Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry on Wednesday said the investigations into Memogate scandal will be more transparent under the judiciary.
The Supreme Court commenced its proceedings in the memo scandal with the arguments of Asma Jahangir, counsel of former Pakistani ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani, who prayed to the court to call American-Pakistani businessman Mansoor Ijaz to appear before the bench. “We are raring to cross-question him (Mansoor Ijaz),” she added.
The Chief Justice said only Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha acknowledged the existence of the memorandum allegedly written to the US government against the Pakistan Army.
The Chief Justice further noted that Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani also did not deny its presence, adding that although President Asif Ali Zardari did not submit his rejoinder, it does not mean he denied the existence of the memo.
Asma stressed that if the President is responsible for this, then a case regarding his impeachment comes into the question, saying, “If Haqqani is involved in its writing, then it is a criminal case against him.”
This does not pertain absolutely to the basic rights of anyone, she added.
“The investigations under our supervision will be more transparent,” the CJ remarked.
Asma said, “If the trial is to take place at the apex court, then Mansoor Ijaz should be called here. We are geared up to cross-question him.”
She further stressed her client, Hussain Haqqani, shouldered his diplomatic responsibilities under extremely difficult conditions, as he had to contact a host of people in the wake of May 2nd incidents. “And, the conversation with Mansoor Ijaz was in this very perspective,” she added.
Justice Shakirullah Jan said the high-level meetings and Haqqani’s resignation signify the presence of the memo.
Asma Jahangir argued, “You look at the matter in legal perspective and the media will view it for purpose of press trial.”
The Chief Justice said, “You may call a matter of national security and solidarity a political question. We should bring to an end the attidue of concealing things, as matters from Liaquat Ali Khan to Benazir Bhutto could not be found out thus far.”
“We work under only and only the Constitution and the law,” he added, remarking that matters come to the courts if the assemblies cease to function.
The CJ asked as to why references were sent if the court cannot look into these matters.
Asma replied, “You committed errors in 200 cases including that of Nusrat Bhutto.”
“Reference is sent to the apex court if ban on certain political party is sought,” the CJ remarked.
asmia jehangir is advised to again consult american embassy as she normally ask them to provide some proves about pak intelligence agencies.
Kaya aap naheen jantey keh politics mein sara gund humari agencion ney daala hey.
Anybody with an iota of intelligence can understand the fairness of Chaudhry Court when it allowed more relief than prayed on the first day of hearing without even bothering to issue notice to any of the Respondents. December 1, 2011 will go down as another black day in the history of our judiciary, which in any case has a long history of such black deeds. As long as Chaudhry Iftikhar is occupying this building on Constitution Avenue, we cannot expect justice. Unfortunately, we have history's most prejudiced judiciary.
What kind of transparency, its crystal clear where does he stand. He has lost his credibilty & morality to lead supreme court.
Courts run on their credibilty which this court has lost.
Whats going on, I think I need to complain Arif Nizami against you so that he could prge his paper from ISI stooges.
Good to see Asma Jahangir putting their lorships under pressure. In 2007, when their own jobs were at stake, they suddenly remembered the supremacy of the Constitution. Now, they are back as spokespersons of the Army.
Supreme Court gave relief more than what Petitioners asked on December 1 without even issuing notices to Respondents. This does not give confidence that justice would be done.
Comments are closed.