LHR 11-02-2012_Layout 1 2/11/2012 2:46 AM Page 1
pakistantoday.com.pk
Rs15.00 Vol ii no 225 22 pages Lahore edition
Saturday, 11 February, 2012 Rabi-ul-awal 18, 1433
Mansoor Ijaz - coming to a screen near you on 22nd ISLAMABAD TAHIR NIAZ
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has failed in his attempt to head off a contempt of court charge and must now appear before the Supreme Court on February 13, after the judges refused to buy his counsel Aitzaz Ahsen’s argument that Gilani was simply following the Law Ministry’s advice.
The memo commission decided on Friday to record the statement of the main witness, Mansoor Ijaz, via live video conference from Pakistan’s High Commission in London at 2pm (PST) on February 22, with a stern direction to the government that “we don’t want any hiccups this time”. Zahid Bukhari, the counsel for former ambassador Husain Haqqani, was twice seen trapped in his own foggy arguments, apparently aimed at delaying the proceedings and keeping Ijaz from recording his statement before the commission. As Bukhari opposed the video conference procedure, the commission’s Chairman Justice Qazi Faez Isa told him that the commission had decided not to go abroad to record Ijaz’s statement, keeping in view the concerns he (Bukhari) had showed a day earlier regarding the security of the commission members and costs of travel. On the second occasion, Bukhari’s reservations regarding the quality of audio and video during the conferencing gave the commission chairman an added opportunity to direct the government to ensure a high quality live feed. “We don’t want any hiccups this time. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure a good link,” Justice Isa said. The commission’s Secretary Raja Jawad Hassan Abbas would reach London a few days prior to the proceedings to oversee arrangements and procure all the documentary and physical evidence including smartphones, other devices and forensic material provided by Ijaz. The commission also directed the Foreign Office to make necessary arrangements in this regard, including establishing a communication link between the Pakistan High Commission and the Islamabad High Court, where the commission had been holding its meetings. The Foreign Office was also told to make arrangements for the visit of the commission secretary and his stay in London. Justice Isa also asked Akram Shaikh, the counsel for Ijaz, to submit to the commission in advance three sets of all the documentary evidence received from Ijaz, while the original documents would be submitted later. Haqqani’s counsel strongly opposed the commission’s decision to record the statement through video conference, saying the move would be tantamount to prejudice. However, he could not satisfy the commission on the specific point. Justice Isa said if any lawyers wanted to go to London for cross-examination on their own expense, the commission did not have any objections.The commission rejected an application filed by Haqqani seeking the Continued on page 04
Missing persons case: SC won’t take no for an answer ISLAMABAD STAFF REPORT
The Supreme Court told the directors general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Military Intelligence (MI) as well as the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) chief secretary once again on Friday to ensure at all costs that the remaining seven missing prisoners who were picked up by the spy agencies from outside Adiala Jail were produced in court on February 13. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry hearing a petition filed by a woman named Rohaifa, the mother of three of the missing prisoners, also issued a notice to the KP governor through the chief secretary. All three were directed to
inform the court after procuring a report on whether the authorities concerned had ascertained the condition of the prisoners who were allegedly detained in the Parachinar Internment Centre. The court told Raja Muhammad Irshad, the counsel for the respondents, to positively produce all seven prisoners in court on Monday. Irshad was appearing alongside Joint Secretary Chaudhry Muhammad Yaqoob and Defence Ministry Director (Legal) Commander Muhammad Hussain Shahbaz. In its order, the court said: “Although the reply was filed by the respondents, compliance was not made. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is the responsibility of Director General, ISI, Director General, MI and Judge Advocate General, JAG Branch,
to comply with the order of the court in letter and spirit. Non-appearance of their (respondents’) counsel also suggests that reluctance is being shown in producing the detainees before the court.” The court noted that this fact may not be out of context that initially when the case came up before the court on January 6, 2011, the statement was made by Irshad on behalf of the ISI and MI chiefs and the JAG branch that the prisoners in question were taken from Adiala Jail for the purpose of trial under the Army Act. The court observed that reportedly four of them, namely Muhammad Amir, Tahseenullah, Said Arab and Abdul Saboor, had died in the meantime. The court noted that according to Irshad, the dead bodies of two of the four deceased prisoners were
handed over to the Lady Reading Hospital (LRH) Peshawar, while Said Arab was alive at the time and subsequently died in LRH and his dead body was also handed over to his family. “As far as the dead body of Abdul Saboor is concerned, it was found lying in an ambulance parked near Haji Camp, Peshawar. Therefore, production of the rest of the seven persons before the court is all the more necessary,” the court said in its order. The court said further: “In the circumstances, we direct DG ISI, DG MI and JAG branch severally and jointly, as well as the Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who is the head of the civil administration over there, to ensure production of these persons before this court in safe custody without fail on Feb 13.” At the outset of the hearing, Irshad
told the bench that four detainees had died while four others were currently under treatment at LRH. The three remaining persons were at a detention facility in Parachinar, he said, and they could not be presented in court. The court expressed its dismay over his statement and said it had clearly directed that the missing prisoners should be produced. The court then asked him who was standing in the way of its orders, saying that if the prime minister could appear in court, everyone else should also be able to do so. When the bench resumed hearing of the case at 5pm, the counsel for the intelligence agencies Irshad Kayani was not present in court. Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq stated that Continued on page 04