of public resentment. But Pakistanis are hardened realists. With a decade of free media, the growing realization that unaccountable power is at the core of the dysfunctional state and of continuing political turmoil and violence, their political senses cannot be blunted by facades and propaganda.
We cannot let our country be at the mercy of an individual's whims. The terrorism excuse for imposing martial law would have been amusing had it not been actually adversely affecting the future of a 160 million-strong nuclear-armed nation with tremendous strategic significance and unlimited economic potential. Equally preposterous is the argument that the judiciary's attitude made martial law inevitable.
General Musharraf said, while announcing suspending the Constitution, that a series of decisions during the past year have set terrorists free, demoralized law enforcement officials and undermined the government. Incase the government had problems it could have filed petitions against the judgments. But the fact is that the protesting general Musharraf himself has administered fresh oath under the PCO to two of the three-judge bench that had ruled against the government and in favor of the Lal Masjid accused. Also the regime's decision reportedly to free two dozen militants in exchange for over 100 security men drives holes in its arguments against the judiciary for ordering the release of individuals who the regime claimed undermined national security. Clearly if the state could find justification to release those it claims were militant, the judiciary has reason to release those against whom the state could not provide sufficient evidence.
But the strongest defense of the judiciary on the anti-terrorism question was that indeed it was emerging as an institution which seemed to be striking a balance between the agencies rounding up suspects without sufficient evidence and those who argued that all the government's actions in the tribal areas etc were illegal and only targeting innocents. But clearly the government failed to understand these nuances, which indeed are necessary to pursue any viable approach to ensuring return of internal security.
The motivating fear was that the judiciary will rule General Musharraf's candidacy unconstitutional. The truth is that for weeks now there was panic in the ranks of the regime. Various strategies to rein in the judiciary, ranging from civil administration's disobedience against the judiciary to reducing the tenure of Supreme Court judges to forcing them to take fresh oath under the PCO, were being discussed. The irony is that less facts and more 'unholy fears' of what the judiciary may do to his candidature, is what prompted the illogical and illegal move of Nov. 3.
Musharraf's decision was largely but not unanimously supported. The presidential camp was divided as one of General Musharraf's key aides, chief of staff Lieutenant-General (retired) Javed Hamid and National Security Council adviser Tariq Aziz vehemently opposed the move. The vice-chief remained neutral while the intelligence chiefs reportedly sought "decisive leadership" from their army chief. Within his civilian political camp of the nearly 25 attending the Oct. 31 meeting at the prime minister's house, only three opposed the option of imposition of emergency. But none of the three took strong action like resigning from the ruling party. The prime minister, the PML-Q president and the Punjab chief minister were solidly behind the decision to impose what is technically martial law. General Musharraf has after all provided these three men political oxygen. At least the two of them have banked on him for prime ministership in 2008. Even the CENTCOM chief and the US ambassador during their November 2 meeting with Musharraf opposed his decision to impose emergency.
While internal resistance continues some Pakistanis are hoping that Washington will facilitate the end of the martial law. The US president has already urged him to end the emergency, shed off his uniform as soon as possible and hold elections. Washington still hopes general Musharraf will retrace his steps lead Pakistan's transition and remain their ally. All the phone calls are urging him to back track. Obviously Washington's paramount concerns regarding Pakistan remain linked to Pakistan army's ability to play an effective role in fighting al-Qaeda within Pakistan and internationally. Democracy is of concern only insofar as it helps or hinders the Pakistan army to play that role. Now that in the post-March period even a blind bat can also recognize that without democracy political turmoil in Pakistan will only augment.
Washington is hoping General Musharraf can manage political recovery. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates candidly spelt the bottom-line on the Bush administration's post --November Pakistan policy. "We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts," he said on November 5. Until now Washington has viewed Musharraf as the centrepiece of its international 'war on terrorism.' The Bush administration with foreign policy disasters on its hands, is desperately trying to save/ salvage from its Pakistan's policy. As a US policy analyst recently wrote: "They are on the Musharraf tiger, they're not going to try to steer it, the policy is one of hope that Benazir and Musharraf will do a deal." After November 3, Benazir's political survival will not allow her to support general Musharraf's politics.
Given post-November 3 developments, General Musharraf's eligibility as the one to lead the transition is over. He has demonstrated time and again that he will deal at will, any potential challenge to his authority and position. He throws the Constitution out at will, breaks his promises at will, junks citizens' rights at will and rubbishes the media at will. He insists he does all this in the 'national interest'. But the season for dictatorship in Pakistan is over. And permanently. We now know through repeated blundering decisions by military and civilian rulers that collective wisdom which is exercised within the discipline of the Constitutional framework can lead us forward.
Meanwhile whatever Washington and others may be planning, as always, the task of political reform within Pakistan is primarily ours. There was a movement we launched in the post-March era, the movement for rule of law and for Constitutional democracy. We cannot let the movement, however nascent demanding rule of law be rolled back. And neither can we let what we have rolled back of unilateralism in the exercise of power roll forward.
For Pakistanis the ultimate is at stake -- Pakistan's solidarity. The imposition of this technical martial law will further weaken the State institutions especially civil and military law enforcement and security institutions. Those in power who are clearly blinded either by the urge to stay in power or by 'good intentions', are unable to face this obvious fact. It is time that the regime's blind men must go. We need to face our challenges with open eyes.
What next? The only way forward towards a democratic, secure and stable Pakistan is to adopt the following seven steps immediately: 1. Immediate restoration of the Constitution. 2. Immediate reinstatement of all the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court judges. 3. Reopening of all independent TV channels. 4. Dissolution of all the assemblies as per schedule in November and setting up of a credible non-controversial interim government. 5. A general amnesty and return of all political leaders including Baloch leaders to Pakistan. 6. Holding of an All-Parties Conference with all mainstream political leaders on a two-point agenda; to agree on a code of conduct to hold fair and free and to agree on a political cum security strategy to end growing internal violence and terrorism. 7. Holding of general elections no later than February 2007. Email: nasimzehra@hotmail.com
The News, November 07, 2007
The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst
The writing is on the wall. At this juncture the numbers may not be large but public rejection and resistance to General Pervez Musharraf's imposition of martial law is growing. Despite the unrelenting crackdown by the State machinery to prevent all forms of protest public defiance is on the rise. The more the State applies coercive force the more it accentuates public anger. They know its 'dictatorship on a roll.' That must be stopped at all costs. It is now just basic cause and effect cycle that is at work. The otherwise docile peaceful educated middle class is bracing itself to face the increasing State repression. If the March 9 dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was a trigger for political activism for the lawyer community, the November 3 imposition of technical martial law is the trigger for the a much wider scale of political activism.
No matter what the Musharraf regime may call the November 3 action, it is martial law. Violating the constitutional process used for imposition of the PCO, Pakistan's army chief chose to declare emergency himself. The calculation must have been that the use of the term 'emergency' and use of the civilian law enforcement forces would dilute international opposition to his move to take Pakistan off the democratic path. Also by giving martial law a civilian facade General Musharraf and his advisors may have hoped to keep the army leadership out of the 'firing line' of public resentment. But Pakistanis are hardened realists. With a decade of free media, the growing realization that unaccountable power is at the core of the dysfunctional state and of continuing political turmoil and violence, their political senses cannot be blunted by facades and propaganda.
We cannot let our country be at the mercy of an individual's whims. The terrorism excuse for imposing martial law would have been amusing had it not been actually adversely affecting the future of a 160 million-strong nuclear-armed nation with tremendous strategic significance and unlimited economic potential. Equally preposterous is the argument that the judiciary's attitude made martial law inevitable.
General Musharraf said, while announcing suspending the Constitution, that a series of decisions during the past year have set terrorists free, demoralized law enforcement officials and undermined the government. Incase the government had problems it could have filed petitions against the judgments. But the fact is that the protesting general Musharraf himself has administered fresh oath under the PCO to two of the three-judge bench that had ruled against the government and in favor of the Lal Masjid accused. Also the regime's decision reportedly to free two dozen militants in exchange for over 100 security men drives holes in its arguments against the judiciary for ordering the release of individuals who the regime claimed undermined national security. Clearly if the state could find justification to release those it claims were militant, the judiciary has reason to release those against whom the state could not provide sufficient evidence.
But the strongest defense of the judiciary on the anti-terrorism question was that indeed it was emerging as an institution which seemed to be striking a balance between the agencies rounding up suspects without sufficient evidence and those who argued that all the government's actions in the tribal areas etc were illegal and only targeting innocents. But clearly the government failed to understand these nuances, which indeed are necessary to pursue any viable approach to ensuring return of internal security.
The motivating fear was that the judiciary will rule General Musharraf's candidacy unconstitutional. The truth is that for weeks now there was panic in the ranks of the regime. Various strategies to rein in the judiciary, ranging from civil administration's disobedience against the judiciary to reducing the tenure of Supreme Court judges to forcing them to take fresh oath under the PCO, were being discussed. The irony is that less facts and more 'unholy fears' of what the judiciary may do to his candidature, is what prompted the illogical and illegal move of Nov. 3.
Musharraf's decision was largely but not unanimously supported. The presidential camp was divided as one of General Musharraf's key aides, chief of staff Lieutenant-General (retired) Javed Hamid and National Security Council adviser Tariq Aziz vehemently opposed the move. The vice-chief remained neutral while the intelligence chiefs reportedly sought "decisive leadership" from their army chief. Within his civilian political camp of the nearly 25 attending the Oct. 31 meeting at the prime minister's house, only three opposed the option of imposition of emergency. But none of the three took strong action like resigning from the ruling party. The prime minister, the PML-Q president and the Punjab chief minister were solidly behind the decision to impose what is technically martial law. General Musharraf has after all provided these three men political oxygen. At least the two of them have banked on him for prime ministership in 2008. Even the CENTCOM chief and the US ambassador during their November 2 meeting with Musharraf opposed his decision to impose emergency.
While internal resistance continues some Pakistanis are hoping that Washington will facilitate the end of the martial law. The US president has already urged him to end the emergency, shed off his uniform as soon as possible and hold elections. Washington still hopes general Musharraf will retrace his steps lead Pakistan's transition and remain their ally. All the phone calls are urging him to back track. Obviously Washington's paramount concerns regarding Pakistan remain linked to Pakistan army's ability to play an effective role in fighting al-Qaeda within Pakistan and internationally. Democracy is of concern only insofar as it helps or hinders the Pakistan army to play that role. Now that in the post-March period even a blind bat can also recognize that without democracy political turmoil in Pakistan will only augment.
Washington is hoping General Musharraf can manage political recovery. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates candidly spelt the bottom-line on the Bush administration's post --November Pakistan policy. "We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts," he said on November 5. Until now Washington has viewed Musharraf as the centrepiece of its international 'war on terrorism.' The Bush administration with foreign policy disasters on its hands, is desperately trying to save/ salvage from its Pakistan's policy. As a US policy analyst recently wrote: "They are on the Musharraf tiger, they're not going to try to steer it, the policy is one of hope that Benazir and Musharraf will do a deal." After November 3, Benazir's political survival will not allow her to support general Musharraf's politics.
Given post-November 3 developments, General Musharraf's eligibility as the one to lead the transition is over. He has demonstrated time and again that he will deal at will, any potential challenge to his authority and position. He throws the Constitution out at will, breaks his promises at will, junks citizens' rights at will and rubbishes the media at will. He insists he does all this in the 'national interest'. But the season for dictatorship in Pakistan is over. And permanently. We now know through repeated blundering decisions by military and civilian rulers that collective wisdom which is exercised within the discipline of the Constitutional framework can lead us forward.
Meanwhile whatever Washington and others may be planning, as always, the task of political reform within Pakistan is primarily ours. There was a movement we launched in the post-March era, the movement for rule of law and for Constitutional democracy. We cannot let the movement, however nascent demanding rule of law be rolled back. And neither can we let what we have rolled back of unilateralism in the exercise of power roll forward.
For Pakistanis the ultimate is at stake -- Pakistan's solidarity. The imposition of this technical martial law will further weaken the State institutions especially civil and military law enforcement and security institutions. Those in power who are clearly blinded either by the urge to stay in power or by 'good intentions', are unable to face this obvious fact. It is time that the regime's blind men must go. We need to face our challenges with open eyes.
What next? The only way forward towards a democratic, secure and stable Pakistan is to adopt the following seven steps immediately: 1. Immediate restoration of the Constitution. 2. Immediate reinstatement of all the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court judges. 3. Reopening of all independent TV channels. 4. Dissolution of all the assemblies as per schedule in November and setting up of a credible non-controversial interim government. 5. A general amnesty and return of all political leaders including Baloch leaders to Pakistan. 6. Holding of an All-Parties Conference with all mainstream political leaders on a two-point agenda; to agree on a code of conduct to hold fair and free and to agree on a political cum security strategy to end growing internal violence and terrorism. 7. Holding of general elections no later than February 2007. Email: nasimzehra@hotmail.com
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Mushararf's Last Act?
Pervez out of order
Pakistani strongman suspends constitution
By Hassan Abbas: Boston Herald, November 6, 2007: The Japan Times, November 8, 2007; The Daily Star, Lebanon, November 7, 2007; Miami Herald, November 8, 2007; Chicago Tribune, November 8, 2007
Desperate to hold onto power, Pervez Musharraf has discarded Pakistan’s constitutional framework and declared a state of emergency. His goal? To stifle the independent judiciary and free media.
Artfully, though shamelessly, he has tried to sell this action as an effort to bring about stability and help fight the war on terror more effectively. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Pakistan’s history is any indicator, his decision to impose martial law may prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Musharraf appeared on the national scene on Oct. 12, 1999, when he ousted an elected government and announced an ambitious nation-building project. Many Pakistanis, disillusioned with Pakistan’s political class, remained mute, thinking that he might deliver.
The 9/11 attacks on America brought Musharraf into the international limelight as he agreed to ditch the Taliban and support the United States-led war on terror.
Although the U.S. viewed Musharraf as an agent of change, he has never achieved domestic legitimacy, and his policies were seen as rife with contradictions. For example, he made alliances with Islamist political forces (who in 2004 voted for constitutional changes legitimizing his position and actions). At the same time, he sidelined moderate political leaders.
Last March, Musharraf took his boldest step, removing the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhry. To the surprise of many, hundreds of thousands of ordinary people demanded the rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution, emboldening the judiciary and changing the country’s political dynamic. In a ruling that Musharraf had little choice but to accept, the Supreme Court itself reinstated the chief justice in July.
Subsequently, the energized judiciary continued ruling against government decisions. Government officials were held accountable for actions that were usually beyond the reach of the law, ranging from brutal beatings of journalists, to illegal confinement for national security.
Musharraf and his allies tried to adjust to this new reality, but their patience ran out when the Supreme Court took up petitions against Musharraf’s decision to run for president. According to the constitution (promulgated in 1973 by an elected parliament), a serving military official cannot run for an elected office. While Musharraf announced that he would leave his military position if he was elected president, his track record of reneging on his promises haunted the judiciary.
Legally cornered, Musharraf has now decided to abandon constitutionality, removing the leading judges of the Supreme Court and provincial high courts and putting curbs on the media. Lawyers, human rights activists and political leaders have since been arrested.
There is widespread public resentment in response to these moves. Rather than taking responsibility for the deteriorating security situation (as evidenced by suicide bomb attacks) and the increasing Talibanization of the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, Musharraf has blamed the judiciary and media.
Musharraf’s popular support is at its lowest ebb. Pakistan’s armed forces - repeated targets of suicide bombers - have become demoralized. It is difficult to imagine them standing with Musharraf should civil conflict erupt. Nor can a weak, embattled, Musharraf be expected to fight Islamic militancy effectively or bring political stability to Pakistan.
Opposition political parties are drawing closer together, and human rights bodies, media associations and lawyers’ organizations are expected to defy the emergency orders. Terrorists may also benefit by attacking a preoccupied army and political forces aligned with Musharraf. In the event of sustained protests and potential violence, top military commanders may decide to send Musharraf home - a decision that would not be unprecedenteed in Pakistan’s chronically turbulent history.
Hassan Abbas served in the administrations of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Pervez Musharraf. He is a research fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and author of “Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army and America's War on Terror".
Message from Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry
Statement of the hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry November 05,2007:
This statement is being issued on behalf of the Hon.Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr.Justice IftikharMohammad Chaudhry.
"Whole judiciary of Pakistan is struggling for supremacy of the constitution. The PCO issued by General Musharraf has been declared as a step to interfere in the independence of judiciary, therefore restraining order against it has been issued on 3rd november after it's issuance by a judicial order passed by the 7 member bench of the Supreme Court which is holding the field and has to be respected/enforced. Any action after passing of this order is illegal taken by the government including administering oath to judges of supreme court and high courts as well as detention of lawyers including Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan President SCBA and good numbers of lawyers and members of civil society because their only sin is that they opposed the emergency and pco.
Judiciary as a whole condemns terrorism and allegation of the government regarding this is baseless and unfounded.About 12-13 Judges of Supreme court of Pakistan have refused to take oath under Pco and few Judges including their Chief Justices are under house arrest(arrest for all purposes). On 5th of november morning Judges of the supreme court were stopped to move out as they wanted to go to the supreme court to attend their Judicial duty including hearing of a case by full court regarding pco in which restraining order has
been passed.This order has been passed on an application filed a day earlier in the case of Justice (retd) Wajih-ud-din (candidate for the post of President) versus President of Pakistan and fedaration of Pakistan by Brrister Aitzaz Ahsan apprehending that government by adopting extra constitutional measures may change the bench.
This order has been passed on judicial side and is to be imposed/enforced by all and sundry. Nobody can defy this order, who defy the same he defy the constitution which takes care under article 6 of the constitution. Lawyers through their representatives have informed me that Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan has been kept in solitary confinement in Adiala jail and some of the officers/officials have manhandled him without any reason. He is not bieng provided basic amenities. Under the rules his lawyers and family members can meet with him but this right has been denied in as much as his wife is also apprehending her arrest.
In the end I would say that me and all the hon'ble judges of the supreme court were exercising our jurisdiction in accordance with law and constitution and are determined to do so in the future"
Monday, November 05, 2007
Challenging Military Dictatorship: Lawyers again on the frontlines
Picture: NYT; November 6, 2007
See:
Washington's Pakistan Problem: Spiegel Online - November 6, 2007
Amid Protests, U.S. to Review Aid to Pakistan: NPR; November 6, 2007
POLITICS-PAKISTAN: 'Judicial Activism' Triggered Emergency: Analysis by Beena Sarwar; IPS, November 6, 2007
Pakistan Attempts to Crush Protests by Lawyers: New york Times, November 6, 2007
Fight against Militancy: By Kaiser Bengali, Daw, November 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)