Naya Saal

A Hope For New Year

NRO,s Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction)
Present
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk
Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali
Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali
Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain
Mr. Justice Rahmat Hussain Jafferi
Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani
CONSTITUTION PETITION NOS. 76 TO 80 OF 2007 & 59/2009,
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1094 OF 2009
(On appeal from the order dated 15.1.2009 passed
by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in
Const.P.No.355 of 2008)
AND
HRC NOS.14328-P TO 14331-P & 15082-P OF 2009
Dr. Mobashir Hassan (Const.P.76/07)
Roedad Khan (Const. P.77/07)
Qazi Hussain Ahmad (Const.P.78/07)
Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (Const.P.79/07)
Muhammad Tariq Asad (Const.P.80/07)
Syed Feroz Shah Gillani (Const.P.59/09)
Fazal Ahmad Jat (C.A.1094/09)
Shaukat Ali (H.R.C.14328-P/09)
Doraiz (H.R.C.14329-P/09)
Zulqar nain Shahzad (H.R.C.14330-P/09)
Abid Hussain (H.R.C.14331-P/09)
Manzoor Ahmad (H.R.C.15082-P/09)
… … … Petitioners.
Versus
Federation of Pakistan, etc.
… … … Respondents.

Dates of hearing : 07th -10th & 14th - 16th December, 2009.
O R D E R
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ. – The above titled
Constitution Petitions have been filed under Article 184(3) of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Constitution’] challenging the constitutionality of the National
Reconciliation Ordinance (No.LX) 2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
NRO’], while HR cases and Civil Appeal, by leave of the Court, have been
filed by the applicants/appellant for extension of benefit of the NRO to
them.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
2. Succinctly stating the facts, giving rise to instant proceedings, are that
on 5th October, 2007, the President of Pakistan, in purported exercise of
powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 89 of the Constitution, issued the
NRO, whereby, certain amendments have been made in the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898, the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the
National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as “the
NAB Ordinance”]. By means of Section 2 of the NRO, Section 494 of
Cr.P.C. has been amended. Likewise, vide Section 3 of the NRO, Section
39 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 has been amended.
Similarly, Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the NRO amended Sections 18, 24 and 31A
of the NAB Ordinance, respectively, whereas by means of Section 7 of the
NRO, Section 33F has been inserted in the NAB Ordinance.
3. The NRO came under challenge, as stated above, before this Court,
through listed petitions. These petitions came up for hearing before the
Court on 12th October, 2007 when after hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Court proceeded to issue notices to the respondents as well
as to Attorney General for Pakistan, for a date in office after three weeks,
while making the following observation:-
“however, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms that
any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public
office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed petitions
and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any protection of
the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the impugned
Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court conclude that
the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these provisions are
ultra vires the Constitution”.
3
rd
4. Pending decision of these petitions, on November, 2007,
emergency was proclaimed in the country by the then President of Pakistan
and also the Chief of Army Staff and under the garb of Provisional
Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order,

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
2007 was issued, whereby, Article 270AAA was inserted in the
Constitution, which provided protection to all the laws including the
Ordinances in force on the day on which the Proclamation of Emergency of
3
rd
3
November 2007 was revoked. As a result of above constitutional
amendment, the apparent interest was that the NRO should attain
permanence. The Proclamation of Emergency as well as other extraconstitutional
instruments were challenged before this Court in the case of
Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan v. General Pervez Musharraf (PLD
2008 SC 178), when the Court declared the Proclamation of Emergency of
rd November, 2007, the Provisional Constitution Order, 2007, Provisional
Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order,
2007 and the President’s Order No.5 of 2007, to be validly enacted.
However, this Court, vide its judgment dated 31st July 2009, in the case of
Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD
2009 SC 879) declared all the above five instruments to be unconstitutional,
illegal and void ab initio, as a result whereof Article 270AAA stood deleted
from the Constitution. Consequently, the NRO, as well as 37 other
Ordinances, which were meant to be protected, were shorn of the
permanency purportedly provided under Article 270AAA of the
Constitution and sanctified by the judgment passed in Tikka Iqbal
Muhammad Khan’s case (ibid). However, through the same judgment,
this Court, while supporting the doctrine of trichotomy of powers, as
envisaged in the scheme of the Constitution and to prevent any disruption,
enabled the Parliament to reconsider and, if thought fit, to enact, all the 37
Ordinances including the NRO, as Acts of Parliament. For this purpose the
life of the Ordinances stood extended for another 120 days (in case of
Federal Legislation) and 90 days (in case of Provincial Legislation). This

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
constituted an opportunity to the democratic Government at the Centre and
in the Provinces to legitimize the acts, actions, proceedings and orders,
initiated, taken or done, under those Ordinances, by placing them before the
Parliament, to make them enactments of Parliament, with retrospective
effect.
5. In pursuance of above judgment of 31st July, 2009, the NRO was
placed before the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on Law &
Justice, in its meeting held on 29th & 30th October, 2009. During the
discussions and deliberations, some of the members did not agree with the
decision of the Committee and left the proceedings in protest. However,
ultimately, on 2nd November, 2009 the Committee recommended that, after
the proposed amendments in the Bill for enacting the NRO, the same may
be passed by the Assembly. It is pertinent to mention here that despite
finalization of the report of the Standing Committee on NRO and before its
approval by the Chairperson of the Committee, the Minister concerned
withdrew the Bill under Rule 139 of Procedure & Conduct of Business in
the National Assembly, 2007. As a result, the NRO could not be passed by
the Parliament, within its extended life, therefore, it lapsed.
6. The petitioners in these Constitution Petitions have challenged the
vires of the NRO with the prayer that the same may be declared ultra vires
the Constitution, viod ab initio and of no legal effect. For convenience, the
prayer made in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007, filed by Dr. Mubashir
Hassan, is reproduced herein below:-
“1) Section 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the NRO may kindly be declared
to be void ab initio, of no legal effect and ultra vires the
Constitution, in particular Articles 25, 62, 63 and 175
thereof.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
2) During the pendency of the instant petition, the respondents
may kindly be restraint from taking any action under or in
terms of the impugned Ordinance. The respondents may in
particular, be restrained from withdrawing any request for
mutual assistance and civil party, letters rogatory and like
issued to any Foreign Government, Court or other
Authority or Multilateral Organization.
3) Any other order deemed beneficial to the interest of Justice
and equity, may also kindly be made.
7
7. The instant petitions came up for hearing before this Bench on
th
December 2009, when Mr. Shah Khawar, Acting Attorney General for
Pakistan, placed on record a written statement on behalf of Federation of
Pakistan. Relevant paras therefrom are reproduced herein below:-
“2. That the Federation believes in supremacy of the
Constitution of 1973 and the Parliament.
3. That the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 was
promulgated by the previous regime and I am under
instruction not to defend it.”
8. Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the
Federation of Pakistan, through Ministry of Law & Justice, filed Civil
Misc. Applications No. 4875 & 4898 of 2009 in Constitution Petitions
No. 76 & 77 of 2007. Contents of paras at page 11 & 12 of the said
applications are reproduced herein below:-
“If however, this Hon’ble Court wishes to rule upon wider issues
other than those raised in the petition and prayer the Federation requests
that fresh petitions be filed precisely stipulating these issues whereupon
the Federation will seek instructions on such new petition.
Pak Today is poised at the cross roads. One road leads to truly federal
democratic welfare sate with the balance of power between an
Independent judiciary, a duly elected Govt. representing the will of the
people a determined executive which is fighting the war against terrorism
and poverty. The second road leads to destabilization of the rule of law.
The people of Pakistan await your verdict.”

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
When we confronted the learned counsel with above contents of his
applications, he requested that the same may be treated as deleted. In this
behalf, he, however, filed a written statement, contents whereof are
reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“STATEMENT
In Compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Pakistan to appraise the Hon’ble Court as to how the Federation
would interpret the wording “the second road leads to the
destabilization of the rule of law”, it is submitted as follows:-
(1) There is no mention of the wording ‘threat to democracy’
in the Statement.
(2) The Federation supports the Prosecution, in accordance
with law, of persons alleged to have done wrong doing. The
Federation does not oppose the Petitions seeking a
declaration that the National Reconciliation Ordinance
2007 (NRO) is illegal and unconstitutional.
(3) With regard to the “wider issues” mentioned in paragraph
No.9 these refer to those matters which were raised by the
Petitioner’s counsel during oral arguments and which find
no mention whatsoever in the Petitions. For example,
submissions made in respect of Articles 89 (in particular
the alleged concept of “implied Resolution”) and A.264 on
the effect of Repeal.
(4) The Federation’s view is that those who have benefited
under the NRO should be proceeded against under the
appropriate laws before the courts having the competent
jurisdiction. As factual matters need to be determined by
the trial courts.
(5) So far as my comments made yesterday before this Hon’ble
Court concerning the threat from GHQ, the CIA and the
contents of paragraph 9 of the CMA are concerned these
were my personal views and were not made on the
instructions of the Federation of Pakistan. As such I
withdraw the same, which should not be considered by this
Hon’ble Court in any manner whatsoever and the same
should be deleted and expunged from the record.
(6) It is emphasized that the Federation of Pakistan holds this
Hon’ble Court in the highest esteem and has the greatest
respect for the same.”
9. Learned Advocates General of Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and
Balochistan appeared and supported the stance taken by the Attorney
General for Pakistan.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have
also gone through the material placed on record in support of their
submissions.
11. As it has been noted above that challenge to NRO was thrown by the
petitioners, no sooner same was promulgated by the President and
admission order dated 12th October, 2007, was passed, to examine
following questions:-
“2. Mr. Salman Akram Raja, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 76 of 2007 argued
that:--
a) Section 7 of the impugned Ordinance being selfexecutory
in nature amounts to legislative judgment,
which is impermissible intrusion into the exercise of
judicial powers of the State and thus falls foul of
Article 175 of the Constitution which envisages
separation and independence of the judiciary from
other organs of the State.
b) Legislative judgment cannot be enacted by the
Parliament. [ Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)].
c) By promulgating Section 7 of the impugned
Ordinance, Article 63(1)(h) and 63(1)(l) of the
Constitution have been made ineffective, as regards
chosen category of people, therefore, it is ultra vires
the Constitution as it amounts to defeat the
constitutional mandates.
d) Impugned Ordinance exhorts about or indemnifies a
particular class of people i.e. public office holders
from proceedings, actions and orders passed by the
competent authorities, whereas no such powers are
available to the Parliament or, for that matter, to the
President of Pakistan under Federal or Concurrent
Legislative List. Further; the President is empowered
only to pardon an accused person, under Article 45 of
the Constitution, after passing of sentence by a Court
of law, whereas by means of impugned Ordinance, the
President has been empowered to indemnify or pardon
an accused, against whom proceedings are pending
before Investigating Agency or a Court of law or in
appeal by giving a blanket cover.
e) The impugned Ordinance violates the provisions of
Article 25 of the Constitution because it is not based
on intelligible differentia, relatable to lawful objects,
therefore, deserves to be struck down.
f) The impugned Ordinance is against the public policy

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
because it also provides protection against future
action in terms of its Section 7 and it had also
rendered Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution
ineffective.
g) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 494 of Cr.P.C.
added by means of impugned Ordinance are contrary
to provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 494 of
Cr.P.C. where it has been provided that cases can only
be withdrawn with the consent of the Court, whereas,
in newly added Sub-Sections, powers of the “Court ”
have been conferred upon the Review Boards of the
Executive Bodies, therefore, these Sub-sections are
also contrary to Article 175 of the Constitution.
and
No criteria has been laid down as to why the cases
1st
falling between the day of January 1986 to
12th day of October 1999 have been covered under
these provisions, inasmuch as definition of political
victimization has not been provided in these Subsections,
as a result whereof it has been left at the
subjective consideration of Review Board/ Executive
Bodies to determine the same. Thus such provisions
cannot exist in any manner.
h) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated in
colorable exercise of Legislative powers and its
various provisions have created discrimination among
ordinary and classified accused, therefore, all these
provisions tantamount to malice in law.
i) The provisions of impugned Ordinance are so
overbroad that these have provided blanket cover to all
the holders of public offices, including chosen
representatives and ordinary employees, therefore, the
object of national reconciliation cannot be achieved by
allowing it to exist.
j) The provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the impugned
Ordinance are highly discriminatory in nature,
therefore, are liable to be struck down.
k) Section 6 of the impugned Ordinance is contrary to the
basic principles relating to annulment of judgments,
even if passed in absentia, in accordance with existing
law, according to which unless the basis for the
judgment, in favour of a party, is not removed, it could
not affect the rights of the parties, in whose favour the
same was passed but when the Legislature
promulgated the impugned Ordinance, in order to
remove the basis on which the judgment was founded,
such judgment shall have no bearing on the cases.
[Facto Belarus Tractor Ltd. v. Government of
Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 605)]. Hence, provisions of
the impugned Ordinance as a whole are against the
concept of equality of Islamic Injunction, provided
under Article 2A of the Constitution, therefore, on this
score as well, deserves to be struck down being ultra

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
vires the Constitution.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry, learned Sr. ASC for
petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 77 of 2007, while adopting
the above arguments, added that :i)
The impugned Ordinance is purpose specific and
period specific, therefore, violates Article 25 of the
Constitution.
4. Dr. Farooq Hassan, Sr. ASC appearing in Constitution
Petition No. 78 of 2007 on behalf of petitioner, while adopted the
arguments raised by Mr. Suleman Ahmed Raja, ASC contended
that:-
i) The impugned Ordinance is contradictory to and
violative of the United Nation’s Convention Against
Corruption, enacted in 2005 and ratified by Pakistan
on 31st of August 2007.
ii) Under the Constitution, no indemnity or amnesty can
at all be given to any one, except granting pardon in
terms of Article 45 of the Constitution.
iii) Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the impugned Ordinance are
violative of the doctrine of trichotomy of powers.
iv) The impugned Ordinance has in fact changed the basic
structure of the Constitution.
v) The impugned Ordinance has also violated the
principles of political justice and fundamental rights
because it allows plundering of national wealth and to
get away with it. More so, it tried to condone
dishonesty of magnitude which is unconscientious and
shocking to the conscience of mankind.
5. Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR appeared on behalf of Mr.
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC in Constitution Petition
No.79 of 2007 and adopted the above arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
6. Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC appearing in Constitution Petition
No. 80 of 2007 also adopted the above arguments, while adding
that:-
a) The impugned Ordinance has been promulgated on the
basis of personal satisfaction of the President of
Pakistan but for extraneous reasons and to provide
indemnity/immunity to the public office holders,
therefore, is liable to be struck down.

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
12. Subsequent thereto cases remained pending except when their
hearing was fixed on 27th February, 2008 and order dated 12th October,
2007, was vacated in following terms : -
“3. These Constitution Petitions are adjourned to a date in
office due to indisposition of the learned counsel for the
petitioners. Meanwhile, in view of the rule laid down in the case of
Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 SC 61), the
observations made by this Court in Para 8 of the order dated
12.10.2007 in Constitution Petitions No.76-80 of 2007 to the effect
that “however, we are inclined to observe in unambiguous terms
that any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the
public office holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed
petitions and the beneficiary would not be entitled to claim any
protection of the concluded action under Sections 6 and 7 of the
impugned Ordinance, under any principle of law, if this Court
conclude that the impugned Ordinance and particularly its these
provisions are ultra vires the Constitution” are deleted.
Resultantly, the Ordinance shall hold the field and shall have its
normal operation. The Courts and authorities concerned shall
proceed further expeditiously in the light of the provisions of the
Ordinance without being influenced by the pendency of these
petitions.”
13. As it has been noted above that while deciding the case of Sindh
High Court Bar Association (ibid), all the Ordinances which were not laid
before the Parliament, on account of insertion of Article 270AAA in the
Constitution, were shorn of permanency, therefore, the Parliament was
asked to examine all such Ordinances within a period of 120 and 90 days,
as the case may be, commencing from 31st July, 2009, when a 14 Member
Bench announced judgment. The period so assigned by the Court expired
on 28th November, 2009 but the NRO was taken back from the Parliament,
leaving for this Court to examine its constitutionality in the cases listed
above. It is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that courts are not required
to give decisions of cases in vacuum rather it has to consider facts as well,

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
giving a cause to a person to approach Courts. The NRO gave benefits to a
class of people, whose identification is not difficult to ascertain, namely
accused persons, involved in criminal and corruption cases, during the
period commencing from 1st January, 1986 to 12th October, 1999 and this
classification has created a divide amongst ordinary citizens of Pakistan and
a class of alleged criminals who statedly have committed crimes of murder,
dacoity, rape, looting/plundering of money/resources of this nation.
Therefore, prima facie, to understand the nature of such beneficiaries,
Federal Government, Provincial Governments and the NAB were asked to
provide details in this behalf. In response to such query the Government of
Sindh through its Advocate General filed a large list of such like accused,
who being charged for the cases of criminal nature, benefited from the
NRO, which included heinous and minor crimes, as well. As far as the
remaining Governments and the Federating Units are concerned, they
categorically denied extension of benefits of the NRO to even a single
accused in their respective jurisdictions. However, NAB has submitted a
list containing names of 248 persons, who benefited from the NRO within
and outside the country. A cursory perusal of this list suggests that barring
the cases inside the country, huge benefit has been availed by some of the
persons in the cases pending against them outside the country. At this stage
it is to be noted that application of the NRO, beyond the territories of the
country, is a question which requires consideration on jurisdictional plane
of this Court as well. NAB has also provided a list of the persons, who were
convicted in absentia under Section 31A of the NAB Ordinance.
14. In depth examination of the NRO suggests that it has not been
promulgated to provide reconciliation on national basis as this nation has
seen reconciliation in 1973, when a Constituent Assembly gave the

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
Constitution of 1973 to the nation, guaranteeing their fundamental rights,
on the basis of equality and brotherhood, as a result whereof, the nation had
proved its unity, whenever it faced a challenge to its sovereignty and
existence. The representation of the people, in subsequent Legislative
Assemblies, has upheld the provi sions of 1973 Constitution, except for few
occasions when they have made amendments under peculiar circumstances.
However, salient features of the Constitution i.e. Independence of
Judiciary, Federalism, Parliamentary form of Government blended with
Islamic provisions, now have become integral part of the Constitution and
no change in the basic features of the Constitution, is possible through
amendment as it would be against the national reconciliation, evident in the
promulgation of the Constitution of 1973, by a Legislative Assembly.
Therefore, promulgation of the NRO seems to be against the national
interest and its preamble is contrary to the substance embodied therein.
Thus, it violates various provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, by
means of instant short order, reasons of which shall be recorded later, we
hold as follows:-
(i) that the NRO is declared to be an instrument void ab initio being ultra
vires and violative of various constitutional provisions including
Article Nos. 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p), 89, 175 and 227 of the
Constitution;
(ii) that as a consequence of the said declaration, all steps taken, actions
suffered, and all orders passed by whatever authority, any orders
passed by the courts of law including the orders of discharge and
acquittals recorded in favour of the accused persons, are also declared
never to have existed in the eyes of law and resultantly of no legal
effect;

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
(iii) that all cases in which the accused persons were either discharged or
acquitted under Section 2 of the NRO or where proceedings pending
against the holders of public office had got terminated in view of
Section 7 thereof, a list of which cases has been furnished to this Court
and any other such cases/proceedings which may not have been
brought to the notice of this Court, shall stand revived and relegated to
the status of pre-5th of October, 2007 position;
(iv) that all the concerned courts including the trial, the appellate and the
revisional courts are ordered to summon the persons accused in such
cases and then to proceed in the respective matters in accordance with
law from the stage from where such proceedings had been brought to
an end in pursuance of the above provisions of the NRO;
(v) that the Federal Government, all the Provincial Governments and all
relevant and competent authorities including the Prosecutor General of
NAB, the Special Prosecutors in various Accountability Courts, the
Prosecutors General in the four Provinces and other officers or
officials involved in the prosecution of criminal offenders are directed
to offer every possible assistance required by the competent courts in
the said connection;
(vi) that similarly all cases which were under investigation or pending
enquiries and which had either been withdrawn or where the
investigations or enquiries had been terminated on account of the NRO
shall also stand revived and the relevant and competent authorities
shall proceed in the said matters in accordance with law;
(vii) that it may be clarified that any judgment, conviction or sentence
recorded under section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance shall hold the field
subject to law and since the NRO stands declared as void ab initio,
therefore, any benefit derived by any person in pursuance of Section 6
thereof is also declared never to have legally accrued to any such
person and consequently of no legal effect;

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
(viii) that since in view of the provisions of Article 100(3) of the
Constitution, the Attorney General for Pakistan could not have
suffered any act not assigned to him by the Federal Government or not
authorized by the said Government and since no order or authority had
been shown to us under which the then learned Attorney General
namely Malik Muhammad Qayyum had been authorized to address
communications to various authorities/courts in foreign countries
including Switzerland, therefore, such communications addressed by
him withdrawing the requests for Mutual Legal Assistance or
abandoning the status of a Civil Party in such proceedings abroad or
which had culminated in the termination of proceedings before the
competent fora in Switzerland or other countries or in abandonment of
the claim of the Government of Pakistan to huge amounts of allegedly
laundered moneys, are declared to be unauthorized, unconstitutional
and illegal acts of the said Malik Muhammad Qayyum;
(ix) that since the NRO stands declared void ab initio, therefore, any
actions taken or suffered under the said law are also non est in law and
since the communications addressed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum to
various foreign fora/authorities/courts withdrawing the requests earlier
made by the Government of Pakistan for Mutual Legal Assistance;
surrendering the status of Civil Party; abandoning the claims to the
allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including
Switzerland, have also been declared by us to be unauthorized and
illegal communications and consequently of no legal effect, therefore,
it is declared that the initial requests for Mutual Legal Assistance;
securing the status of Civil Party and the claims lodged to the allegedly
laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland are
declared never to have been withdrawn. Therefore the Federal
Government and other concerned authorities are ordered to take
immediate steps to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status;

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
(x) that in view of the above noticed conduct of Malik Muhammad
Qayyum, the then learned Attorney General for Pakistan in addressing
unauthorized communications which had resulted in unlawful
abandonment of claims of the Government of Pakistan, inter alia, to
huge amounts of the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign
countries including Switzerland, the Federal Government and all other
competent authorities are directed to proceed against the said Malik
Muhammad Qayyum in accordance with law in the said connection;
(xi) that we place on record our displeasure about the conduct and lack of
proper and honest assistance and cooperation on the part of the
Chairman of the NAB, the Prosecutor General of the NAB and of the
Additional Prosecutor General of the NAB, namely, Mr. Abdul Baseer
Qureshi in this case. Consequently, it is not possible for us to trust
them with proper and diligent pursuit of the cases falling within their
respective spheres of operation. It is therefore, suggested that the
Federal Government may make fresh appointments against the said
posts of persons possessing high degree of competence and
impeccable integrity in terms of Section 6 of the NAB Ordinance as
also in terms of the observations of this Court made in the case of
Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607).
However, till such fresh appointments are so made, the present
incumbents may continue to discharge their obligations strictly in
accordance with law. They shall, however, transmit periodical reports
of the actions taken by them to the Monitoring Cell of this Court
which is being established through the succeeding parts of this
judgment;
(xii) that a Monitoring Cell shall be established in the Supreme Court of
Pakistan comprising of the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a Judge of the
Supreme Court to be nominated by him to monitor the progress and
the proceedings in the above noticed and other cases under the NAB
Ordinance. Likewise similar Monitoring Cells shall be set up in the
High Courts of all the Provinces comprising of the Chief Justice of the

Const. P.76/2007, etc.
respective Province or Judges of the concerned High Courts to be
nominated by them to monitor the progress and the proceedings in
cases in which the accused persons had been acquitted or discharged
under Section 2 of the NRO;
(xiii) that the Secretary of the Law Division, Government of Pakistan, is
directed to take immediate steps to increase the number of
Accountability Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases;
15. We place on record our deep sense of appreciation for the learned counsel
for the parties as also for the learned amicii curiae who have rendered invaluable
assistance to us in these matters.
The petitions stand allowed and disposed of by this short order in terms
noted above.
Islamabad
16.12.2009
Irshad /*
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

Koi thu Roye,,,,

Koi thu Roye leput ker Jawan Lasho se-----
Es leye thu Woh beton ku Maa detha hai.|

Who am I?

Dont know why I felt a something in this picure, don’t know who she is and what could be the story behind her situation. But one thing dears, next time when you say I love you mother, think and imagine about this lady and see as a society what we have gained so far…

Climate Change

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that [56] newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

We must go for talks ,? Ansar Abbassi

We are on a suicide mission. At a time when our sovereignty is seriously threatened and is being violated and our foreign policy being entirely run on alien diktat, Pakistanis are being made the scapegoats on a daily basis as their lives serve as fodder for the US war on terror, imposed on us on Washington’s terms.

Initially it was General Musharraf, who after 9/11 served as Washington’s poodle and badly divided the nation. And now it is the democratically elected but NRO-laundered regime that has owned the US war as its own war.

When last year, the only time the issue was ever referred to parliament in nine years, the people’s representatives unanimously disowned this war and without even a single dissenting voice passed a resolution demanding a homegrown solution to extremism and terrorism through a dialogue. But who cares what the people say.

The US dictation comes at a time when national cohesion is fast eroding, state institutions are indifferent and unresponsive, people’s voice is not being heard and national leadership is highly irresponsible and corrupt. Consequently with every passing day there are growing incidents of terrorism, more bloodshed and increased human misery and cry.

And after every terrorist act, the hollowed rhetoric of our shallow leaders that the people of Pakistan would win this war is repeated. However, there is no strategy, no political initiative and no urge to find and address the root cause of this menace. Everything has been left to the army to achieve. All the bets are on the military option and there is no room for any political solution. There is a call for an “all out war”.

Instead of adopting a rational approach to stop further killing of the innocents, we are responding in the rush of blood, which could cause more bloodshed and more killings. We are not trying to figure out where the problem lies and more importantly the real problem. We are not diagnosing the disease but trying to treat the symptoms.

Initially it was Nek Muhammad, later Abdullah Mahsud, then Baitullah Mahsud and Fazullah and now Hakeemullah Mahsud. Musharraf thought, and the present rulers also believe, that killing such symbols would solve the problem but it has not worked. We are made to believe that once the Pakistan Army conquers South Waziristan and cleanses it from extremists and terrorists, the problem would be over. The same was said about Swat and Malakand.

Where would be the next battleground? Apprehensions are already rising in south Punjab. Past record proves that the extremists and terrorists killed or nabbed do not belong to the tribal areas alone but come from all over and could not be identified. In such a situation, can we afford to launch military solution everywhere. Is it possible either? Can the army afford to leave Swat and Malakand, South Waziristan and other parts of the tribal areas? Aren’t we marching on an extremely dangerous track that may lead us to a complete civil war?

Practically this is a game of death where only the blood of Pakistanis, predominantly innocent citizens is being shed. We may not feel for them as if they are not our own family (i.e. Pakistan) but those including children and women who are mercilessly killed by US drone attacks in our tribal areas are our own people even if everyone of them is condemned unheard and dubbed a terrorist or a militant.

This is also true that those so dubbed and attacked, whether in Swat and Malakand or Waziristan are too our own people. These innocents who become victims of suicide bombings and terrorist attacks all over are also from amongst us. So are the young brainwashed teenager suicide bombers who lose their lives.

For our enemy this is a win-win situation and possibly a source of pleasure but for every Pakistani it is the most serious cause of concern. We don’t want this game of death to go on and on but others do. We don’t want our people to be killed but others do. We don’t want our army to be dragged in a situation where it is compelled to use its muscle against its own people and get unpopular but others do. We don’t desire to see brothers killing brothers here but others do.

But what we want and desire cannot be achieved if we follow the foreign dictat. It can’t be achieved through military options either. It can be effectively achieved only through a process of dialogue, rethinking of our strategy, pondering into the whole situation to address the root causes, the US war on terror, drone attacks, enslavement of Islamabad to the whims and wishes of Washington and US and Nato forces presence in Afghanistan. A political initiative in line with the unanimous resolution adopted by the parliament last year is thus a vital and urgent need. Terrorism is condemnable but it cannot be defeated only through the use of force, which is counter productive.

This is precisely what is happening in Pakistan. Washington would not like this but we need to focus on political means instead of entirely depending on the military option, which should remain restricted and quick. The US war on terror is neither in the interest of Muslims nor in favour of Pakistan. Therefore, the US war, now owned by our rulers and fought in the fashion the US expects us to fight, is not our war and it will never be.

A New Prize For Obedience..

Both chambers of the US Congress have quietly approved a bill that seeks tough new restrictions on military aid to Pakistan, aides told Dawn on Wednesday. The bill comes up for final approval later this week.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Republican Senator Bob Corker jointly crafted the new restrictions.

‘The Senate approved the bill on July 24 while the House of Representatives passed it earlier this month,’ an aide for Senator Corker told Dawn.

In the US legislative system, the House and the Senate work separately, which requires both chambers to craft their own versions of a proposed bill. After separate votes, the two versions are reconciled in a joint session, which is called the conference.

The proposed amendment to the National Defence Authorisation Act comes to conference later this week. If approved, as expected, it would become a law.

An earlier joint statement by the offices of the two senators said that they had successfully attached an amendment to the Department of Defence authorisation bill that passed the Senate ‘in order to help ensure that military assistance for Pakistan is actually being used for its purpose: to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda’.

The Menendez-Corker legislative language would mandate a certification by the US Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence, before Pakistan is reimbursed with Coalition Support Funds, that the payment is both in the national security interests of the US, and will not affect the balance of power in the region.

‘To this point, almost eight years and more than seven billion in American taxpayer dollars for Pakistan’s military have not prevented the Taliban and Al Qaeda from regrouping along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border,’ said Senator Menendez.

‘The fight against these extremists is crucial for our own security, which is why we have to certify that our support is in fact doing what we intend it to do and is not being used for other purposes.’

Mr Menendez insisted that this was an issue of national security and of responsibility with taxpayer dollars and that’s why he was seeking to further tighten the restrictions on Pakistan.

Senator Corker said that the US appreciated the important role Pakistan had played in America’s fight to eliminate the terrorist safe havens within their borders, ‘we also owe it to our service members and the American taxpayer to ensure that the funds provided to Pakistan out of the Coalition Support Funds are in fact being directed towards those efforts and not misdirected’.

The fresh limits include efforts to track where US military hardware sent to Pakistan ends up, as well as a warning that US aid to Pakistan must not upset ‘the balance of power in the region’ —a reference to tensions with India.

The limits are in a $680 billion US Defence Department spending measure for 2010 that the Senate will take up after the bill cleared the House of Representatives in a 281-146 vote on Oct 8.

If, as expected, the Senate approves the legislation, it will go to President Barack Obama to sign into law who earlier this month signed the Kerry-Lugar bill into a law.

Although the Kerry-Lugar bill tripled US economic assistance to Pakistan, it also placed some restrictions on the military aid.

Abi Na Rukna

Sun set in Karak

<

We are Peaceful and Peace lovers Khattaks

We are peaceful and peace lovers khattaks in Khattakistan. We always depend upon on peace and avoid violence. We are educated,hard working,dedicated and patriotic Pakistanis.We disliked those who are misguided and anti Pakistan elements.
NO BODY CAN DENIED THIS THAT WE ALL ARE NOT ONLY EDUCATED BUT PEACE LOVING AND PEACEFUL PEOPLES OF THE PAKISTAN.KARAK IS HEAVEN IN THIS TROUBLE FULL TIME.WE ARE GOOD MUSLIMS,BEST PASHTOONS AND PATRIOTICS PAKISTANI.WE KNOW HOW TO ACT AND REACT.WE ARE MASTERS OF OURSELVES AND WE DON’T ACCEPT MASTERMINDING OF OTHERS. ALLAH MAY GUIDE US TO BE HELPING HANDS HUMANITY. Let us respect our elders guidance and love our values and honor our virtues. The value of Live and let others live.

It is shame

woreds are not enough to condemn the barberic and horrific incident that has takent place in Gojra.The innocent women and childern are burnt alive safeguard islam.but the cruel dnt know abt islam.We muslim community are ashamed for this very barbarism and condemn it.To us Islam is the religion of peace and love.

New dawn....A dawn of happiness and Light

The Supreme Court of Pakistan Friday declared the steps taken on November 3, 2007 by former president Pervez Musharraf as unconstitutional.

The judgment came after the 14-judge larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry completed the hearing of constitutional petitions regarding PCO judges, appointments of judges of higher judiciary and November 3, 2007 steps.

The Supreme Court in its short verdict declared the steps of November 3, 2007 taken by former president Pervez Musharraf as unconstitutional. Article 279 of the Constitution was violated on November 3, 2007, it said.

It termed as illegal and unconstitutional the sacking of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and the other higher judiciary as well as the appointment of Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar as chief justice.

The oath taken by President Asif Ali Zardari will not be affected by the SC verdict, is said.

All the appointments made in the higher judiciary of Justice Abdul Hamid Dogar have been termed illegal.

It termed as unconstitutional all the appointments of judges during November 3, 2007 to March 24, 2008.

It said the strength of Supreme Court judges will remain 17.

It declared unconstitutional all the steps taken by Pervez Musharraf during November 3, 2007 to December 15, 2007 including the increasing of number of superior judges through finance bill.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry announced the verdict.

The verdict said all the appointments of judges on and after November 3, 2007 under PCO were unconstitutional. The case of PCO judges will be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council, it said.

The announcement of today’s verdict sent a wave of jubilation outside the Supreme Court and at all the bar associations. Sweets are being distributed as people and lawyers are chanting slogans in support of the judiciary.

The 14-judge larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry reserved the judgment after completing the hearing of the case and announced it after a delay of over four and a half hour.

General (R)Now where u will go?

ISLAMABAD: Former president Pervez Musharraf had his eight years in power and now he has got an opportunity to have his day in court as well. The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday issued a notice to the former president to appear in person or through his lawyer before the court on July 29 and defend his position on the state of emergency he declared on November 3, 2007, making over 60 independent-minded judges non-functional.

“According to principles of law, internationally known, no person should be condemned unheard; therefore, under Order 25 of Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, a notice be issued to Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, however, leaving for him to appear before the court or otherwise,” Justice Chaudry said in the order.

A 14-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is hearing a petition of the Sindh High Court Bar Association (SHCBA), seeking regularisation of two SHC additional judges.

Other members of the bench are Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed, Justice Ghulam Rabbani, Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani, Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Justice Jawwad S Khawaja.

The two SHC judges were denied regularisation on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in the Tikka Iqbal case was a “past and closed transaction”. The same judgment had also validated the imposition of emergency and the steps taken thereafter by the former president.

“According to the principles of law, universally known, no one should be condemned unheard, as it has been recognised and stated by this court in almost every case where an adverse decision was likely to take place. Not only in our country, internationally where there is a regular system of administration of justice, this principle is applied. Even when there is no provision under the law, the courts have been issuing notices under the principle of natural justice,” the court order said.

The court further ruled that in the Asma Jilani case, notice was not issued as the respondent government had not made a categorical statement that it was not defending the action of Gen Yahya Khan.

“As far as the proceedings of the case are concerned, these are going on for the last two to three days. The media, print and electronic, is widely publicising the observations and proceedings. Anyone interested in the proceedings who is concerned with the promulgation of the PCO can appear on his own by making application directly or otherwise,” the court order added.

“Therefore, under Order 25 of the Rule 9 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Rules 1980, notice be issued to Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf: however, leaving for him to appear before the court or otherwise, hence notice be issued on the address of his residence in Islamabad,” the order concluded.

On Wednesday, the chief justice sought view of counsel for the petitioners Hamid Khan and Attorney General Sardar Latif Khan Khosa on the question of issuing notice to Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf with a view to providing him with an opportunity to defend himself in the case if he wanted so.

Hamid Khan, who is representing the Sindh High Court Bar Association, opposed issuing of notice to Musharraf, saying there was no precedence of issuing notices to former dictators in such cases and that former military ruler Yahya Khan, too, was not issued notice in the Asma Jillani case.

At this Justice Shahid Siddiqui said that there were people to defend Yahya Khan but in this case the attorney general is not defending him. Khan further contended that Musharraf was not being prosecuted, instead his constitutional actions were being examined; therefore, there was no need of issuing notices to him.

Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, however, observed that fairness demanded that Musharraf is provided with opportunity to come and defend himself. The attorney general, however, said he was leaving the matter to the court.

The chief justice remarked that if there were 0.001 per cent chance of revisiting the Tikka Iqbal case, the court would attack the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO). He said there would be fallouts and repercussions of this case, which he said would decide on the life of our nation.

“We would have to strengthen our institutions and there should be no more adventurism,” the CJ said. The chief justice further observed that the court was examining the PCO promulgated by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. Therefore, someone may raise fingers at us for condemning someone who was not before us, he said.

Later, Justice Justice (retd) Malik Qayyum, told reporters outside the court building that he was thinking of representing Gen (retd) Musharraf in the court if he (Musharraf) asked him to do so. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who was opposing Musharraf in the court in the past in a case filed against the military dictator for contesting the election for the office of the president, said that the retired general could appear before the Supreme Court either through his lawyer or in person.

“It is purely a constitutional petition and Musharraf either could appear in person or through his legal counsel; however, if the former military dictator appears in person it would be fine,” Aitzaz told Geo TV.

At the same time Aitzaz said that Musharraf would not opt to appear in person before the court for being a coward. He said that the court could issue a notice to Musharraf for appearing in person only if a criminal petition was filed in the apex court.

Aitzaz Ahsan, however, to a question refused to plead Musharraf’s case, saying that he was a cruel ruler who put over 60 judges of the superior judiciary under house arrest along with their children.

Faith,Hope ,and Heart

I was once told only in dreams,
Do dreams come true,
But I am tell , here and now,
Your dreams are upto you,
like "The Rose"
we may pass through life,
"Not Understand"
And may be we won,t.
make all friends we should.
But always treasure what You have,
And in the mirror what you see,
Then strive to get all you have ,
and be all that you may be.
on the rocky roads of life
you must be strong to fall apart.
But I tell you from my soul to keep,
Faith,Hope and Heart.

By Nicci Pagon

Proud pakistani.... Dr.Farrukh Salim

Karbala, Muharram 10, 61 AH -- Hussain ibne Ali ibne Abi Talib (RA) refused to pledge allegiance to Dictator Yazid ibne Mu'awiyah ibne Abi Sufyan. Sayyid al-Shuhada (RA) "gave his head but not his hand of allegiance in the hand of Yazid (this according to Shah Moinuddin Chishty Ajmeri)." The Sayyid of the youth of Paradise was beheaded by Shimr Ibne Thil-Jawshan (a soldier in the Ummayad army that was led by Umar ibne Sa'ad).

Dateline: Kufa, 148 AH -- Imam Al-azam Abu Hanifa refused to become Dictator Abu Ja'far al-Mansur's Qazi Al-Qazat (chief judge). Al-Mansur imprisoned Abu Hanifa and tortured him to death (when al-Mansur invited Abu Hanifa to become his chief judge, Abu Hanifa sent a message back to the monarch that he did not consider himself capable for the post. Al-Mansur told Abu Hanifa that he was lying and Abu Hanifa shot back: "I rest my case. If I am a liar then how can I become the chief judge?" Al-Mansur was furious at Abu Hanifa's reply).

Dateline: Islamabad, Safar 20, 1428 AH – Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry refused to resign on orders of Dictator President General Pervez Musharraf. The chief justice was suspended, his family imprisoned within the four walls of his house.

Dateline: Islamabad, Rabi-ul-Awwal 18, 1430 -- Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani announced the restoration of all the deposed judges including Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims and 57 Muslim-majority nation-states. Imagine; in the past 1,430 years of Islamic history the first Muslim who refused to bow down to a dictator was Sayyid al-Shuhada Hussain ibne Ali ibne Abi Talib (RA). Eighty-seven years later, the second Muslim to bow down to a dictator was Imam Al-azam Abu Hanifa. One thousand two hundred and eighty years later came a Pakistani named Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

In 1986, peoples' power -- absolutely peaceful, non-violent and prayerful -- brought down a stubbornly corrupt Filipino system of governance. In 1989, peoples' power proved its muscle in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania (all peaceful except for in Romania where the military unexpectedly changed sides and allowed Nicolae Ceausescu's summary execution). People's power in Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Serbia and Ukraine used a colour or a flower as a symbol but never ever has a chief justice been used as the rallying cry.

On March 24, Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry shall sit in Court Room No 1 and begin dispensing justice. To be certain, on March 25, there aren't going to be canals of milk and honey all over 778,720 square kilometres of land area we call Pakistan. Justice Chaudhry shall be dispensing justice; neither electricity nor atta or pani. And that is so because any tripodal government rests on the executive, parliament and the judiciary. The judiciary merely dispenses justice and keeps the executive and parliament within the bounds of the constitution. Bijli, atta and pani -- plus law and order -- are part of the social contract between the elected politicians and the 172 million Pakistanis.

For the chief justice, he would have to hold the executive and parliament accountable (both consider themselves above accountability). The Lord Chief Justice of Pakistan would have to protect fundamental rights plus steer clear of all purely political quarrels.

Proud to be a Pakistani because we produced the third Muslim in the history of Islam who said 'no' to a dictator. Proud to be a Pakistani because ours has been the very first absolutely non-violent mass movement within the world of Islam that successfully met its objective. Proud to be a Pakistani now that we can export our chattels of judicial independence to our brethren in other 57 Muslim-majority states. Proud that we can be the source of glitter to Muslims in other countries. Proud that our civil society has reinvented hope. Proud at the tenacity of our lawyers. Proud at the strength of our journalists. Proud at the resolve of our media.

Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan...A Great Success

In a historic address to the nation, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani announced on Monday to restore the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.The prime minister also pledged that the government would steer the country out of the numerous domestic and international challenges facing it. The prime minister said that after consultations with all political forces of the country and President Asif Ali Zardari, the government has decided to restore all deposed judges including Justice Iftikahr Muhammad Chaudhry as Chief Justice of Pakistan who will assume charge on March 21. The current Chef Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar retires on March 21. "I announce today that Iftikhar Chaudhry and all other deposed judges will be reinstated from March 21," he said in his televised address to the nation. The current supreme court chief justice will retire on that date, allowing Chaudhry to take over, the premier said. He said that a notification for the reinstatement of the deposed chief justice would also be issued. The prime minister urged all the political forces and lawyers to work for the solidarity and welfare of the country. Gilani said the country is standing at a critical moment. He said that no country could make progress without political tolerance and co-existence.Speaking about the struggle for the independence of judiciary, the PM said that the lawyers and the PPP had been together for the cause of justice and democracy.He said that Shaheed Mohtrama Benazir Bhutto actively participated in the lawyers struggle for the restoration of deposed judges. “Benazir Bhutto wanted free judiciary and supremacy of the constitution and she had promised for his restoration. PPP respects the educated segment of the society”, Gilani added.Gilani said the federal government would file a review petition against the disqualification of the Sharif brothers. “I invite Sharif brothers to come forward to work together in the light of the Charter of democracy

Democracy?

democracy?

Minus One Formula...Ansar Abbasi .. The news ,,15/03/2009

President Asif Ali Zardari today stands completely isolated, as both the military-led establishment and the Gilani-led government are not convinced with the one-man recipe of the presidency to handle the present political crisis.

A source, while quoting an influential diplomatic source in Islamabad, who had earlier indicated about the resolution of the present political impasse before the long march reached Islamabad, now talks of the minus-one formula, insisting that things cannot be allowed to proceed as they are presently.

The source said that the requests by the prime minister, the Army chief and even by influential world capitals to cool down the present tempers remained unheard. The source said that such an indifferent response from the country’s president was surprising. He added that shying away from taking a political initiative to clear up the self-created mess was simply not understandable.

Although, the presidency is determined to fight the present crisis in its own fashion, things are worsening with every passing moment and may lead to a situation where the military may force the present political leadership to get to a political solution as was done in the mid 90s by General Abdul Waheed Kakar. “I am expecting that anything could happen at anytime,” a source said.

A key government minister, who is seen publicly defending President Zardari during these difficult days when most of the cabinet ministers are reluctant, said that Kayani had told the president that he needed to get the present political impasse resolved. The minister, on condition anonymity, said that the Army chief was upset with the present situation. He agreed that the situation may not come under the government’s control if corrective measures were not immediately taken. He, however, indicated that the president may still announce lifting of governor’s rule in the Punjab by 16th March and offer the PML-N to make the government in the province. The minister also said that at the eleventh hour, the government may also allow the lawyers and other participants of the long march to stage a sit-in in Islamabad, while ensuring that the participation remains thin. The minister conceded that despite tall claims of the governor Punjab, the PML-N continues to enjoy clear majority in the provincial assembly and the PPP had failed to muster the required support to make its own government.

A presidential aide, while talking to this correspondent on Friday, also indicated that governor’s rule in the Punjab could possibly be lifted by March 16, but said in a lighter vein that the Sharifs and the N-Leaguers, who are desirous of going on the long march, should at least see the government’s muscles before the crisis was resolved by the presidency.

“We faced jails, we were beaten up and maltreated in the past, now let them have a bit of it,” he said.

A recently retired Lt-General, who has served with the Army chief for long, said Kayani would be the last person to go for the option of military intervention. He, however, insisted that the Kakar formula might be the last option to overcome the present political crisis in the country.

However, a source, who closely knows President Zardari, insisted that Zardari was not the kind of person who would surrender to pressures.

While the president continues to show a brave face and insists that he is capable of countering the present challenges, Prime Minister Gilani is really upset and so are the majority of his cabinet members. They are not convinced with what President Zardari did on February 25. The departure of respected and saner voices, Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman being the latest, have also saddened Gilani and his cabinet colleagues as they also see the popularity graph of the government and the PPP falling severely.

While tension in the public further grew after the prime minister and Army chief’s meetings with the president on Friday remained inconclusive, a diplomat representing an influential European capital said that the options were getting limited for the president. The source said that it was a matter of days that things might change - the Nov 2, 2007 judiciary getting restored, the office of the prime minister becominstronger and a national government formed.

Zardari deals....

If Zardari does not accept the new deal then:
* Army, foreign powers will be left with no option but to implement ‘minus-one formula’.
* Presidents office will be completely marginalised, Zardari will be removed.
* Gilani will take over as power will be restored to Prime Minister’s office.
* Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) will join the cabinet
* Deposed Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudhary will be reappointed.
Terms of the deal are as follows:
* Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani has been asked to convince Zardari to accept the new political and constitutional arrangement.
* The deal also states the removal of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who is an obstacle to good relations between the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the PML (Nawaz).
* Implementation of the new Constitutional package through the Parliament.
* The deal also demands the restoration of Supreme Court Justice Ifthikar Chaudhary.
Since Wednesday (March 11), there have been a series of meetings that have shaped this deal.
The Pakistan Army Chief met Prime Minister Gilani in Islamabad on March 11, where in the ninety minute meeting the former essentially told the latter to set the deal in motion. On Thursday (March 12), the US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson met the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The reason ostensibly was after Sharif alleged that there was a plot to assassinate him.

Might Be Good News...

Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has reportedly given a 24 hour deadline to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to convince President Zardari to accept the new political deal backed by Washington and London.
If Zardari does not accept the new deal, then the Army and the foreign powers will be left with no option but to implement the ‘minus-one formula’ which will include Zardari’s removal from the Presidency.
Other consequences would be Gilani taking over and power being restored to the PM office, Nawaz Sharif will join the cabinet and deposed SC chief Justice Iftikar Chaudhary will be reinstated, a Times Now report said.
Gilani is expected to convince Zardari to accept the new political and constitutional arrangement and remove Punjab Governor Salman Taseer before the lawyer’s Long March reaches Islamabad.

Is it Not Fascism?

We strongly condemn Police torture on Musarrat Hilali and sorry to say that in all this barbaric and brutal event the government of Bacha Khan the great followers are involved...shame on U .

U have forgotten the philosophy of Love, brotherhood,humanity and respect for women....

A Good News?Should we be Optimistic....

A protest by lawyers and opposition parties for an independent judiciary threatens to bring political turmoil and comes as President Asif Ali Zardari's government is struggling to check rising Islamist militancy and to revive a sinking economy.Black-suited lawyers and flag-waving opposition activists launched a so-called long march from the cities of Karachi and Quetta on Thursday, and aim to reach Islamabad on Monday.The government has tried to foil the protest with detentions, bans on rallies, and road blocks, while at the same time looking for a way to avert a showdown that could become violent.Under a compromise Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is pushing, Zardari has agreed to yield ground to opposition demands, according to a presidential aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.The protesters are demanding the reinstatement of former Supreme Court chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who was dismissed by former president and army chief Pervez Musharraf in 2007.Zardari has refused to reinstate the judge, seeing him as a threat to his own position, but the presidential aide said under the proposed compromise a constitutional court and an appellate court would be set up and Chaudhry would head one.

A good News?

Under a compromise Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is pushing, Zardari has agreed to yield ground to opposition demands, according to a presidential aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The protesters are demanding the reinstatement of former Supreme Court chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who was dismissed by former president and army chief Pervez Musharraf in 2007.

Zardari has refused to reinstate the judge, seeing him as a threat to his own position, but the presidential aide said under the proposed compromise a constitutional court and an appellate court would be set up and Chaudhry would head one.

Long march and State Facism

Fascism in action

Even in Pakistan's troubled history of democratic governance, it is rare to find examples of the kind of open fascism we are seeing today. As lawyers and activists prepared to set out for their 'Long March' to Islamabad, Section 144 was slapped into place in Punjab and a massive crackdown initiated with raids on the homes of dozens of PML-N workers and leaders. Hundreds have been arrested; some dragged out of homes in the darkness. The PML-N claims the figure runs to thousands. In Islamabad and Rawalpindi, the action seems to have been even more vicious, with police goons arresting a prominent human rights activist after bursting violently into her home. Though Tahira Abdullah was released after a few hours – the message is clear: The Zardari administration has laid aside all pretence of following democratic practice or even the mere norms of civilized conduct and has reacted in a manner that would make many bloodthirsty dictators proud. Hundreds of lawyers and activists in the city have been rounded up and efforts to nab others are reported to be continuing in Karachi and Quetta, from where some are said to have already set out on the journey towards the federal capital. The current round of midnight raids and swoops is netting those with the highest profile, who have a place and a voice in public life, all in the name of the preservation of law and order. The ordinary men watch askance, fearful of when it may be his door that feels the rap of the baton. Feel their own heels bumping through the dust as they are dragged in the direction of the paddy-wagon and not knowing when they will again see their loved ones. Fear has never been a good tool of governance, yet it seems in these days to be the tool of preference for a government that is looking increasingly panicked and uncertain. What makes the powers that be look even more foolish is the fact that there is obvious dissent within their own ranks. Some within the PPP apparently seek to stand by the values of the late Benazir Bhutto, who had herself announced plans for a long march in 2007. They are not as willing as her widower to abandon these. Leaders of the lawyers' movement were reportedly tipped off in advance about the plan for mass arrests. Many have gone underground, including Aitzaz Ahsan, who has lambasted the measures resorted to by his own party from a secret location. Arrests of this nature had not been expected – or at least not till March 16, when the protesters are scheduled to arrive at Islamabad. The fact that the detentions are illegal and have already been widely condemned by human-rights groups and the legal fraternity has not deterred the henchmen unleashed by the presidency. Across Punjab, banners asking people to join the Long March have been torn down and lists of persons to be arrested handed out to police. The PML-N has been forced to cancel a crucial meeting as reports of fresh arrests poured in – and it is being anticipated that some effort may now be made to clampdown on a media that has brought the shameful scenes we are witnessing into homes everywhere across the country.We spiral downwards in the direction of totalitarianism, of the destruction of democratic process and institutions. Whatever good we might have glimpsed in the aftermath of last years election has died, sacrificed on the altar of ambition and selfishness that sadly grips the minds of those who govern. It is Pakistan's tragedy that we have once more been betrayed. The forces that claimed to stand for judicial independence and democratic principle have turned brutally on people. Under its present leadership, the PPP has lost all right to be called a party of the people. Those who head it have been completely exposed. Their actions have plunged a struggling nation into still greater turmoil. History will not absolve them for what they have done.

I am proud of U ...

Superintendent of Police Gujranwala Athar Waheed was suspended on Wednesday for not obeying orders to arrest political workers.Talking to Geo News, Athar Waheed said the basic responsibility of police was to provide justice to the people. He said that police were primarily a services institution and its status as a forces institution was secondary. It is not a tool for politicians to settle their scores, he said. The police official said the dignity of police suffers and its reputation damaged when politicians use it for self-interest. The police had arrested many during the tenure of Musharraf and the PML-Q, he said, adding though none of them is on the scene now but by following their orders the department has lost much of its dignity and respect.The suspended police official believed that the primary objective of the police was to enforce the law and help in the dispensation of justice. “According to me, a police officer also has a conscience and should refer to it while performing his duties.îHe said that every policeman takes oath at the Police National Academy to obey the lawful orders of the superiors. ìThere should be concrete evidence to justify confiscation of a personís freedom.î While referring to the arrest of political leaders in the province, he said: ìThese are the same politicians with whom we had discussed transfers and postings of police personnel and we were answerable to them. But today we are being ordered to scale the walls of their houses and enter into their homes, insult the inmates and denigrate the sanctity of the household.îHe said some politicians were ordering them to do so keeping in view their personal interests. ìBut eventually itís the police to lose, not the politicians,î he added. ìWhether there is long march or not, my question is that when a policeman in Britain can arrest the son of prime minister Tony Blair for being drunk, why we canít even imagine such things here. We canít because the police are the loser in our country.î He said though it is generally believed police are all powerful in the country, but on the contrary they have been disgraced by the politicians. ìHow can we deny a citizen of his fundamental rights to the freedom of speech and movement?î

Is It Democracy?

I condemn the arests of those who are fighting for rule of law in Pakistan.What the government has got from Tahira Abdullah, a woman of 55 years and so many political workers , lawyers as well civil society activists... Just jihad for Rule of Law in pakistan....If it is crime then we all are criminal.....

A massive crackdown on the opposition parties and lawyers was launched on Tuesday midnight across the country to foil the long march and sit-in.Hundreds of activists of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and lawyers were rounded up, while a large number of political and lawyer leaders went into hiding.PML-N Chairman Raja Zafarul Haq was placed under house arrest at his sector G-7 residence in Islamabad. Raja Zafar, also a newly-elected senator, said he had received no detention orders but the police locked the gate to his residence from outside at 3am. He said he had heard that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had taken note of the incident and would intervene in the matter.

Former SCBA President Aitzaz Ahsan said the government could not foil the long march and the sit-in would be held at all costs. District Bar Association President Taufiq Asif said he had escaped arrest because he was not present at his house. “Caravans will reach Rawalpindi on March 15 then they all would proceed towards Islamabad via the Benazir Bhutto Road,” he added.
Agencies add: The Punjab government has decided to deploy Army in 30 districts and Rangers in 11 districts of the Punjab, Online reported. However, Punjab Home Secretary Rao Iftikhar Ahmad told reporters that the Army had not been deployed in any part of the province while the Rangers were on standby to maintain law and order.


Containers have been placed at borders of Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan to stop caravans. The caravan coming from Balochistan would be stopped near Jacobabad at the Sindh-Balochistan border while caravans coming from different areas of Sindh and Balochistan would be stopped at Kashmore.
All these actions are hsameful and Condemnable.

Long March and Dharna Schedule

According to announcement made in the judiciary restoration conference here, lawyers’ long march will begin simultaneously from Quetta and Karachi on March 12 and will reach Sukkar in evening. The caravan of lawyers will go to Lahore from Multan on March 14.

 The long march will leave for Lahore from Rawalpindi on March 15 which is expected to reach Islamabad on March 16. The participants of long march will start staging sit-in on Constitution Avenue for indefinite period of time at noon.

Earlier, addressing the conference former President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan said the peaceful long march would not let the national leadership down. He said Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto also promised to restore the deposed judges.

The lawyers want the reappointment of a former Supreme Court chief, the independent-minded Iftikhar Chaudhry, who former army chief and president Pervez Musharraf dismissed in 2007.

But top lawyer and protest organiser Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent member of Zardari's party, said the president could end the protest, and pave the way for a flood of investment, by keeping his promises to reinstate Chaudhry.

"Iftikhar Chaudhry's reinstatement can open the flood gates to private investment," Ahsan told Reuters in an interview on Monday. "Private investment goes only to countries where the judiciary is independent."

 I know the world is under a deep recession but as and when the wheels start turning, that's the only recipe we have for attracting investment in a country that is bedevilled with so many problems,"

The objective is not to oust the government or derail democracy, it is just to get our liberal, progressive, modernist judges back" Aithezaz Said.

Lahore attack...Governor raj...

At least a dozen men ambushed Sri Lanka's cricket team with rifles, grenades and rocket launchers Tuesday as they drove to the stadium ahead of a match in Pakistan, kiling six policemen and a driver.

The attackers struck as a convoy carrying the squad and match officials reached a traffic circle 100 yards (meters) from the main sports stadium in the eastern city of Lahore, triggering a 15-minute gunbattle with police guarding the vehicles.

Seven players, an umpire and a coach were wounded, none with life-threatening injuries.

The assault was one of the worst terrorist attacks on a sports team since Palestinian militants killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

The attackers melted away into the city, and none was killed or captured, city police chief Haji Habibur Rehman said. Authorities did not speculate on the identities of the attackers or their motives, but the chief suspects will be Islamist militants, some with links to al-Qaida, who have staged high-profile attacks on civilian targets before.

Before governor’s rule, Asif was asked to sack Taseer ...Rauf Clasra

Asif Ali Zardari was advised by four federal ministers on the night governor’s rule was imposed in Punjab to sack Governor Salman Taseer to send a positive message to the Sharif brothers after their disqualification by the Supreme Court.

At a cabinet meeting, held a day later and chaired by Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, a serious allegation was heard that one lawyer — fighting Nawaz Sharif’s eligibility case in the Supreme Court — was quietly paid a sum of Rs5.5 million by a bank for unknown services.

It was confirmed to The News that before the imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab, a secret meeting took place among Salman Taseer, Law Minister Farooq H Naek and retired judge Malik Qayyum at the Governor House in Lahore. It was this meeting that sealed the Sharif brothers’ fate.

A well-placed source confided to this correspondent that a shouting match took place at the cabinet meeting that was called to discuss the imposition of governor’s rule and endorse President Zardari’s decision on installing a PPP government in Punjab.

Several federal ministers reportedly exchanged harsh words so much so that Prime Minister Gilani was seen helplessly watching his raucous ministers settling their scores and having no idea how to placate them.

One insider claimed that President Zardari, during his visit to China, had told the prime minister to meet Shahbaz Sharif to bring the situation under control. Zardari called for the fence-mending talks after he was informed of the secret meeting held at the Governor’s House.

But one source defended the president and claimed that Zardari did not have any idea about the verdict of the apex court against the Sharifs. However, a PML-N leader rejected the view, saying, his party believed that the president knew full well what was going to happen.

As the president came to know of the Supreme Court ruling, he immediately called his close aides in the cabinet and started discussing the issue before making up his mind what to do in Punjab. The meeting, minus the prime minister, was attended by all the top leaders of the PPP.

 A, RA and KS, according to sources, opined that governor’s rule should not be imposed, because it would send negative signals. However, some others like HSK, MW, AW and RA suggested that if governor’s rule was to be imposed, Salman Taseer should also be replaced to help the federal government save its face.

At one stage, Zardari appeared serious about removing Salman Taseer while declaring governor’s rule. However, before someone could propose any name for the new governor, FN, LK, AM and SR strongly backed the continuation of Salman Taseer in office. They argued that he was an experienced man, knew the whole system in Punjab and was thus in a better position to handle the dangerous situation resulting from the imposition of governor’s rule. It was further argued that if a new man was brought in, he would not deliver at all.

When Zardari realised the mismatch of perceptions on governor’s rule, he asked for a consensus on the issue before he took a final decision. Ultimately, the hawkish elements prevailed, with others deciding to accept the majority opinion. As a result, all agreed on imposing governor’s rule in Punjab without replacing Taseer.

Once the decision was made, the prime minister also joined the meeting. As Gilani came to know about the participants’ intentions, the sources revealed, he was in a state of shock and tried to oppose the move. Gilani feared that it would lead to a serious trouble, but he was overruled by the majority. When the premier felt that he was not in position to convince them, he decided to fall in line.

Naek and Khosa were later assigned with preparations for governor’s rule. Both returned to the meeting with the observation that the prime minister’s advice was required before governor’s rule was declared. Gilani was asked to send a recommendation to the president, which was done within minutes.

Supporters of the unpopular step kept telling Zardari that he did not need to be confused, as it was not for the first time that governor’s rule was being imposed. Several precedents justifying the step were already there, they maintained.

Zardari was reminded of Nawaz Sharif’s orders placing Sindh were under a similar arrangement when Mamoon Hussain was made governor after sacking of the Liaquat Ali Jatoi government. Likewise, Manzoor Wattoo also did his bit to goad the president into action and recalled governor’s rule imposed in Punjab in the mid-90s. As tension between the Centre and the province was at its peak, Wattoo called the shots with the help of only 17 legislators.

At the meeting, an insider disclosed, the prime minister insisted that the Punjab chief secretary and IGP should be of his choice, a demand that was readily met to make him feel relaxed. But the tension among the participants during consultations at the Presidency also surfaced in the cabinet meeting the next day when Rabbani and Naek clashed and traded shouts in the presence of Gilani.

 ne source said that the shouting match started when Raza Rabbani — discussing the governor’s rule issue — was snubbed by Farooq Naek, who warned cabinet members against taking up the question. Naek tried to prevent all from commenting on the verdict of the Supreme Court, as he claimed it was against the law.

 ut Rabbani challenged his assertion, saying that the cabinet could confer on the issue. At this stage, Prime Minister Gilani sought the opinion of Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr Babar Awan, who also backed Rabbani’s view. After the judgment, Awan observed, fair comments could be passed on it.

This further infuriated the law minister, who tried to confront his dissenting cabinet colleagues — many of them blaming him for having a close relationship with Malik Qayyum, who had sealed the fate of Zardari and Benazir Bhutto to please the Sharif brothers.

The sources reiterated that the largest cabinet in Pakistan’s parliamentary history was sharply divided on governor’s rule, with many slamming it as a bad move by the party leadership and warning that it would trigger chaos in the days to come. Some of them were in favour of lifting governor’s rule and letting the PML-N bringing in a new chief minister.

It is learnt the cabinet members were heard asking how one of Nawaz Sharif’s lawyers got Rs5.5 million from a bank. But no one came up with a reply.