Who to believe on Haqqani’s resignation?

The government continues to change its position on the resignation of former ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, whose counsel Asma Jahangir contradicted Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s public statement on Thursday, which was also in contradiction with his earlier statement, as she informed the nine-member Supreme Court bench hearing the memo case that the former envoy had resigned under pressure as the government could not take a tough stand, being in a transitional period, against the army.
In its affidavit, submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the federation, the Interior Ministry had said that Haqqani was not asked to resign, while a statement issued by a PM’s House spokesman on November 22 had said that the prime minister had asked the former ambassador to resign. Later, the prime minister contradicted the official statement and said Haqqani was not asked to resign as he had already handed in his resignation.

During the hearing, when Asma strongly criticised Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director General Lt General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, asking how Pasha had met Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz without the permission of the prime minister and how had Kayani termed the memo “a reality” based on Pasha’s report, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who was heading the bench, said: “We respect the army and its chief as these people have rendered sacrifices for the defence of the country.”
The counsel indulged in arguments with the chief justice and said army officers ruled the country while the soldiers gave their blood for the defence of the country. “We have respect for the army and we are indebted to the soldiers for their sacrifices,” the chief justice said. “But history tells us that wisdom is sometimes in the knees,” Asma remarked in response to the chief justice’s observation. On this, the chief justice told her not to use insulting remarks for anyone and argue her case.
She then said she also respected the office of the army chief, but he could also make a mistake. She said her client worked hard for the prestige of Pakistan, but in return he was disgraced. To a court query, she said the government, being in a transitional phase, could not take a tough stand against the army, thus her client resigned under pressure. She said Haqqani was pressed between two institutions.
She said the ISI chief probed Ijaz on an article in which the involvement of the president was claimed. “Why did an article compel the ISI chief to probe Mansoor Ijaz?” she questioned. The court then noted that the article in question was also against the army, thus it was the responsibility of the ISI head to investigate the matter. The chief justice questioned that if it was a matter of an ordinary nature, why was a key meeting held at President’s House over it, in which the prime minister, army chief, ISI chief and Haqqani were present? Asma said the affidavit of the army chief was based on his team, which brought the memo issue to his knowledge.
She said further that Ijaz had been writing against the ISI for the last three years and questioned why the spy agency had not noticed that. She said this was the same Mansoor Ijaz whose reference had been quoted by a Hindu writer who claimed there had been a meeting of Mansoor Ijaz with the spymasters of the Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Kashmir. She said the memo was not a legal issue, but a political matter. “How has Mansoor Ijaz become so credible?” she asked. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan said there was an exchange of messages between Haqqani and Ijaz. When Asma contended that the affidavit of General James Jones, former US national security adviser, proved that the memo was neither credible nor written by her client, the chief justice said instead of giving credibility and importance to others, we should consider giving credibility to our own people, referring to the army chief.
Asma said the memo was a matter of tension between the civilian government and the army. Justice Jan questioned that if Ijaz had a bad reputation, why had Haqqani remained in contact with him? At one point, Asma said the court was using respectable words for the prime minister, however did not accept the forum of investigation made by him to probe the memo issue. The chief justice remarked that in the presence of the president, after much thought, Haqqani was asked to resign.
“I am still wondering from where Mansoor Ijaz came and expressed his willingness to appear before the bench,” Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said. Asma contended that the court’s December 1 order forbidding Haqqani from leaving the country was against the constitution. The chief justice said the court had not stopped Haqqani from going out of the country, instead he was told to inform the court before doing so.
Giving arguments on the maintainability of the petitions, Asma again contended that the memo was nothing other than a worthless piece of paper, which was written by a US citizen and delivered to US authorities. She said no Pakistani was involved in the memo episode. She said except Ijaz, who was a foreign national, no one else had claimed the involvement of her client in the memo issue.
She said the petitions were not maintainable under Article 184(3) of the constitution. She said the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cases involving violation of fundamental rights was limited to addressing the grievances of poor people who were unable to get justice. The chief justice then noted that neither the president and prime minister nor the army chief had denied the reality of the memo. He said all the petitioners and respondents as well as Haqqani were agreed that the memo issue should be probed.
At the outset of the hearing, the chief justice observed that had parliament validated the November 3, 2007 emergency, superior courts’ judges would not have been restored. He observed this in response to a news item published in sections of the press quoting him (chief justice) as saying the memo issue would not have been brought before the court had the assemblies been functioning properly and the memo issue was heading towards the impeachment of the president. The chief justice asked the newspapers who published wrong news item to issue clarifications, otherwise it would be made part of the judicial order.
Meanwhile, in their arguments, lawyers Zafarullah Khan and Tariq Asad, who are also petitioners, contended that the memo issue was not of a political nature but a matter of national security and sovereignty. Asad told the court that Asma had defamed his reputation in her reply by terming him a ‘habitual petitioner’. Asma, however, apologised to Asad and assured the court that the words were not written deliberately in her reply and she would file an application in the court for deletion of these words. Another petitioner, Senator Ishaq Dar of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, filed an application in the court requesting that he may be allowed time to separately argue, being a member of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security. The court asked the counsels for both sides to positively conclude their arguments by Friday (today).