Supreme Court (SC) has rejected former ambassador to US Hussain Haqqani’s plea on exemption from attendance in the court and directed him to appear before the bench within 3 weeks.
A 9-member SC larger bench led by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry took up the case for hearing on Monday.
Attorney General (AG) Irfan Qadir and Asma Jahangir counsel for the petitioner appeared in court.
AG told the court a joint meeting of interior secretary and Asma Jahangir was held under his chairmanship as per orders of the court and he was informed that fool proof security would be provided to Hussain Haqqani after his arrival in Pakistan. A Helicopter would be provided to him from the airport to his hotel and his residence and all the areas will be kept under security blanket by security agencies, he stated.
The CJP remarked the security arrangements made by the government to be acceptable.
Asma Jahangir said Hussain Haqqani had reservations despite all the assurances of security. “Haqqani asks what serious situation has emerged that he is needed in the country”, she added.
CJP observed “Hussain Haqqani had left the country after giving the affidavit that he would return within four week. A sufficient time has been elapsed now what to speak of 4 weeks that Hussain Haqqani is not returning. Hussain Haqqani should honor his affidavit and court’s order”.
He further observed “we have extended ample opportunity to Hussain Haqqani and we will give no more time to him. It is better for him if he returns to country. Democratic system is in place in the country. Institutions are functioning and no one should need to worry in this regard. Government is providing security as much as it can provide to him”.
Asma Jahangir said the Hussain Haqqani be granted exemption from his attendance in the court.
The court rejected her plea and issued orders saying that Hussain Haqqani would be proceeded against under law if he failed to return to the country within 3 weeks. The court holds several options including revocation of his passport on this count. “We have given opportunity repeatedly. If Hussain Haqqani thinks that court can do nothing then he is under some delusion. If Hussain Haqqani does not come back willingly then he will be brought back forcibly”, court remarked.
The court directed Asma Jahangir to contact her client Hussain Haqqani within two weeks and inform it about his return to the country.
The court also directed AG to send a copy of these orders of the court to Pakistan embassy in US .
The court granting last opportunity to Hussain Haqqani to appear before it adjourned the hearing of the case for 3 weeks.
Which force? The Black Coat Brigade.
It seems like a pattern now, the Supreme Court’s (SC) issuance of one bewildering statement after the other about present and former diplomats, all belonging to the PPP. After the Swiss debacle via-á-vis the opening of alleged graft cases against President Asif Ali Zardari, whose incumbency bestows immunity, the Honourable Chief Justice (CJ) Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry must be aware that all things said in court invariably make headlines the next day, especially when the subjects are being addressed in absentia. Recurring ‘threats’ against the former Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani, post a commission-conducted inquiry even when no crime has been established, and the SC’s refusal to recognise threats to Mr Haqqani’s life in Pakistan seems like a case of tagging a person guilty without due process. It is a matter of great concern for the justice system when the US citizen Mansoor Ijaz on whose long-distance, rather shaky testimony, the entire ‘memo’ imbroglio sputtered into action, is allowed to testify via video-link and Haqqani is barred from doing the same.
Demanding that Mr Haqqani must fulfil his undertaking of returning to the country despitethreats to his life is thin on legality, since there is merely an inquiry against him, and not a trial, (the SC cannot be the trial court in any case). The SC, therefore, exhibiting restraint, should avoid issuance of orders that will not be respected in theory and practice. There does not seem to be any substance left in the memo case, and instead of trying to coerce HusainHaqqani to return, the SC, in a prudent move, should terminate the inquiry, which culminated without bringing any evidence against the former ambassador, and which, being conducted without due process, could further embarrass the SC.
As a principle accused in the famous Memo case, Hussain Haqqani describe his production in the court in Pakistan a high risk for his life because circumstances are not dependable despite the fact that there is government of his own party in the center .
Mr. Haqqani refused to come to Pakistan attending the apex court proceedings due to lifethreat condition, Here is question of his personal safety. According to him I can not hand over my life to the state machinery. Remember, when Monsoor Ejaz refused to come to Pakistan for recording his statement he demanded for video link the same was fulfilled, Hussain Haqqanihave same demand must be admitted. When the same courts declared him disloyal to this land how he can expect anything good from those who killed Bhatti and Salman Taseer, How can he trust in the same courts? It is simply putting his life on stake.
The central character in the so-called Memogate affair, Mansoor Ijaz, has refused to come to Pakistan just one day before he was supposed to appear before the judicial commission investigating the matter. The reasons for his refusal, according to Mr Ijaz and his counsel Akram Sheikh, are that he fears for his safety and life, there is a security threat to both from the authorities in Pakistan, and apprehensions that the body of evidence he claims is in his possession to prove his allegations against ex-ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani and his ‘boss’ may be destroyed if it falls into the ‘wrong’ hands. Mr Sheikh has been at pains to assert that the assurance s extended by the Attorney General (AG) and the instructions of the commission in its hearing on January 9 that Ijaz’s security would be handled by the army have not been adhered to. At one point, in an apoplectic rage, Mr Sheikh went so far as to assert that both the COAS and the AG would be in contempt of court if they did not follow the orders of the commission. Now, however, that Mr Ijaz has decided not to show, it would not be out of place to remind Mr Sheikh that he is on record as having told the commission that if his client did not appear on the date agreed (which the commission was generous enough to extend at least three times), he would not trouble the commission any more. Now, instead, his client wants the commission to travel to London or Zurich and record his statement there. In the first place, the commission’s instructions notwithstanding, security under the law for any citizen or visitor is the responsibility of the interior ministry, which not only appointed a senior officer to take charge of Mr Ijaz’s security in Pakistan, the authorities went so far as to announce that an army officer had been attached to help with the security duties of Mr Ijaz. This too proved insufficient for ‘viceroy’ Ijaz. The authorities’ bending over backwards to accommodate Mansoor Ijaz’s concerns has only yielded the damp squib at the end of the day of a cop-out by monsieur.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudary has proved the point that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is very sad but true that his actions are more whimsical than logical. Now the rule of the PPP is history, so what he is trying to prove by focusing on memo gate case.
Comments are closed.