As the National Assembly session starts today and the prime minister might possibly take a position against the judiciary, the Supreme Court threw the ball in the government’s court, saying that investigation in the Haj corruption case was not initiated on the basis of suo motu and it was the government who had asked the apex court for it.
“The case of corruption in Haj arrangements is being heard by the Supreme Court and it is necessary here to explain that the case was neither initiated by the Supreme Court nor a suo motu notice was taken of the corruption charges. The matter in fact was that the prime minister had constituted a committee consisting of parliamentarians, which included Maulana Muhammad Qasim, Syed Muhammad Saleh Shah, Bilal Yasin, Syed Imran Ahmed Shah and Khalid Somroo to investigate into corruption allegations pertaining to the Haj arrangements and submit a report.
The committee visited Saudi Arabia and submitted its report to the government on September 1, 2010, stating that corruption had taken place at a large scale in Haj arrangements. A copy of the report was also submitted to the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” said a press release issued by the Supreme Court on Sunday. It was also stated in the press release that the media frequently telecast and published stories after probing the matter that the ministry responsible for Haj arrangements and the director general of its Haj Directorate in Jeddah were involved in embezzlement.
“Senator Khalid Somroo, in a private channel programme ‘Dunya Meray Agay’ asked the Supreme Court to take notice of the matter and prior to taking notice of the issue, a Saudi prince Bunder bin Khalid had also written a letter to the chief justice of Pakistan regarding huge embezzlement in funds pertaining to Haj arrangements,” the press release stated. Referring to various talk-shows and news published by leading newspapers in the country every day about the corruption scandal, the press release added the given all the above stated facts and the circumstances, the court deemed it necessary to call the Haj secretary and foreign secretary separately to submit their reports and explain the situation as the daily reports were tantamount to ridiculing the nation in the world and bringing a bad name to the country.
The press release also added that during this time, many affected pilgrims also submitted their applications to the apex court and they also met Justice Khalil Ramday, then a judge of the apex court, during Haj days as he himself had gone to perform Haj and complained about the highly unbecoming treatment. The press release also added that there were many examples of corruption in Haj arrangements and the court was also told that Rao Shakeel was appointed director gnereal despite two cases of corruption pending against him in the National Accountability Bureau and the interior minister excluded him from the Exit Control List.
The statement said this fact was expressed by Khushnud Lashari in court. The court was also told that Hamid Saeed Kazmi was part of the scheme. The press release also stated that Azam Swati also told the court about the embezzlement. According to the press release, it was because of the court’s notice that the probe was extended and each pilgrim was given 700 riyals in compensation. The press release also added that then Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Director General Waseem Ahmed also reported to the court that embezzlements at a great scale were committed in Haj arrangements and an FIA team also went to Jeddah to investigate.
According to the press release, the establishment secretary and FIA director general had told the court on June 10, 2011 that they were in contact with the authority concerned regarding the reappointment of Hussain Asghar, the FIA director investigating the Haj scam, and had asked for some time to be granted for that purpose. Summing up the whole issue, the court said the matter was not of a clash of exercising powers between judiciary and the executive.
The court was empowered by the constitution to review any issue and constitutional history was full of examples in this regard.
Government itself asked court to notice Haj scam: Supreme Court
