As Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz, the central character in the memo controversy, refused to come to Pakistan citing serious threats to his life from Interior Minister Rehman Malik, the judicial commission investigating the scandal rejected his petition seeking to have his statement recorded abroad and hoped on Tuesday that the US national would appear before it on February 9, the next date of hearing, saying the assurances made by the attorney general and interior minister were enough to allay apprehensions vis-à-vis his security and the safety of the evidence he would be bringing with him.
The commission said in its order that Commission Secretary Raja Jawad Abbas Hassan would receive Ijaz from his seat in the plane and escort him all the way to the Islamabad High Court for his appearance before the commission, or wherever he wanted to reside during his stay in Pakistan. It also directed the Civil Aviation Authority, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the Immigration Department to facilitate the commission secretary in this regard.
Commission Chairman Justice Qazi Faez Isa said the “genuine concerns” of Ijaz regarding his security had been addressed and the commission would accept no further excuses from him for not coming to Pakistan. During the course of the proceedings, Ijaz’s counsel, Akram Shaikh, insisted on the provision of security cover to his client exclusively by the army, to which the commission did not agree, saying personnel of four law enforcement agencies would provide security to him.
As Shaikh told the commission that his client did not choose to come to Pakistan because of security threats, former ambassador Husain Haqqani’s counsel Zahid Bukhari pressed the commission to not afford another opportunity to Ijaz to testify, as he did not come to Pakistan despite security assurances from the quarters concerned. However, Justice Isa told him: “Why don’t you go for a knockout in case he fails to appear before the commission next time. How will you be vindicated without a finding? Haqqani himself wanted an enquiry as stated in his resignation. You will stand penalised if you are not vindicated.”
Some of the petitioners in the memo case asked the commission to make arrangements to collect evidence from Ijaz abroad, but Haqqani’s lawyer opposed the proposal, saying the US national should not be given another opportunity to testify. However, the chairman dropped a hint that the commission would have to seek the apex court’s permission if it wanted to go abroad for collection of evidence. Earlier, Shaikh told the commission that security threats to his client emanated from none other than the interior minister himself. He referred to the statements attributed to the Rehman Malik in which he allegedly said Ijaz’s name would be placed on the Exit Control List (ECL) if the Parliamentary Committee on National Security so desired. Shaikh said Ijaz had no trust in Malik or anybody deployed by him to his security detail. “The gadgets that my client wants to bring with him might be stolen”, he added. The chairman then asked the attorney general if the interior minister’s statements were not contradicting the undertaking he had submitted to the commission and its orders. “He (Malik) should let us know if he has got some judicial powers,”
said Justice Isa, and asked the attorney general to call the interior minister so as to clear his position vis-à-vis his press statements. He was also critical of the statements of the prime minister on the commission’s proceedings. Malik later submitted to the commission that he had no intentions to put Ijaz’s name on the ECL and had not directed any authorities to do so. He denied the press statements attributed to him to the satisfaction of the commission.
Justice Isa observed that the courts were sanctuaries and even criminals had the right to approach the court. He said the commission would ensure safe arrival and return of each and every witness who wanted to depose before it as the commission was mindful of the security of every witness.
He observed that the commission was not being allowed to do its work and questioned why these people (government functionaries) were obstructing the arrival of Ijaz in Pakistan. Addressing the interior minister, Justice Isa said: “Your statements have created this disturbance. Had these not been there the court’s time would not have been wasted”.
However, Malik stated before the commission that Ijaz would not be put on the ECL and full security would be provided to him upon his arrival in Pakistan.
On two occasions, the chairman asked the court assistants to bring out the Code of Conduct for Lawyers as the attorney general and Haqqani’s counsel interrupted the proceedings. The commission also took it as strange that the lawyers in the memo case were approaching the media, which it termed a violation of the Codes of Conduct. He hoped that in future none of the lawyers engaged in the case would talk to the media on the issue. The commission was not satisfied with the affidavit submitted by Haqqani as it lacked clarity on all four points the commission had sought replies to. Haqqani did not say in clear terms when he last used his two missing BlackBerry smartphones or whose property they were. On the question of waiving his privacy rights, Haqqani submitted that it would be decided after evidence from Ijaz was presented to the commission.
The commission termed Haqqani’s affidavit “ambiguous”. The attorney general told the commission that so far the Canadian High Commission in Pakistan had not responded to its letter, which sought data from the Canadian manufacturer of BlackBerry smartphones.
The commission then adjourned the hearing for February 9 and is going to seek more time from the apex court for completion of the task assigned to it.
Mansoor digs in despite Rehman’s ‘assurances’
