-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Week Ending : 13 December 1997 Issue : 03/50
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The DAWN Wire Service (DWS) is a free weekly news-service from
Pakistan's largest English language newspaper, the daily DAWN. DWS
offers news, analysis and features of particular interest to the
Pakistani Community on the Internet.
Extracts, not exceeding 50 lines, can be used provided that this
entire header is included at the beginning of each extract.
We encourage comments & suggestions. We can be reached at:
e-mail dws-owner@dawn.com
WWW http://dawn.com/
fax +92(21) 568-3188 & 568-3801
mail Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Limited
DAWN Group of Newspapers
Haroon House, Karachi 74200, Pakistan
Please send all Editorials and Letters to the Editor at
letters@dawn.com
Make sure you include your full name, complete address and, if in
Pakistan, your daytime telephone number.
TO START RECEIVING DWS FREE EVERY WEEK, JUST SEND US YOUR E-MAIL
ADDRESS!
(c) Pakistan Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd., Pakistan - 1996
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
********************************************************************
*****DAWN - the Internet Edition ** DAWN - the Internet Edition*****
********************************************************************
Read DAWN - the Internet Edition on the WWW !
http://dawn.com
DAWN - the Internet Edition is published daily and is available on
the Web by noon GMT.
Check us out !
===================================================================
Judges revolted with govt. support: Sajjad
Larger bench for contempt cases
Army taking orders from PM: Defence Secretary
Sajjad demands full court
SC can review enactment's: Pirzada
Pirzada asks SC bench to lift restraint on Sajjad
Wattoo, others granted bail: Baitul Maal funds case
DAG ordered to produce freeze orders
Asif produced in court amid tight security
Indian visitors to go through new process, NA told
If excesses go on, MQM will part ways with govt: Altaf
Altaf lambastes victimization
---------------------------------
Forex reserves fall to $1.294bn
Rupee down by another 40 paisa
Rapid erosion of already modest forex reserves
33pc decline in trade deficit: Dar
Lack of interest by investors keeps KSE spiritless
Equities stay reeling under adverse economic data
---------------------------------------
Fascism on the march By Ardeshir Cowasjee
[Facism II] [Fascism III]
To put a gloss over a blemish By Aziz Siddiqui
Contempt law is an anachronism By Makhdoom Ali Khan
-----------
Saqlain bowls Pakistan to a position of strength
Sohail and Ijaz rub salt into Windies' wounds
Saqlain overshadows Dillon, Hooper on an eventful day
Pakistan whitewash West Indies
===================================================================
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
===================================================================
971207
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges revolted with govt. support: Sajjad
-------------------------------------------------------------------
H. A. Hamied
KARACHI, Dec. 6: Chief Justice (under restraint) Sajjad Ali Shah
said that judges of the apex court had revolted with the support
and encouragement by the government.
He said: "The government was the main beneficiary of the revolt and
attack on the Supreme Court building and the courtroom I was
presiding over."
He told Dawn in an interview at his official residence in Bath
Island that after having held the office of chief justice of the
apex court for three-and-a-half years, "I am being asked by the
judges of the same court to appear before them as a respondent to
justify my appointment as CJ in April 1994." "How can I appear
before them and address them as `My Lords'?"
The cases, he believed are being heard together on the basis of
decisions taken by his own courts sitting at Quetta and Peshawar.
"On the last date of hearing of these petitions, my counsel, Abdul
Hafeez Pirzada and Ghulam Hussain Abbasi, sat through the
proceedings to see what further steps are to be taken by me whether
to contest or not to contest those petitions." He said, another
counsel Ahmad Raza Kasuri also appeared on his behalf.
Justice Shah said: "I will have a conference with all these
counsels of mine and many others who are offering to contest on my
behalf, in Karachi shortly and finally decide whether I should
contest or not as a respondent in these petitions."
The notice, he said, for his appearance or through his counsel, was
served to him through post in Karachi. He said the SC considered
him as its chief justice but they had restrained him from
functioning as CJ and his administrative and judicial powers had
been clipped.
How could this be done to a chief justice at the fag end of his
career (he is due to retire on Feb. 16) after full 30 years of
service in judiciary, right from the district and sessions judge,
judge of the High Court, its chief justice, then judge of SC and
its chief justice, he wondered.
Justice Shah said he worked for the rule of law and independence of
judiciary and made it clear to the government that the judges would
be appointed in consultation between the chief justices of the
Supreme Court and of the high courts. On this issue there were
difference with the government.
He said except for the appointment of Justice Ajmal Mian, Justice
Saiduzzaman and Justice Fazal Ellahi, all other 13 judges were
appointed to the apex court in consultation with him. The
consultation was there and now these 13 judges are inquiring into
his appointment. He had taken oath of their office. Is this not
very strange? he asked.
He said the oath-taking of Justice Ajmal Mian as acting chief
justice was government organized. "Everything is open now. I don't
want to say anything about these cases, even how many are there, I
don't know", he said.
The recent appointment of six judges to the High Court of Sindh was
strictly on the basis of the Judges Case verdict. The appointments
were made in consultation between him and the CJ of the High Court,
he pointed out. He refused to talk about the role of the army in
the government-judiciary tussle.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971207
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larger bench for contempt cases
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau Report
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 6: The Supreme Court will give an authoritative
judgment on all the pending contempt of court cases clubbed
together after interpreting Article 19 and 66 of the Constitution
relating to the freedom of speech by both citizens and
parliamentarians.
Acting Chief Justice Ajmal Mian, in an order said that contempt
cases should be heard by a larger bench than the existing five-
member one. He also put off the hearing of the contempt cases
against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and six parliamentarians till
the third week of January when the court reopens after winter
vacations.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971209
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Army taking orders from PM: Defence Secretary
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 8: Federal defence secretary, Lt-Gen (retd)
Chaudhry Iftikhar Ali Khan, has said that after the "removal of the
8th Amendment" the Army was taking orders from the prime minister
and not the president.
"After the removal of 8th Amendment (through 13th Amendment) all
the powers are with the prime minister. The situation has changed
and therefore the Army is not taking orders from the president but
the prime minister", said the defence secretary.
He said this in reply to a question why the Army did not side with
the president during the government-chief justice tussle, despite
the fact the president is the supreme commander of the armed
forces.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971211
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sajjad demands full court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafaqat Ali
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 10: Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah objected to the
constitution of the 10-member bench hearing petitions challenging
his appointment as chief justice, and demanded constitution of a
full court for hearing his case.
Through his main counsel, Mr Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Justice Sajjad
Ali Shah objected to the proceedings against him on the ground that
no writ could be filed against him. He alleged that six of the ten
judges were biased against him. He objected to the presence of
Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan, Justice
Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Khalilur
Rehman Khan and Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmed.
Mr Abdul Hafeez Pirzada argued that the court had no jurisdiction
to look into the validity of the appointment of the chief justice.
A written statement on behalf of the chief justice was also filed.
The chief justice, whose appointment was held in abeyance by judges
of the same court, contended that no writ or process could be
issued to restrain him from performing his judicial functions.
Hafeez Pirzada, the main counsel for the chief justice, requested
the court to strike down the argument of Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada as
he was engaged by the government to represent its case in the 14th
Amendment case. " I am under instructions to make this request," Mr
Pirzada told the bench. He argued that the order of the Supreme
Court's division bench working at Quetta registry " is nullity in
Constitution, law and void ab initio." It was stated that order of
the Quetta bench affected the functioning of the apex court and
caused irreparable harm and damage to the judiciary.
Hafeez Pirzada argued that the order of restraining the chief
justice from performing his duties was coram non judice as he (CJ)
was able to perform his functions and discharge his duties in
accordance with the Constitution.
Mr Pirzada argued that if the order of appointing Justice Sajjad
Ali Shah was invalid, the appointment of 13 sitting judges of the
Supreme Court and 43 judges of the high court would also be invalid
as they were appointed by the petitioner.
He said the "doctrine of de facto" would not apply to cases in
which consultation was mandatory. He further argued that judgment
of the Supreme court could not be applied with retrospective effect
and only the parliament had such powers.
Mr Pirzada said the "doctrine of legitimate expectancy" would apply
neither to the appointment of the Supreme Court's chief justice nor
to the high courts. He said this doctrine was only applicable to a
party directly affected. "Justice Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Justice
Saad Saood Jan and Justice Ajmal Mian were not the only individuals
supposed to have been affected, questioned or agitated against the
appointment of Mr Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as chief justice," he
argued.
He said appointment of a chief justice on the basis of seniority
was a desirable convention, but it lacked the force of the
constitution. "Any breach of constitutional convention (unwritten)
is not enforceable through courts of law," he contended.
The 10-member bench consisted of Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui,
Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan, Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice Raja
Afrasiab Khan, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Munawar Ahmed
Mirza, Justice Khalilur Rehman Khan, Justice Shaikh Ijaz Nisar,
Justice Abdur Rehman Khan and Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmed.
He said the Supreme Court was the final guardian of the
constitution and argued that no appointment could be struck down
for mere violation of a convention.
IMPLIED RATIFICATION: He further argued that the supreme court had
upheld the doctrine of "implied ratification" in its recent
judgment on a petition disputing the validity of the Eighth
Amendment. It was held by the apex court, he argued, that since
three legislatures had not repealed the Amendment, it had obtained
implied ratification. "I would invoke this doctrine in the present
case".
He said his client was appointed Chief Justice of Pakistan in June
1994 and his appointment was held in "abeyance" in 1997. He wished
that Supreme Court judges had not used the expression which the
martial law authorities used for suspending the Constitution.
"They, (martial law authorities) had used the same expression for
holding the constitution in abeyance".
Mr Pirzada said if the Supreme Court judgment in the Judges Case
had laid down guidelines for appointment of the chief justice, the
executive should have acted last year rather than this year.
Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui asked Mr Pirzada whether he had read
the statement of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in which she
had revealed that a summary had been moved immediately after the
Supreme Court judgment of March 20, 1996, for appointing chief
justice on the basis of seniority. Mr Pirzada acknowledged that he
had read the statement of the "former Lady Prime Minister who often
makes contradictory statements."
JUDGES CASE: Justice Saiduzzaman referred to a paragraph in the
Judges Case dealing with the appointment of the Chief Justice of
Pakistan, which was left open. Mr Pirzada said he was fully
conscious of the paragraph and would dwell on it when the hearing
reached that stage. He said the Judges Case would not be applicable
in the case of appointment of Chief Justice as the president was
not required even to initiate the consultation process. It was
mandatory for the appointment of judges of superior courts as well
as the chief justice of high courts.
He said after the judgment of the Supreme Court on March 20, 1996,
the legislature did not make amendments in the constitution,
implying that the power to appoint any judge or any person who was
qualified to become a judge of the Supreme Court as chief justice,
remained with the president. He said there were precedents when
lawyers were taken on the bench directly and appointed chief
justice or made a judge of the Supreme Court. He cited the
instances of Justice Manzoor Qadir, who was appointed chief justice
of Lahore High Court, and Justice Abdul Qadir Shaikh, directly
appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Mr Pirzada objected to the acceptance of the petitions challenging
the appointment of his client, Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, under
Article 184(3) as it did not involve the "enforcement of any
fundamental right". He said the apex court had the jurisdiction to
take up any matter under its original jurisdiction only when a
violation of fundamental rights was alleged. "My grievance is that
you, my lords, did not apply your mind while admitting the petition
for regular hearing."
He said even the Judges Case was delivered after a petitioner was
granted leave to appeal against an order passed by the Lahore High
Court. He, however, admitted that the petitioner in the Judges
Case, Mr Habib Wahabul Kheiri, had also filed a constitutional
petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
FULL COURT: Asking for full court hearing, Mr Pirzada argued that
in the wake of several "judicial orders" passed by two circuit
benches of the Supreme Court working at Quetta and Peshawar, it was
necessary that this case should be heard by a full court, excluding
the chief justice and Justice Ajmal Mian.
He said six judges - Justice Bashir Ahmed Jehangiri, Justice
Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, Justice Mamoon Kazi, Justice Chaudhry
Mohammad Arif and Justice Munir A. Shaikh - were not included in
the full court as required under the orders of the Quetta and
Peshawar bench orders. At this Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui
observed that there was a consensus among judges that the matter
required a full court hearing.
COMPOSITION CHALLENGED: Mr Pirzada objected to the sitting of six
judges on the bench who were "prejudiced against my client". The
judges are Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan,
Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, Justice
Khalilur Rehman Khan and Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmed.
Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, it was stated, had a "direct personal
interest" in the result and outcome of these petitions. If the
principle laid down in the Judges Case was held to be applicable to
the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Siddiqui would be a direct
beneficiary as on the retirement of Justice Ajmal Mian in July
1999, the appointment of Justice Siddiqui as chief justice would be
automatic and inevitable, Hafeez Pirzada observed. He said it
became clear when Justice Ajmal Mian declined to act in pursuance
of an order passed by the division bench of the Supreme Court at
Peshawar, Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui arrogated the powers of the
chief justice to himself.
Justice Siddiqui had treated the order of Quetta bench as fait
accompli (final) and on the basis of that order, issued directives
to the senior puisne judge to assume the functions of the chief
justice and constituted a full court, excluding Justice Sajjad Ali
Shah. "It was clear without an iota of doubt that Justice Siddiqui
pre-empted and accorded finality to the order passed by the
division bench at Quetta on Nov. 26."
It was further stated that Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui was in full
knowledge that the Chief Justice had written to the president for
referring his case to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on grounds
of misconduct. The reaffirmation of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah's
appointment, Mr Pirzada contended, would certainly pose a threat to
Justice Siddiqui as his case might then be referred to the SJC.
Justice Siddiqui was also one of the signatory judges in a letter
to the president recommending proceedings against the Chief
Justice.
He said Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan sat on the bench with Justice
Siddiqui, despite refusal of Justice Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, and took
cognizance of a petition that could have been presented only at the
principal seat in Islamabad, and assigned to a bench by the Chief
Justice of Pakistan.
Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan, being a signatory to the orders of the
Peshawar bench passed on Nov. 27 and 28, was equally disqualified
to sit on the bench. It was further stated that Justice Fazal
Ellahi had been reported as saying the functioning of the Supreme
Court needed to be "democratized."
Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah (under restraint) said on Nov. 18,
1997, a division bench of the apex court working at Quetta had
considered the objections to the constitution of the bench on the
ground that it was not properly constituted as the appointment of
the chief justice was not constitutional.
Later Justice Irshad Hasan Khan and Justice Khalilur Rehman Khan
had directly entertained a petition under Article 184(3) in
violation of the rules of the Supreme Court and ignored the orders
passed by a previous bench on Nov. 18. They not only assumed
jurisdiction but also without notice to the Attorney General passed
an ex-parte interim order holding the notification of appointment
of chief justice issued three years earlier "in abeyance", and
passed an order restraining the chief Justice from performing his
duties.
A notice was issued to Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada (who was a counsel
for the Federation in the case challenging the 14th Amendment). He
was requested to assist the court as amicus curiae.
Mr Hafeez Pirzada requested the court to strike down all arguments
made by Mr Sharifuddin Pirzada as he was not "independent", a basic
prerequisite for the appointment of amicus curiae.
Later in the evening an administrative order passed by Chief
Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was overturned by three judges, including
Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, and they "suspended the chief justice"
About Justice Khalilur Rehman Khan, it was stated that in the
petition of Malik Asad which was before the court, a specific
reference was made to two judges - Justice Khalilur Rehman and
Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmed - who, according to the petitioner, had
refused to take "dictation" from the chief justice. "The two were
elevated to the Supreme Court, and therefore deemed to have been
forced to accept the elevation . There can be no graver instance of
personal aggrievement. The two learned judges have not controverted
this allegation, although both have heard and are hearing the
petition," it was stated.
He said Justice Shaikh Riaz Ahmed was law secretary on June 5,
1994, and the notification of the appointment of the chief justice
had been issued under his signatures. As he was a party to the
process of appointment of the chief justice, he was not competent
to hear petitions challenging a notification issued under his
signatures, it was contended.
About Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, it was stated that he had endorsed
the decision by the division bench at Quetta of holding the
appointment of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah in abeyance, and was thus
disqualified to sit on the bench.
It was stated that the issue of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah's
appointment had already been a subject matter of a petition that
was later withdrawn. A fresh petition, it was argued, was barred.
Mr Pirzada said when the petition was withdrawn, Mr Habib Wahabul
Kheiri had felicitated the chief justice by saying "Your lordships'
appointment is now beyond question, the brother judges on the bench
nodded." He said the order of the Quetta bench was trumpeted as the
suspension of the chief justice. "It was announced in a manner that
a Patwari had been suspended" .
SUBVERSION: Mr Pirzada said a mob organized and motivated by senior
functionaries of the ruling party broke into the premises of the
Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice's court room, and by
brute force disrupted the functioning of the highest court of the
country. "This in fact is tantamount to subversion of the
Constitution and administration of justice guaranteed thereunder ."
He argued that independence of the judiciary had been undermined
and it was high time the court interpreted Articles 5 and 6 of the
Constitution. He referred to the execution of Adnan Menderes, prime
minister of Turkey, who had ordered the stopping of a train
carrying Ismet Inonu, who wanted to move a no-confidence motion
against the prime minister.
When Adnan Menderes attempted suicide, he was revived and hanged to
death to make an example of the fate awaiting those who attempted
to subvert the constitution, Mr Pirzada recalled. He said that as
far as he knew, all those miscreants who had attacked the Supreme
Court were bailed out.
Earlier Sikandar Hayat Kasuri, elder brother of Ahmed Raza Kasuri,
argued that the Quetta and Peshawar circuit benches had no
jurisdiction to entertain petitions against a sitting chief justice
because a branch registry was always set up by the chief justice.
He also cited Order 25, rule 6 of the SC rules and said these rules
could never be suspended. He contended that a chief justice could
only be removed by initiating a process under Article 209 of the
Constitution.
He referred to an interview of former president Farooq Ahmed
Leghari and wondered why members of the bench had agreed to meet
the prime minister. To this, Justice Siddiqui reminded him that
"people" had been going to the presidency before passing certain
orders. "Had the president disclosed their names," Justice Siddiqui
asked.
Finding the response of Sikandar Hayat in the negative, Justice
Siddiqui asked him to proceed further. The hearing will resume on
Thursday.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
970802
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SC can review enactment's: Pirzada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rafaqat Ali
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 11: Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Counsel for Chief Justice
Sajjad Ali Shah, said that the present parliament was not the
constituent assembly and, therefore, had no authority to change the
basic structure of the Constitution. He said constitutional
sovereignty of parliament was out of the purview of judicial
review, but the legislative sovereignty of parliament was open to
judicial review.
Continuing his arguments, Hafeez Pirzada said the Supreme Court had
the jurisdiction to review all enactment's passed by parliament. He
said time had come when the Supreme Court should save itself from
internal and external onslaughts.
Mr Pirzada said his client CJ, being a human being, might have
over-reacted under a certain situation, but the order passed by the
Quetta bench suspending him as the Chief Justice of Pakistan was
improper.
The counsel for the chief justice said he would stay short of
repeating what President Franklin D. Roosevelt had said: "We have
reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the
Constitution from the court, and the court from itself."
Mr Pirzada who had started his argument by reading the orders
passed by the Quetta and Peshawar benches of the apex court and
termed the Quetta bench order improper. He did not find anything
wrong with the order passed by the Peshawar bench. He said the
whole exercise proceeded on baseless assumption that there was a
judgment at Quetta bench of the Supreme Court which had achieved
finality in terms of Constitution, whereas only final announcement
of judgment achieves finality and becomes the law. The orders
passed at Quetta on Nov. 26 was ex-parte, ad- interim and inter-
locutory. They were subject to confirmation, and even if confirmed
they could not have outlived life of the petition and would have
merged in final judgment of the Court. "These orders did not effect
the subsequent five judges orders to the contrary, the next day,
when the chief justice did exist de facto and de jure. On Nov. 28,
it was by the street muscle of mob that he was ousted from the
court physically," the counsel said.
Pirzada said the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Sajjad
Ali Shah, which nullified the Quetta orders by majority of 4:1 on
Nov. 27, was the lawful court even as per Quetta orders, "if these
were to be assumed for a moment as correct". "The Quetta order did
not restrain the chief justice from acting as judge on Nov. 27 and,
therefore, he could lawfully preside over the bench, already in
existence, being the senior most judge," Pirzada pointed out.
The 10-member bench headed by Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui heard
the arguments of Mr Pirzada without reacting to his (counsel's)
request for a full court hearing. Mr Pirzada said that the prime
minister had moved to subjugate the judiciary.
The crisis, the counsel said, cropped up when the chief justice
opposed the government's plan to create a parallel judicial system.
He said parliament had passed the 13th Amendment a few days before
the Supreme Court released the detailed observation in the 8th
Amendment case. The government, he claimed, after perusal of the
observation in the 8th Amendment case moved to strip the president
of his discretionary powers.
When Mr Pirzada said that the present parliament was not a
constituent assembly and had no authority to change the basic
structure of the Constitution, Justice Fazal Ellahi Khan observed
that 1973 Assembly, too, was not a constituent assembly but it had
framed a new Constitution. On this, Mr Pirzada argued that 1973
assembly was a constituent assembly and it had the mandate to frame
the Constitution.
He said the Supreme Court had held that 8th Amendment had provided
a mechanism to avoid imposition of martial law. At this, the court
informed Mr Pirzada that a petition challenging the 13th Amendment
was still pending in the Supreme Court and it would not be proper
for him (Pirzada) to argue the case now.
Mr Pirzada said he was aware that a petition was pending in the
court on which the chief justice had passed a " controversial
order". He, however, said his only purpose was to highlight the
executive's endeavours to make other institutions subservient to
it.
Mr Pirzada said that after striping the president of his
discretionary powers, the next target for the ruling party
leadership was to bound the party legislators not to dissent and
consequently 14th Amendment was made in the Constitution whereby a
member of the party could be disqualified if he dissented.
Justice Irshad Hasan Khan pointed out that a constitutional
petition challenging the 14th Amendment was also pending for final
adjudication in the Supreme Court, and as interim measure a bench
of this court had suspended its operation. Justice Khan asked
whether a reference to the 14th Amendment was relevant now.
"Yes my lord, it is very much relevant", Pirzada said. He said the
Supreme Court being the apex court of the country was the final
arbiter of the land, and the day when the powers of judicial review
were taken away from the judiciary, the country would cease to
exist. Continuing his arguments Pirzada read the judgment passed by
the Quetta bench. When he was reading the Quetta bench order,
Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui asked if it was proper for the chief
justice (under restraint) to sit on the bench to decide a case
about himself.
Mr Pirzada said the question was not whether Chief Justice could
sit on the bench or not. "The question is whether the November 27
judgment by five-member bench was a judgment by the bench of
Supreme Court or not" he argued. He pointed out that though Justice
Mamoon Qazi on the bench disagreed with the majority judgment, he,
too, however declared that passing of an order by the five-judge
bench had become "absolutely necessary".
He said from the above facts flows the natural consequence that no
one judge can restrain another judge. The situation, he said, would
become alarming if judges start inhibiting each other. He asked
would the court exist if majority of 9 out of 17 judges inhibited 8
other judges. "This is precisely going to happen to you. A judge of
High Court will restrain you from functioning. I have received
record of a petition filed against your lordship in Lahore High
Court. The trend of filing petitions against judges has set in. The
question is if he restrains you would you obey" Pirzada posed a
question to the bench which gave no response. He further pointed
out that on Tuesday the High Court has formally impleaded the
members of the bench as respondent in a case.
Pirzada also challenged the 10-judge bench as being constituted in
violation of the court's own orders passed earlier. He pointed out
that the Nov. 28 orders by Quetta bench and the Peshawar bench both
called for a full court hearing of a matter and, therefore, the
ten-judges bench could not hear the same. He also referred to Nov.
18 order of the Quetta bench when the matter was referred to Chief
Justice Sajjad Ali Shah for constitution of the benches.
Earlier, Pirzada criticised the Nov. 26 Quetta order by Justice
Irshad Hassan Khan and also challenged the subsequent order the
same night on the grounds of urgency. "What was the urgency for the
petitioner that having suffered the appointment of Chief Justice
for the last 20 months he could not wait for morning to challenge
the administrative orders of the Chief Justice," Pirzada argued. As
Justice Irshad observed that the urgency related to CJ's
administrative orders cancelling the cause list for the next day,
Pirzada maintained that the same being intra-court matter could not
have come on an application by adversary.
Pirzada differentiated between November 28 Peshawar bench order
with that of Quetta bench order on November 26. He said in the
Peshawar bench order Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui refrained from
passing any judicial order observing that it was not necessary to
pass an order on interim relief request. "You have not passed
injunction against the CJ and, therefore, the matter was left open
for the bench at Quetta which was to resume the hearing the same
day", he said. He said the November 26 Quetta order was not an
intra-court final order but an interim order subject to notice for
November 28 and therefore not binding on Chief Justice Sajjad Ali
Shah. "There is no adversary here except within the Court", he
said.
Pirzada posed another question to the bench. "Suppose your orders
directing the Registrar to constitute full court were complied and
Chief Justice had ordered for full court. Would you accept his
orders ?", asked Pirzada. Justice Siddiqui observed that in this
situation there was no way out.
Pirzada said that since Peshawar bench of SC did not decide any
thing except of full court, therefore, there were only two orders
in the field confronting each other. One, Quetta bench order of
November 26 and the five-judge order of Nov. 27.
Assuming for a while, he argued, that judges can restrain each
other from exercising judicial and administrative functions then
either both the above orders are bad or both of them are good. "If
both the orders are bad then Justice Sajjad Ali Shah is chief
justice as per status quo and if both the orders are good then the
five-judge order holds ground being of larger bench and therefore
Justice Sajjad is still the Chief Justice", Pirzada observed.
Hafeez Pirzada also lashed out at Attorney General Chaudhry Farooq
and the amicus curiae Sharifuddin Pirzada in the case for
deliberately hiding the fact from the Quetta bench during Nov. 28
hearing that the five-judge bench through an order had nullified
the Quetta bench earlier order of Nov. 26. He expressed his shock
that the order by Justice Irshad after the hearing on Nov. 28
referred to the 5-judges bench order "as a note whereas this was an
order passed in open court". He referred to the statements of
Sharifuddin Pirzada and attorney- general in which they also
referred to the orders of five-judges bench as "a note". "It is an
error on the face of record", he said.
Pirzada pointed out that the five-judges order had, in fact, agreed
to consider the request for full court. To this Justice Fazal
Illahi Khan broke his silence and observed, "the question is that
we have been requesting the Chief Justice that such constitutional
petitions be taken up by the full court but he always said he will
consider but he never did".
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971213
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pirzada asks SC bench to lift restraint on Sajjad
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafaqat Ali
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 12: Barrister Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, counsel for
Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah reiterated his request for full court
hearing, and asked the court to lift the restraint imposed on the
Chief Justice of Pakistan.
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada contended the order passed by the Peshawar
bench required that a full court comprising 15 judges had to decide
the petitions challenging the validity of the chief justice's
appointment.
Mr. Pirzada stated that he viewed the Peshawar bench order as a
judicial order, and he felt that if a full court was not
constituted, it would be a violation of the decision.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971211
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wattoo, others granted bail: Baitul Maal funds case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Reporter
LAHORE, Dec. 10: An Ehtesab bench of the Lahore High Court has
granted bail to former Punjab chief minister Mian Manzoor Wattoo
and three others in a Baitul Maal funds misappropriation case in
the sum of Rs 5 million with two sureties in the like amount each.
Rejecting defence counsel Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmad's plea for
reducing the surety amount to Rs 500,000 each. Mr Wattoo and co-
accused Malik Haider Usman, Afzal Jafri and Abdul Jabbar Qureshi of
Lohari Gate, Lahore, are alleged to have misappropriated Rs 100
million of the Punjab Baitul Mall funds.
According to the prosecution, an amount of Rs 100 million was
transferred from the Baitul Maal to Account No CD-385 in the Bank
of Punjab for flood victims on the instructions of the then chief
minister in Sept 1992. The title of the account was later changed
to CM's Baitul Mall Discretionary Fund "in total negation of the
purpose for which the amount was transferred."
An amount of Rs 10 million was allegedly paid to Mr Afzal Jafri for
the establishment of a cadet college out of the fund, which was
allocated for providing relief to flood victims. Malik Haider Usman
and Jabbar Qureshi have also been assigned roles in the offence by
the Anti-Corruption Department.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971211
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAG ordered to produce freeze orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Correspondent
LAHORE, Dec. 10: The Lahore High Court has issued notices to PPP
chairperson Benazir Bhutto, her spouse Asif Ali Zardari and mother
Begum Nusrat Bhutto for Dec. 19, in a writ petition seeking
repatriation of their foreign bank deposits to the public exchequer
of Pakistan.
The petition has been filed by Barrister Javed Iqbal Geoffrey, and
Justice Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry who is hearing it has passed an
interim order restraining the three respondents from operating
their foreign accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere in the world.
Deputy Attorney-General Khwaja Saeeduz Zafar informed the court on
the authority of the Accountability Cell functioning in the Prime
Minister's Secretariat that competent Swiss courts have passed
fresh orders indefinitely freezing the bank accounts of the three
PPP leaders.
Earlier freeze orders, the DAG said, passed by an administrative
agency, expired on Dec. 8. Justice Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry asked the
DAG to obtain copies of the Swiss executive and judicial orders and
place them before the court.
The petitioner-lawyer has alleged that the bank accounts were
opened with misappropriated public funds of Pakistan. The court
extended the restraint order against the three respondents till
Dec. 19.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
970802
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Asif produced in court amid tight security
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Dec. 11: Senator-elect Asif Ali Zardari was produced
before the Sindh High Court on a court order amid tight security.
On Thursday, he made an application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.
(saving of inherent powers of the high court) and submitted that
the jail authorities did not take him to Civil Hospital for an X-
ray of his right arm and to JPMC for his dental treatment as
recommended by doctors who had examined him earlier. He stated that
he was suffering from acute spondalitis and other related diseases,
for which the respondent was examined by the medical board
constituted under the orders of the DJ (South).
The applicant said the physiotherapist who had recently examined
him in Karachi jail had given an opinion that the X-ray of his
right be taken and for which it was necessary that he should be
taken either to CHK or JPMC. He maintained that despite court
directives, the superintendent of Central Prison failed to take him
to the hospital.
It was further stated in the application that the head of the
dental department of JPMC was of the opinion that he should be
brought to the hospital, but he was not taken there by the SP
Prison. A copy of the application was given to AAG Nairandas C.
Motiani, who is representing the government.
The state counsel wanted to submit a counter-affidavit to the
revision application and requested for time and by the consent of
the parties concerned, the judge adjourned the matter till 11 am on
Dec. 23.
When Mr Zardari was brought to the court, a large number of heavily
armed policemen of all ranks, including APCs, were deployed on the
high court premises. Some of the policemen had taken up positions
in the triple story building. One of the APC was parked in the no
parking area and there was a heavy rush of people to see what was
happening. For about two hours, the situation prevailed for the
safety of Mr Zardari.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971211
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian visitors to go through new process, NA told
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau Report
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 10: Interior Minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain told
the National Assembly that the government was introducing a system
of pre-verification and new visa stickers for Indian nationals in a
bid to check influx of illegal immigrants.
The minister's remarks came through a written reply to a question
asked by PML's Mian Mohammad Munir about illegal immigrants in the
country. He also wanted to know the steps the government was taking
to repatriate the illegal foreigners.
He said by the introduction of pre-verification system for Indian
nationals, visas would be issued after antecedents were verified by
provincial governments.
Extensive coordination, the minister said, between the provincial
governments and the Pakistan Rangers was also being given priority.
Introduction of new visa stickers for Indian nationals to guard
against fake visas was also included in the new measures.
Chaudhry Shujaat said in order to identify the illegal immigrants
and their ultimate repatriation to the country of their origin, a
legislation was being drafted. Under the proposed law, the illegal
immigrants would be registered and all those who facilitated the
influx of illegal immigrants or employed such persons, would be
liable to prosecution for a criminal action.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
970802
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern international airport to be built in Lahore
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Habib Khan Ghori
KARACHI, Dec. 11: The foundation-stone of a new modern passenger
terminal complex at Lahore International Airport, at a cost of over
US $275 million, is expected to be laid by Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif during the last week of this month.
The terms of financing agreement, submitted to the ministry of
finance, have already been finalised and sent to the ministry of
law for vetting, authoritative sources said.
The new terminal will be on the opposite side of the present
building for which the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has acquired
600 acres of land from the army, circles close to the CAA confided
to Dawn. They said the project was likely to be completed within 24
to 30 months and would be ready for opening either on March 23 or
Aug 14, 1999.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971207
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If excesses go on, MQM will part ways with govt: Altaf
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Dec. 6: Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain has
warned that if the MQM's genuine grievances are not redressed, it
will part ways with the coalition government.
According to a press release Mr. Hussain, in no uncertain terms,
said if excesses against the MQM continued, the party "will not
remain in the government". Mr. Hussain said the Muttahida Qaumi
Movement did not need portfolios and appointments in return for its
support to the government; "We want the release of our imprisoned
workers. We want our missing workers recovered. We want
rehabilitation of displaced families from the no-go areas. And we
want compensation for the heirs of workers who were killed".
The MQM chief said if the government did not review its attitude
toward the MQM, it would leave the government; "then the PML, if it
wants, can enter into coalition with the PPP." He instructed the
Muttahida Qaumi Movement legislators to meet the prime minister and
hold frank discussion regarding all the problems.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971210
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Altaf lambastes victimization
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Dec. 9: Muttahida Qaumi Movement Altaf Hussain has said
that suspecting the patriotism of the Mohajirs and continuing the
state operation against them by terming them traitors is tantamount
to destroying the country and "those responsible for it are the
biggest enemies of Pakistan".
He demanded that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif help arrest and punish
all those involved in the extrajudicial killings, including Benazir
Bhutto and Naseerullah Babar. He announced that if the government
did not punish all those involved in the killings, then whenever
the MQM came to power, it would mete out exemplary punishment to
the culprits.
===================================================================
970802
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Forex reserves fall to $1.294bn
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Dec. 11: Pakistan's foreign exchange reserves declined to
$1.294 billion in the first week of December that brings the total
fall in the reserves to $327 million within three weeks.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971213
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rupee down by another 40 paisa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KARACHI, Dec. 12: The rupee fell 40 paisa more to a US dollar in
kerb market as speculative buying of the greenback continued even
though the State Bank said categorically that there was no move to
devalue the rupee.
The US dollar closed at Rs 46.65 and Rs 46.75 for buying and
selling in kerb market at 3:00 pm - up 40 paisa over Thursday
closing at Rs 46.25 and Rs 46.35. Official buying and selling
prices of the dollar remained unchanged at Rs 44.05 and Rs 44.27.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971208
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapid erosion of already modest forex reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sultan Ahmed
The small foreign exchange reserves of Pakistan have been eroding
fast. They stood at $1.63 billion on October 25 and have now sunk
to a low $1,280 million despite receiving the first tranche of $208
million as first tranche under the three-year $1.6 billion deal
with the IMF.
To make the situation far more critical, repayments of debt of $475
million are due before December 31 and $2,115 million before the
end of June, 1998. The available foreign exchange is just enough
for five weeks imports while the safe margin according to IMF is a
reserve equal to three months imports.
Exports which increased by 5.2 percent in the first quarter of this
year against the targeted increase of 15 percent for the year have
fallen despite the 8.7 percent devaluation of the rupee announced
in October last following the 13.2 percent devaluation of 1996-97
in an effort to boost the sagging exports which fell last year by
2.7 percent against the targeted rise of 14.4 percent.
The balance of trade improved by 17 percent in the first quarter of
this financial year despite the small rise in exports as the
imports fell by one percent. But that, however, meant a sizable
loss of customs revenues for the government. Exports are likely to
face further problems because of the economic setback and financial
crisis in East Asia as a whole with its global impact.
Textile exports have been affected and the latest report says grey
cloth export has fallen by 6.8 percent, resulting in closure of a
considerable number of power looms in the Punjab.
Cotton export which was to earn substantial foreign exchange
following expectation of a 10 million bale crop this year has
received a serious setback. The crop is being estimated between 8
and 9 million bales. And the All Pakistan Textile Mills Association
is pressing for a freeze on exports.
If instead the government prefers the policy of exports to continue
while the mills remain free to import cotton that can increase the
deficit in the balance of trade. And in the process cotton will
come to cost more and more at home, giving the Indian textile
exporters who get cheap cotton a major advantage over Pakistani
textile exporters. But the loss from small export of cotton may to
some extent be made up the export of the 300,000 ton's which has
been permitted by the government. But now there are reports the
surplus sugar may be less than the expected 500,000 ton's as
sugarcane growers are using the cane to make gur as the mill owners
are not making timely payments for the cane.
Home remittances which are the second major source of foreign
exchange is said to have improved significantly in the first
quarter of this financial ending September 30. May be more money
flowed in foreign the 8.7 per cent devaluation of the rupee on
October 15. But the remittances which almost touched $3 billion in
the early 1980s have been sinking and touched $1.131 billion last
year.
The fact is that Bangladesh's home remittances are double those of
Pakistan. The surmise is Pakistan's two million overseas workers
may be keeping or investing more of their earnings abroad in view
of the lasting political and economic uncertainties in Pakistan and
the frequent devaluation of the rupee. In fact even their share of
the foreign exchange deposits in banks in Pakistan has been going
down while those of resident Pakistanis has been increasing in view
of the heavy battering the Pakistan rupee has been taking.
Foreign aid which has been shrinking while repayments are on the
rise resulted a net aid of only $42 million last year against the
preceding year's net receipts of $419 million. And now following
the financial crisis in East Asia, which has enveloped Japan as
well and has resorted in the collapse of major security firms and
banks, may result in less foreign aid, particularly from Japan
which is now Pakistan's largest donor.
The government explored other ways of getting foreign loans on a
short term basis. It was trying to pledge PIA's earnings, and
overseas call earnings of Pakistan Telecommunications Corporation
and even securities the home remittances.
All that was before the judicial and political crisis arose. Some
headway was made in those desperate efforts and then they froze.
They may be resumed now in view of the acute need for foreign
exchange to repay old loans.
On the part of the IMF, it wants the external current account
deficit to be brought down to 5.1 percent of the GDP this year from
last year's 6.4 percent alongwith the budget deficit of 5 percent.
But they are really very tough goals in the prevailing situation.
The IMF wants the current account deficit to be brought down to 4
to 4.5 percent by the end of the ESAF period in 1999-2000.
Unless the government works earnestly in that direction and cuts
its external expenditure sufficiently, that goal of reducing the
external deficit to 4 to 4.5 percent, along with the budget deficit
of 4 percent, will not be reached.
The government was hoping to improve the balance of payments
through accelerated privatization. But those efforts received a
major setback following the political crisis and vagaries of its
economic policies and deterioration in the law and order situation,
including the murder of four Americans in the city.
The Prime Minister wanted the privatization of the public sector
banks and development finance institutions to be completed by March
and the rest of the units by June. Khawaja Asif chairman of the
Privatization Commission wanted the deadline to be extended to
December 31, 1998. But the damage done to the image of Pakistan
abroad and the East Asian financial crisis with its global fallout
will slow down that process or we will be forced to sell those
valuable projects at far below the optimum possible prices in
better times. Meanwhile the government has made full use of the
sale proceeds of the Habib Exchange and Securities Bank. The Schon
Bank and the Women's Bank from buyers in the Gulf states who paid
in foreign exchange.
When conditions in South East Asia became unsettled beginning with
the Thai crisis, some foreign funds came to Pakistan for portfolio
investment but when things became politically unsettled here and
law and order became worse much of that money went away.
The hot money was also encouraged by the 8.7 percent devaluation of
the rupee which made the cheap shares of good Pakistani companies
even cheaper, and then the money went way to safer pastures leaving
only a small part behind. And with the speculation now that the
rupee may be devalued by 4 to 6 per cent more, as the exports have
become stagnant, the Indian rupee has been devalued to the extent
of 10 percent since August, the depreciation of East Asian
currencies continues and the dollar becomes stronger in the process
more and more Pakistanis are seeking financial security and better
profitability in keeping their savings in dollars.
A Pakistani head of a multinational company tells me he keeps only
the month's home expenses in rupees and the rest is kept in
dollars. Such frequent and heavy devaluation is compelling more and
more Pakistanis to seek the shelter of the dollar, which becomes
stronger against other currencies as well.
There are reports that many who have received their golden hand-
shake payment too have kept those funds in dollar accounts, but
that appears to be an exaggeration. Only a small number of persons
who has chosen the golden handshake have actually received their
full amount.
Secondly many of those who have received such amounts want larger
profits than the dollar deposits offer as they have to live on
those earnings as well and so can't place all the savings as dollar
deposits. But eventually after hundreds of thousands of persons
had received their golden handshake rewards their dollar deposits
may rise substantially. It is comparative for the government to
make strenuous efforts to increase exports and make them more of
the value added, augment the home remittances by persuading
overseas Pakistanis to bring home more of their funds and appealing
to resident Pakistanis, who have retained large sums abroad bring
them back, accelerate privatization in a meaningful manner and cut
down its external expenditure to the maximum possible extent.
If that is not done neither the targeted foreign exchange reserve
of $1,673 million for the current year nor the external current
account of deficit of 5.1 per cent as stipulated by the IMF may be
reached after a reserve over $2 billion had been achieved during
the three years between 1993 and 1996 while last year left us with
dismal reserve of $1,219 million.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971209
-------------------------------------------------------------------
33pc decline in trade deficit: Dar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faraz Hashmi
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 8: Pakistan's trade deficit during the first five
months of the current financial year has declined by more than 33
%, Federal Minister for Commerce Ishaq Dar said.
The Government aiming to reduce the budget deficit by $1bn at the
end of current financial year has already reached the half way mark
by reducing the imports by 5.3 % and increasing the exports by 7.8
%, Dar said. Giving the trade data of November this year he said,
country's exports increased to $771 million from $667 million in
November 1996.
The imports during the month of November dropped to $842 million
from $967 million in 1997 which showed a decrease of 12.9 %, he
said. In the period from July to November the country imported
goods worth of $4.5 bn compared to $4.7 billion last year. The
exports amounted to $3.5 bn 7.8 % higher than $3.25 bn in 1996-97.
The trade figures of November when compared to October depicted a
more bright picture since the exports increased from $713 million
to $771 million and imports decreased $1.02 bn to $842 bn.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971209
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of interest by investors keeps KSE spiritless
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Dec. 8: The KSE 100-share index managed to recover 14.62
points at 1,803.97 as compared to 1,789.35 at the last weekend. It
has over 11 percent weightage in index and so did other blue chips,
such as the PSO and the ICI Pakistan.
The total market capitalization also rose by Rs 3.343 billion to Rs
543.047 billion as compared to Rs 541.704 billion, reflecting the
strength of leading heavily capitalized shares.
Bulk of the interest was, confined to the current favorites such as
Hub-Power, ICI Pakistan, FFC-Jordan Fertilizer, Japan and Southern
Electric. Bank and energy shares managed to score good gains on
active short-covering at the lower levels and finished partially
recovered under the lead of Askari, Al-Faysal Bank, KASB & CO, PSO
and Shell Pakistan rising by Re 1 to Rs 5.
MNSC such as BOC Pakistan, Engro Chemicals and Lever Brothers also
rose by Re 1, biggest gain of Rs 61.55 being in Lever Brothers at
Rs 1,435. Dadabhoy Sack and Packages also rose by Rs 3 to 3.25.
Losses on the other hand were mostly fractional barring, Searle
Pakistan, Pak Papersack and Gadoon Textiles, falling by Re 1 to Rs
2.50.
Volume figure fell to 36.394 million shares from the weekend 38
million shares owing to the absence of leading buyers. Out of the
187 actives, 68 shares ended lower, while 62 rose, with 57 holding
on to the last levels. A substantial decline in the volume was also
attributed to the absence of PTCL whose shares are still traded on
the spot basis and once it was shifted to ready transactions, the
volume figure could soar to the daily average figure of 50 million
shares.
The most active list was topped by Hub-Power, up 55 paisa on 19.469
million shares; followed by ICI Pakistan, firm 15 paisa on 9.373
million shares; Southern Electric, up 35 paisa on 1.451 million
shares; FFC-Jordan Fertilizer, lower 10 paisa on 0.841 million
shares and Askari Bank, higher 65 paisa on 0.0.670 million shares.
The other actively traded shares were led by Fauji Fertilizer, up
20 paisa on 0.633 million shares; followed by Sui Northern, lower
30 paisa on 0.511 million shares; Dhan Fibre, easy five paisa on
0.357 million shares; Ibrahim Fibre, unchanged on 0.203 million
shares; ICP SEMF, steady five paisa on 0.203 million shares; and
Japan Power, lower five paisa on 0.292 million shares.
Defaulting companies: Trading in this sector was picked up as all
the three shares, National Modaraba, Crescent Textiles, and
Sunshine Cotton, which came in for trading finished unchanged at Rs
070,6.75 and 0.50 on 4,500, 2,000 and 500 shares, respectively.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971213
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Equities stay reeling under adverse economic data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Reporter
KARACHI, Dec. 12: The KSE 100-share index suffered a fresh
fractional decline of 1.06 points at 1,759.41 as compared to
1,760.47 a day earlier. The market capitalization also fell Rs 534
million at Rs 529.356 million as compared to Rs 529.890 million a
day earlier.
Although prices changes were mostly fractional, some of the leading
shares managed to post good gains under the lead of Shell Pakistan,
which recovered Rs 20 on active short-covering after having by the
same amount during the last couple of sessions. PSO followed it,
rising by Rs 4 followed by Sana Industries, Abbott Lab and Mehmood
Textiles, which posted gains ranging from Rs 2.50 to 5.
Barring a sharp decline in Lever Brothers, which fell Rs 44 on
profit-selling at the higher levels, and a decline of Rs 2.25 in
Citicorp, others declines were mostly fractional and reflected lack
of support rather than large selling from any quarter, with the
exception of Siemens Pakistan, Engro Chemical, Reckitt and Colman,
and Leather-up, which suffered decline ranging from Re 1 to Rs
1.50. Trading volume fell to 6-month lows of 17 million shares,
while gainers cut short the lead held by losers at 44 to 57, with
34 shares holding on to the last levels.
Hub-Power again led the list of most actives, lower five paisa on
8.247 million shares; followed by Southern Electric, lower 45 paisa
on 2.768 million shares; PTCL, easy 10 paisa on 2.632 million
shares; ICI Pakistan, down five paisa on 1.085 million shares; and
Dhan Fibre, unchanged on 0.471 million shares.
Other actively traded shares were led by FFC-Jordan Fertilizer,
lower 15 paisa on 0.105 million shares; Kohinoor Energy, off 35
paisa on 0.100 million shares. All other transactions were well
blow 0.100 million share mark even in most of the current
favorites.
Eight companies announced their working results for the year ended
June 30,1997, but no one among them declared dividend for their
shareholders. Although most of them suffered fresh losses, the
newly listed Nian Industry showed a post-tax profit of Rs 35.770
million but omitted the dividend, which should have the maiden one.
Others, which followed it was Valika Art Fabrics, which earned a
modest post-tax profit of Rs 0.071 million but did not declare any
payout. Hala Enterprises, Morafco Industries, Indus Fruit Products,
Ashfaq Textiles, Punjab Oil Mills, and Transmission Engineering
were the others with blank years.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE TO HERALD TODAY !
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Every month the Herald captures the issues, the pace and the
action, shaping events across Pakistan's lively, fast-moving
current affairs spectrum.
Subscribe to Herald and get the whole story.
Annual Subscription Rates :
Latin America & Caribbean US$ 93 Rs. 2,700
North America & Australasia US$ 93 Rs. 2,700
Africa, East Asia Europe & UK US$ 63 Rs. 1,824
Middle East, Indian Sub-Continent & CAS US$ 63 Rs. 1,824
Please send the following information :
Payments (payable to Herald) can be by crossed cheque (for
Pakistani Rupees), or by demand draft drawn on a bank in New York,
NY (for US Dollars).
Name, Postal Address, Telephone, Fax, e-mail address, old
subscription number (where applicable).
Send payments and subscriber information to :
G.M Circulation, The Herald
P.O.Box 3740, Karachi, Pakistan
We also accept payments through American Express, Visa or Master
Card. Allow 45 days for first issue.
Back to the top.
===================================================================
971207
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fascism on the march
See also [Facism II] [Fascism III]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
THEORETICALLY, in a Westminster-style democracy that this country
has tried to emulate, there are four pillars of state - the
legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and the press. But our
country rests imbalanced on five. The fifth pillar, the most
powerful, the richest, the most organized, is the army. Fortunately
for us, it is now headed by a good commander.
Nawaz Sharif's `overwhelming' mandate, comprising less than ten per
cent of the total population of the Republic, but sufficient for
him and his `sovereigns of parliament' to do good by the 140
million should they so wish, did not satisfy him.
He first tackled the executive, emasculating the president, rushing
through at midnight the 13th Amendment, suspending all rules of
procedure, aided and abetted by a pliant assembly speaker and a
pliant senate chairman (both front-runners in the present
presidential race). To neutralize the legislature, he repeated the
exercise with his 14th Amendment (passed without a single dissent)
banning dissension or abstention in parliament. Never in the
recorded history of any democracy have parliamentarians voluntarily
given up their right to speak.
At the time when Farooq Leghari and his caretaker government were
assuring Nawaz Sharif his second term, Abbaji was heard to declare,
"leghari Sahib kay ehsan, mein, aur merey baitey, aur hamara
khandan, kabhi nahin, bhoolengey." This was forgotten on February 3
when Nawaz Sharif was elected.
Nine months down the line, a weakened Leghari, given the choice
between a threatened impeachment (which, because of the numbers
game, may never have come off) or resignation, chose the latter. He
should have called Nawaz Sharif's bluff, and, following the
dictates of his conscience, gone on to sign or not sign whatever
was presented to him. An independent judiciary would have
intervened and passed appropriate orders against a mala fide and
colorable impeachment.
Leghari having resigned, a new president now has to be elected.
When my friend, Nawab Mohammad Akbar Shahbaz Khan, Tumandar Bugti,
was asked whether he was an aspirant, he replied "No. I do not
qualify. I have a spine." Amongst the pliable favorites are Wasim
Sajjad, Sartaj Aziz, Ilahi Bakhsh Soomro, and, of all people, Ghous
Ali Shah. Of this sorry lot, one is guilty of having lied under
oath in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The fourth pillar of the state, the press, is no longer just the
printed word. it is also the predominating electronic media. Nawaz
Sharif and his men do not, or cannot, read, so, by and large, we
remain relatively free. PTV, our prime ministers' personal
television channel, remains abjectly controlled, so much so that it
was prevented from broadcasting President Leghari's resignation
speech to the nation. Shots were shown on foreign television
channels, and the world informed that it was banned from the
national channel. This reinforced international opinion as to Nawaz
Sharif's authoritarian tendencies.
The army stands as one. Chief of Army Staff General Jehangir
Karamat has acted prudently. Nawaz Sharif's propaganda about his
having army backing is neither correct nor is it generally
believed.
Why do you glorify the army chief so, asked Ayaz Amir (not so long
ago one of our credible national columnists but now a budding
Nawazite)? Have you forgotten your history? Have you forgotten how
Hitler divided and destroyed the Wehrmacht? Have you forgotten the
Blomberg-Fritsch affair? Have you forgotten how the ageing giant
Hindenburg was duped by Hitler? If Nawaz succeeds in his aim, will
Karamat be forgiven? I told him I had not forgotten any of it and
how not so long ago I had sent to the general a copy of a video
film on the Fuhrer which is being followed up by a copy of Shirer's
`The Rise and Fall of the third Reich'.
As for the judiciary, Nawaz Sharif with his (or rather, our) money,
with his carrots and sticks, has successfully managed to undermine
this institution so recently built up. Neither history nor the
people can ever forgive him for this.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Sajjad Ali Shah (to the Bar and the
people he is neither `under restraint' nor `under suspension') was
appointed by Benazir in 1994. No judge, or member of the Bar, up to
November of this year, voiced any protest against his appointment
or his administration. As Rashed Rahman, son of a former Supreme
Court judge, wrote about him in The Nation, "That he is a man of
courage and has a clean record goes without saying. In that sense
he can be compared to a hero of a Shakespearian tragedy whose fall
is brought about as much by a flaw in his own character as by
outside factors."
Fali Nariman, a former Attorney-General of India and now president
of the bar association of India, who keeps himself abreast of
happenings in the courts of our country, asked me to fax him the
orders passed by the Quetta and Peshawar Benches and by Chief
Justice Sajjad Ali Shah relating to the ouster. On December 5, a
perplexed Nariman asked, `but is there any legal or constitutional
basis for the orders of the Quetta and Peshawar Benches?"
My constitutional adviser and senior counsel, Barrister Makhdoom
Ali Khan, was immediately consulted. Careful Makhdoom's first
response was to say, "Not to my knowledge." I asked him for a one-
word answer, either `yes' or `no'. "No," he said. There are
certainly no precedents in Pakistan for what has happened, but
there are many against. It is a settled principle that no writ will
be issued by one judge to another.
On November 28, I was in the Supreme Court whilst the contempt case
against Nawaz Sharif and others was being heard by Chief Justice
Shah's Bench. Sitting beside me was my friend and lawyer, Khalid
Anwer, now federal law minister. Whilst alleged contemner Nawaz
Sharif's lawyer, S.M. Zafar, laboured on and on, Khalid shook his
head from side to side. Zafar, making his usual noises, shifting
his weight from one foot to the other, told the court that its
constitution was in question. A calm and composed Sajjad asked, why
then are you here before us? Zafar also questioned the legitimacy
of Sajjad's appointment as chief justice. If you do not recognize
me as chief justice, do you recognize me as a judge of the Supreme
Court? queried Sajjad.
As the harangue continued, I remarked to Khalid that his writ as
law minister does not extend far, and asked if it would extend far
enough for him to protect my seat whilst I nip out to attend to a
call of nature. Good humouredly, he replied that though he may not
succeed as law minister, he could manage to do so as a senior
counsel of the Supreme Court. Before I could reach my destination
one floor below the courtroom, a surging screaming crowd of
hooligans appeared in the corridors. Zahid Hussain, correspondent
for The Times (London) and the chief of AP in Pakistan, was with
me. We were both hurriedly sent back by court officials who were
rushing around instructing each other that the doors of the
courtroom be closed, that the crowd had arrived to arrest the Chief
Justice.
As we re-entered, I heard Sajjad remark, to Zafar, "Thanks to you,"
whilst adjourning the case and leaving the courtroom just before a
section of the crowd, spearheaded by women, rushed in. Turning to
Khalid I said that if Nawaz Sharif must use women, he should at
least see to it that they are good looking rather than frightening.
A lawyer of Lahore standing close by informed me that they were not
actually women, but intermediary beings, and that I would look like
them were I to shave off my beard and moustache and put on lipstick
and make-up. He even recognized a few of them as being famous
`tanglas' from certain specialized areas of Lahore. As we pushed
our way out of the courtroom, a dejected Khalid Anwar muttered to
himself, "Most unnecessary, most unnecessary."
Acting Chief Justice Ajmal Mian is so far clean on record, and, as
far as is publicly known, free from any impropriety. His first
challenge is to deal with all those involved in the attack on the
Supreme Court. This will not be easy. It must nevertheless be
faced. The mob did not attack a man, or a building. The institution
of the judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its apex, was the
target of the assault. This was contempt of court of the worst
kind, and any lack of firmness or alacrity in dealing with the
culprits will only encourage others to use similar methods each
time the court is seized of a politically sensitive matter. The
authority of the court will become subject to the muscle- power of
the mob and the machinations of those who hire them.
The master-fixer, my friend the Jadoogar of Jeddah, Sharifuddin
Pirzada, who snoozed besides me as we flew back to Karachi, was
firm in his opinion that the gravest of contempt had been
committed, that it's an open and shut case.
See also [Facism II] [Fascism III]
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971207
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To put a gloss over a blemish
-------------------------------------------------------------------
By Aziz Siddiqui
HOWEVER apt the rejoicing over the supposed end of the
constitutional crisis, one aspect of it must for honesty's sake be
questioned. It is being claimed that the war against the judiciary
and the presidency was waged for the supremacy of the parliament,
and that the `victory' achieved is a vindication of that objective.
This may not be deliberate deception, but it certainly puts a heavy
gloss over something far less edifying both in its origin and
conclusion.
First, the crisis, it will be recalled, began with the question of
the chief justice of the time recommending elevation of five named
judges to the supreme court. From around August 20 up to the middle
of October there was practically no other issue in contest - not
publicly. And the resistance to the recommendation, in fact not-so-
veiled refusal to comply with it, was coming from the chief
executive, not the parliament. It is possible to draw that
distinction because there was no pre- existing legislation to
authorize the leader of the house to invalidate the chief justice's
recommendation.
The (now restrained) chief justice for his part was pursuing his
case on the ground, first, that at the time he made his
recommendation those five vacancies did exist and, second, that his
word had to be honoured not only out of consideration for the
prestige of his office but also by virtue of the judgment in the
so-called Judges Case. That judgment incidentally had been
enthusiastically welcomed by the leader of the opposition of that
time and the prime minister of the present, Mian Nawaz Sharif, and
his party, and which they never contested even now during this
crisis.
The Constitution did, it is true, give the executive, as also the
parliament, the power to fix the number of judges in the supreme
court. But since in the present instance the executive notification
on the subject came just about the same time that the chief justice
had sent up his recommendation it was seen as a gambit specifically
to nullify the latter.
The prime minister's later haggling over the number, and then the
names, of the persons recommended further confirmed that this was
no contest over constitutional rights but only an anxiety over some
extra-constitutional concerns. At no stage did this seem or was
made to seem a bid to assert the supremacy of the parliament. In
short, there was no conflict yet between the functions of the
judiciary and the parliament. (And yet the press had already begun
to be fed with news about the intent to haul the chief justice
before the supreme judicial council and to move for the impeachment
of the president).
Secondly, where there was indeed some interference with the
parliament's law-making - as in that most explosive issue of the
crisis, the suspension of the anti-defection 14th Amendment - it
came much later, at the end of October. And it was in apparent
accord with the Constitution, as even the attorney-general admitted
to the court on the day of the hearing. The Constitution empowers
the supreme court to rule over the constitutional compatibility of
a legislation.
Article 8 (1) and (2) says: "Any law, or any custom or usage having
the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights
conferred by this chapter, shall, to the extent of such
inconsistency, be void." And, "The State shall not make any law
which takes away or abridges the rights so conferred, and any law
made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of such
contravention, be void..."
Who is to decide the inconsistency and the contravention? Article
184(3) gives the answer: "...the Supreme Court shall, if it
considers that question of public importance with reference to the
enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I
of Part II is involved, have the power to make an order of the
nature mentioned in the said Article."
That obviously made every legislation open to the test of
compatibility by the supreme court. The writ against the 14th
Amendment was by that token admissible. So also would have been any
complaint, say, against the Anti-Terrorism Act. The chief justice
refrained from doing anything while this terrorism was before the
parliament although his sentiments against the setting up of a
parallel judiciary were well known.
As regards the chief justice's action over alleged contempt of
court by some of the National Assembly members, that too was no
apparent breach of parliamentary supremacy.
The Constitution forbids the parliament discussing `the conduct of
any judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge
of his duties.' According to press reports, apart from legitimate
criticism of the supreme court's suspension of the 14th Amendment a
lot else was also said that day inside and outside the Assembly.
The Dawn correspondent reported that for whole two hours invectives
against the chief justice flew thick and fast, and only after
everyone with venom to pour had had his say and the press reporters
had left that the deputy speaker had ordered the outpourings
expunged. The onslaught would still probably have been ignored, but
considering the state of confrontation at the time it was no
surprise that it was not.
Finally, there were indeed instances, though late in the crisis,
where the chief justice did seem to overstep the limits. The bill
amending the law of contempt was innovative in that it provided for
an appeal against a supreme court conviction for contempt, for
automatic stay of the conviction, and for that appeal to be heard
by another set of judges of the same court. Yet there was no
precedent, nor apparent ground in law, for the chief justice to
prohibit the president's assent to that bill, and even less to rule
the bill suspended if the assent had already been given.
Similarly, the grant of temporary restoration of the presidential
power to dissolve the National Assembly(the repealed Article
58(2)b) on the ground of a breakdown of the constitutional
machinery was obviously an act of desperation to prevent a feared
collapse. It was virtually the last throw of the dice in a do-or-
die gamble. Thus if in these two instances the judiciary did seem
unduly to interfere with the parliament's function, they occurred
at the height of the crisis, after the battle had been joined and
the heels firmly dug in. They were a consequence, not the cause, of
the conflict.
Supremacy of the parliament is of course a basic element of the
parliamentary form of government. In practical terms, however, the
supremacy has limits and restraints. Interior minister Mr. Shujaat
Hussain said at the height of the crisis that if there were lacunae
in the 14th Amendment these could be corrected.
Law minister Mr. Khalid Anwar remarked afterwards that if the court
had objection to denial of the right of dissent in that Amendment
it should have confined itself to just that instead of suspending
the whole Amendment. Why these `ifs' after so much damage? Why
didn't they themselves consider these possibilities before making
the law? Why didn't they give themselves, the opposition and the
country time to examine all its aspects? What was the rush? What
were they scared of?
In fact this seems a congenital flaw of this government. It has had
all its major legislation's, the 13th and 14th Amendments, and the
ehtesab and the terrorist laws, hustled through the two houses in
tearing hurry, often by suspending rules and procedures and
preempting all debate, as if any airing will cause a foul-up or
exposure of some guilt. If there is a lack of educated consensus on
these measures, even over the repeal of 58(2)b, it is partly
because people have not had the assurance that these have been run
through with a fine comb in the parliament.
The question whether the judiciary was usurping the parliamentary
function of making law instead of just interpreting it came up most
starkly at the time of the Judges Case. From that beachhead, and
through subsequent judgments on the Eighth Amendment, the toppling
of Benazir government and the respective powers of the president
and prime minister, the judiciary grew fast in its own esteem and
began to look upon itself as much more of an arbiter in the affairs
of the state than perhaps it should have. Mr. Nawaz Sharif was then
of course wholly on the side of the so-called judicial activism. He
would still be were he in the opposition. It is current suitability
rather than political conviction that often determines party
attitudes even on fundamentals.
This is a cause for worry for the future. The post-martial law
period has been coloured by shades of absolutism and messiahism.
First it was the president brandishing the weapon of 58(2)b in the
name of checks and balances. Then briefly came the judiciary
resplendent in its armour of the Judges Case and invoking the
principle of independence of the judiciary. Now it seems it is the
turn of the elected executive to enforce its version of
unchallengeable supremacy of the parliament through its 14th
Amendment and its bonded parliamentary majority. There are still
battles ahead.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971210
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contempt law is an anachronism
-------------------------------------------------------------------
By Makhdoom Ali Khan
THE contempt power of the courts has been a subject of considerable
controversy. No one seriously disputes that the power is necessary
to enforce judicial orders and maintain decorum in the courtroom.
The power to punish for scandalizing a judge and comment on sub
judice proceedings raises serious constitutional issues, however.
The press has now maintained for some time that the law needs
change. The offense of scandalizing a judge must be abolished. It
has no place in a constitutional democracy.
The judges like everyone else have the right to defend their
reputation. The means available to them must also be no different
from those of other citizens. The law of defamation is an adequate
safeguard. If it is not, it must be reformed. This does not,
however, justify equipping the judges with the contempt power to
keep their name clean.
More than twenty years have passed since the legislature last gave
the matter some thought. The Contempt of Court Act, 1976, made some
positive changes. The offense of scandalizing the judge was
unfortunately not scrapped. The dangers of this jurisdiction and
the extent to which it can be misused have been the subject of much
comment. The recent contempt proceedings against the prime minister
and some of his colleagues have brought the issue once again to
public attention. No comment can be made on these proceedings for
the matter is sub judice. The government which till recently was
not sympathetic to the pleas for reform may now be less unwilling
to reconsider the issue.
There is a marked difference between interference with the
administration of justice and criticism of a judicial decision or a
judge. The distinction has often been ignored by the courts in the
subcontinent. British justice played a vital role in legitimizing
colonial rule in India. The press was keen to point out that the
courts were as tainted with bias against the people of India as the
rest of the administration. The law of contempt was meant as a
political weapon to stifle such criticism of British justice.
The colonists were completely unabashed about it. In the United
Kingdom the courts declared that the offense of scandalizing a
judge was obsolete. In 1899 the Privy Council (the highest court of
appeal for the colonies) declared that committals for contempt of
court, "by scandalizing the court itself have become obsolete in
this country. Courts are satisfied to leave to public opinion
attacks or comments derogatory or scandalous to them." The blacks
and browns were, however, to be adjudged differently. The Privy
Council did not even take the trouble of veiling its prejudices. In
that very judgment it observed, "in small colonies, consisting
principally of colored populations, the enforcement in proper cases
of committal for contempt of court for attacks on the courts may be
absolutely necessary to preserve in such a community the dignity of
and respect for the court."
Our political leaders have not felt the need to change the
anachronistic law. They perhaps still believe that their colonial
masters knew best. Elsewhere the law has been steadily reformed.
Lord Denning went out of his way to emphasize the importance of the
right to comment on all matters of public interest, including the
administration of justice. "We do not fear criticism, nor do we
resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It
is no less than freedom of speech itself. It is the right of every
man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the
broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters
of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all
that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are
mistaken and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to
appeal or not."
In Australia the High Court refused to accede to the proposition,
"that an imputation of want of impartiality to a judge is
necessarily a contempt of Court." In the United States the Supreme
Court overturned a conviction for scandalizing the court on the
ground that it abridged free speech. Even the Privy Council has now
held that imputing bias to a judge is not contempt and justice must
be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and even outspoken comments of
ordinary men. In our own country, Mr. Justice Mamoon Kazi, then a
judge of the High Court of Sindh, has provided the lead. He
dismissed an application for contempt against a lawyer and some
newspapers for criticizing, in very strong language, appointments
of high court judges made by the Benazir Bhutto government. This
landmark judgment has unfortunately not been much noticed by the
press.
Justice Kazi may have articulated it better but he is not alone.
Others too, in recent years, have used this power sparingly. Even
harsh criticism has been ignored. The judiciary appears to be
conscious of the fact that there is a need for a fresh approach to
the law. Neither the Bench nor the Bar are much perturbed by the
implications which the retention of this jurisdiction has for free
speech. Its constitutionality has never been seriously questioned.
The fact that the judges have the authority to commit for contempt
those who criticize them or their judgments has a chilling effect
on free expression.
The thought of being hauled up before a court deters people from
writing or speaking about them. It prevents an open discussion and
even fair comment on one of the vital state institutions. The
judicial authority to punish for scandalizing a court or a judge
continues to remain, as Justice Krishna Iyer calls it, "a vague and
wandering jurisdiction with uncertain frontiers, a sensitive and
suspect power."
It is time for the government and the Parliament to act. The power
to punish for scandalizing a court or a judge must be phased out. A
clear line of demarcation must be drawn between the criticism of a
judge or his judgment and interference with the administration of
justice. While any attack on the latter must be severely dealt
with, the former must be exposed to public scrutiny. The press and
the people must be free to criticize, without fear, the exercise of
judicial power and the conduct of judges.
It is important to maintain the image of the judiciary. It is
absolutely vital to ensure that its work remains free from
interference. An independent judiciary is essential for democracy
but so is a free press.
The two interests may at times conflict but they must be balanced.
If one has to err, one must err in favor of a fee press. The right
to criticize judges as the 1969 Committee on the Law of Contempt in
England observed, "may be one of the safeguards which helps to
ensure their high standard of performance." After fifty years of
independence the colored people of former colonies must not be
denied free speech.
===================================================================
971207
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Saqlain bowls Pakistan to a position of strength
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samiul Hasan
KARACHI, Dec. 6: Pakistan got the start they wanted in quest for
handing the West Indies their first white-wash in 69 years when
Saqlain Mushtaq spun the visitors out for 216 on the opening day of
the final Test at the National Stadium here on Saturday.
The tourists, after an impressive start on a perfect batting
surface, went down on their knees against the Pakistan off-spinner
who virtually toyed with them to finish with a career-best five for
54, his third five-wicket haul in an innings.
Skipper Wasim Akram gave a good helping hand to his young spinner
when he returned with figures of three for 76. Akram, who requires
29 runs to join the elite company of Kapil Dev, Imran Khan and Sir
Richard Hadlee with 2,000 runs and 300 wickets, now has 330 scalps
in 77 matches.
The home team completed a wonderful day in the field by reaching 34
for no loss when an early closure was applied because of fading
light. A little over six overs were still to be bowled when the two
openers Aamir Sohail (20) and Ijaz Ahmad (11) accepted the umpires
offer.
Saqlain Mushtaq, who now has 52 wickets in 13 Tests, completely
dominated the West Indians with a mixture of accurate off-spinners,
floaters and `secret' deliveries.
Saqlain's performance was also a slap on the face of those who said
he was not a Test bowler. The finger spinner, it may be mentioned,
was not played in the first two Tests at Peshawar and Rawalpindi
despite being in the squad of 13. But Saqlain stamped his
superiority over others with a performance which has left the West
Indies a mountain to climb. The dismal batting performance must
have further dented their morale which is already at its lowest ebb
after thrashings in the first two Tests.
After first day's play, one thing is certain - West Indies cannot
win from here but Pakistan can lose if the batsmen don't realize
their responsibilities and bat sensibly.
After Courtney Walsh won the toss and elected to bat, the West
Indies looked to have found their batting rhythm on a placid track
when Sherwin Campbell and Brian Lara batted with ease and grace to
take the score to 109 for one shortly after lunch. It was then that
Saqlain Mushtaq got his acts together and after bowling Brian Lara
with a gem of a delivery, never looked back. He went on to add the
scalps of Sherwin Campbell (50), Ronald Holder (26), Ian Bishop (2)
and Courtney Walsh (1).
Mushtaq Ahmad, was in action for a brief period in which he had the
wicket of Carl Hooper off a beautiful leg-spinner that left the
batsman stranded in front of the wickets.
Hooper's return, seven balls after the dismissal of Lara, was the
final nail in the West Indies coffin. The tourists never recovered
from those two quick setbacks as they collapsed to 216 all out some
45 minutes before stumps. The last nine wickets could yield just
107 runs, including a contribution of 28 runs from last five
wickets.
Brian Lara, who scored 36 with six glorious boundaries, tried to
play an inside-out cover-drive but was first beaten in the air and
then off the wicket as the ball, instead of turning away, came
slightly in to take his stumps.
Sherwin Campbell continued his good form when he scored a well
played 50 off 117 balls with six boundaries and a six. He was
smartly caught by Aamir Sohail off a rebound from Wasim Akram's
knee in the slips off Saqlain.
For Campbell, dropped twice when 6 and 14, it was his third half
century in five innings on this tour. Besides, he was also involved
in a series-best opening stand of 47 runs with Stuart Williams who
failed to beat an accurate throw from an athletic Mushtaq Ahmad
from mid-on.
It has once again been Pakistan's bowling strength that has enabled
the team to dictate terms. Otherwise, the cricket authorities had
slammed all doors at them for a white-wash after preparing a track
as flat as this one. It was astonishing and mind-boggling to see
the condition of the wicket. Whatever little grass was left on the
wicket, was mowed off on Friday evening and by rolling it
repeatedly, they made it ideal for stroke-play. Had Brian Lara
avoided a suicidal shot and then Saqlain Mushtaq not mesmerised
West Indians, situation might have been quite different.
It is time that for the authorities to get rid of the groundsmen
who can't prepare a pitch which can suit the home team. Besides,
the authorities should themselves change their attitude and
encourage more sporting wickets like Rawalpindi rather than making
their bowlers to toil on such dreadful wickets.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971208
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail and Ijaz rub salt into Windies' wounds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samiul Hasan
KARACHI, Dec. 7: Openers Aamir Sohail and Ijaz Ahmad caused further
embarrassment to the embattled West Indies as Pakistan sat on the
back of the tourists in the third and final cricket Test at the
National Stadium.
Sohail and Ijaz put on record 298 runs for the first wicket as
Pakistan finished the second day at 327 for one. Pakistan, bidding
to be the first team in 69 years to whitewash the West Indies, now
lead by 111 runs with nine wickets and three days to spare. West
Indies, on Saturday, were shot out for 216 in their first innings.
Sohail slammed a belligerent 160 before becoming the only wicket to
fall in the day which saw 293 runs being scored in 84 overs.
However, make-shift opener Ijaz Ahmad remained composed and
determined to be still batting on an exquisite 127. He had resumed
this morning at 11 with Pakistan starting their innings at 34 for
no loss. With Ijaz was Saeed Anwar on 15. A stiff neck had
restrained Anwar from opening the innings on Saturday. He might,
however, be regretting his decision now.
After second day's play, the once unbeatable West Indies appear to
be all but dead and buried. If innings thrashings were not enough
for them in the two earlier Tests, they now face the anomaly of
even failing to dismiss the charged-up Pakistanis in this Test.
Sohail and Ijaz became the first Pakistan opening pair in 243 Tests
to score centuries in an innings. When the duo reached 160 of the
stand, they erased Majid Khan and Zaheer Abbas from record books
who had put on 159 runs against the West Indies for the first
wicket at Georgetown in 1976-77.
Sohail and Ijaz also bettered Pakistan's previous best-ever opening
wicket stand of 249 between Khalid Ibadullah and Abdul Kadir which
was against Australia at the same venue 33 years ago.
Interestingly, Ijaz had opened an innings for the first time in a
Test though he began his career in the Under-19 championships for
PACO Shaheen as an opener.
The innings of Sohail and Ijaz were of contrasting styles. Sohail
was more aggressive than Ijaz who was cautious and rightly so as he
had not scored enough runs in his last six innings that only
produced 118 runs.
Sohail, who faced 254 balls for his 160, batted for little under
six hours during which he hit 21 punishing boundaries. He reached
his first 50 off 82 balls with nine boundaries. His second 50 came
off 56 balls with seven hits to the fence.
Ijaz, on the contrary, scored his first 50 runs from 83 balls with
four fours and a six. But he took 120 balls to score the second 50
that included four boundaries. Ijaz's 127 has so far come off 284
balls with 11 boundaries and a six. He has already consumed 401
minutes at the crease.
It was after a long time when Sohail blitzed the opposition with
his trademark attacking and commanding innings. Ijaz, on the
contrary, took his time in the centre and picked the balls to score
runs.
Sohail struck blistering drives and cuts while Ijaz sweetly flicked
off his toes besides driving with ferocious power. But both the
knocks were flawless and full of elegance, grace, maturity and
discipline.
It was Sohail's fourth century of the season after having earlier
hit 128 against South Africa, 170 against KRL for ABL and 160
against West Indies last week at Rawalpindi. But it was the first
hundred for Ijaz in six Tests this year after his last (113) was
against Sri Lanka in April.
Overall, it was the fourth century by Aamir Sohail in 38 Tests and
eighth in 42 Tests for Ijaz. The two batsmen also silenced their
critics by making their bats do the talking. Ijaz Ahmad was told at
Peshawar by a selector that he has played his final Test while
Sohail's career was almost ended earlier this year by the cricket
board had the government not intervened.
Ijaz, in the last two years, has emerged as Pakistan's most
consistent stroke-maker after Inzamamul Haq since staging a
comeback in Australia as a substitute for Saeed Anwar. In his last
27 innings of 19 Tests, he has scored 1,223 at 48.92, including six
centuries.
Pakistan's dominance over the West Indies can be figured out from
the fact that they scored 102 runs in the first session, added 110
runs in the second and put on 81 runs in the final session that was
curtailed by six overs because of bad light.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971209
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Saqlain overshadows Dillon, Hooper on an eventful day
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samiul Hasan
KARACHI, Dec. 8: Pakistan spinner Saqlain Mushtaq pushed the West
Indies to the brink of only their second whitewash in 69 years on
an eventful third day of the third and final cricket Test at the
National Stadium.
On a day which saw 16 wickets tumbling down, Saqlain followed up
his five for 54 with four for 25 as the West Indies plunged into
further depths after being reduced to 198 for seven when bad light
forced an early closure by 15 overs.
Earlier in the day, Pakistan resuming this morning at 327 for one,
went crashing out for 417 with Mervyn Dillon leading a rare West
Indies fightback with a career-best five for 111. Courtney Walsh
removed the tail to finish with four for 74 and completed 350
wickets in Test cricket.
With the defeat almost inevitable for the West Indies, what has
made this Test interesting is the fact that whether it would again
be by an innings margin. The West Indies still require three more
runs to make the Pakistanis bat for the first time in their second
innings. Pakistan won by an innings and 19 runs at Peshawar and
improved their victory margin at Rawalpindi by winning by an
innings and 29 runs.
If Pakistan achieve victory by an innings, they would equal the
feat of Percy Chapman whose Englishmen crushed the West Indies in
all the three Tests by an identical margin in 1928. However, what
would make the Pakistanis a more proud team will be the point that
Chapman's team beat the West Indies who were playing their
inaugural series. On the contrary, Wasim Akram's men would be
beating the Caribbeans who in the last two decades were considered
as an unbeatable and invincible force.
Saqlain Mushtaq was the man who made things look so simple for the
home side on a perfect batting track. He bowled with accuracy and
controlled spin to keep the West Indies batsmen at bay. Even a
world-class batsman like Brian Lara appeared to be dancing to
Saqlain's tune before succumbing to the off-spinner for the second
time in the match. Lara, who scored 37, finished the series scoring
129 runs. He fell to the pacers four time and twice to Saqlain
Mushtaq.
After getting Lara, there appeared no stopping Saqlain as he
further added the wickets of Shivnarine Chanderpaul (16), Ronald
Holder (5) and David Williams (2). This performance by Saqlain
would certainly earn him the status of as effective a spinner as
Mushtaq Ahmad and Shane Warne to grace the modern era. But Saqlain
penetrated through the West Indies defences courtesy Waqar Younis
who removed both the West Indies openers to become Pakistan's third
leading wicket-taker with 238. He surpassed Abdul Qadir (236) and
now stands behind Imran Khan (361) and Wasim Akram (330).
While Waqar Younis and Saqlain Mushtaq amused a handful crowd with
classical bowling displays, Carl Hooper's whirlwind century was by
no means less entertaining. Hooper slammed the most thundering of
all centuries of the series when he reached his 100 from just 80
balls with 14 blistering boundaries and three huge sixes. It was
his eighth Test century and third against Pakistan.
Hooper's innings ended 10 balls later when a banana-like inswinger
from Wasim Akram sent his middle-stump cart-wheeling. Hooper
completely overshadowed Brian Lara in a third wicket partnership of
121 runs in 100 minutes. In fact, when Hooper completed his century
with a graceful straight drive for a boundary, the West Indies were
167 for two.
Hooper, who is one of the most attractive and stylish batsmen
today, was in a very punishing mood. His first 50 runs came from 48
balls with eight boundaries and a six while he took just 32 balls
for his second 50 runs that spiced six boundaries and three sixes.
Hooper, who was bowled on the first ball after final water break of
the day, was ruthless against Mushtaq Ahmad when he struck the
Pakistan leg-spinner for 47 runs, including seven boundaries. Azhar
Mahmood also received a rough treatment from him to concede 32 runs
from his three overs.
Earlier, Pakistan repeated the Rawalpindi Test story to be fired
out for 427 after starting the day at 327. Pakistan, on Monday,
lost their nine wickets for the addition of only 90 runs with four
batsmen being adjudged leg before wickets.
In Rawalpindi also, Pakistan had collapsed from a 323-run third
wicket partnership between Aamir Sohail (160) and Inzamamul Haq
(177). This time, they slumped after Sohail's 160 and Ijaz's 151.
For Ijaz, who started the day at 127, it was his career-best knock
that was laced with 15 boundaries and a six. Ijaz batted for a
minute under seven hours and faced 337 balls. Mervyn Dillon,
playing his third Test, was the wrecker-in-chief when he bowled a
dream spell of 13.4-4-52-5 to finish with analysis of 29.4-4-111-5.
Dillon bowled with venom and fire to swing the old ball
appreciably. He was, however, extremely lucky to get favorable leg
before decisions against Inzamamul Haq (4) and Wasim Akram.
West Indies skipper Courtney Walsh ended up with four for 74. He
now has 353 wickets in 96 Tests. Walsh may arrive in his country
with his head down but when it will come to performance, he would
be a very proud man after taking 14 wickets in the series with two
five-wicket hauls.
DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS*DWS
971210
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan whitewash West Indies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samiul Hasan
KARACHI, Dec. 9: Pakistan did what other team wouldn't even dare to
think of. They whitewashed the West Indies to become the first side
since 1928 to humiliate the once powerhouse of cricket.
Pakistan won the third and final Test by 10 wickets with more than
five sessions to spare. They took just 29 minutes to polish off the
West Indies tail.
Pakistan were, however, denied their third consecutive innings
victory when West Indies reached 212 after resuming on the
penultimate day at 198 for seven and needing three more runs to
make the home team bat again. That set Pakistan a target of 12 runs
which they achieved in five overs with make-shift openers Azhar
Mahmood alone scoring 13 and Mohammad Wasim remaining not out on 0.
West Indies, the former giants of Test cricket, were last
whitewashed by Percy Chapman's Englishmen in their inaugural
series. Karl Nunes was the West Indies captain.
The series win was also a personal triumph for Pakistan skipper
Wasim Akram. Besides finding a place aside Chapman, he became only
the third captain in 46-year Pakistan cricket history to lead the
home team to a 3-0 victory.
Akram's mentor, Imran Khan, became the first captain to inflict a
3-0 defeat at Kim Hughes' Australians in 1982-83. Eight years
later, Imran's feat was equaled by Javed Miandad who defeated
Martin Crowe's New Zealand by a similar margin in the 1990-91
season. However, Akram was, nevertheless, thwarted of joining the
world's greatest quartet of Kapil Dev, Sir Richard Hadlee, Ian
Botham and Imran Khan in his home country. He failed to get the
required 29 runs to complete 2,000 runs besides 300 Test wickets.
The allrounder will now go in hunt for the needed runs in Africa
where Pakistan play five Tests, three against South Africa and the
rest against Zimbabwe, in three months time.
Akram, without a shadow of doubt, will now go into history books as
one of the best and most successful Pakistan captains after Imran
Khan, Javed Miandad, Mushtaq Mohammad and Salim Malik.
Akram, last year, became the first captain to win two Tests in
England and six months later, led Pakistan to their first World
Series Cup wins in 17 years in Australia. Akram was an equal
contributor in Pakistan's third and final Test win besides Ijaz
Ahmad (151), Man-of-the-Series Aamir Sohail (4, 160, 160) and Man-
of-the-Match Saqlain Mushtaq (nine for 80).
After claiming three wickets for 76 runs in the first innings,
Akram added four wickets for 42 runs to finish with match figures
of seven for 118 runs. His morning spell read 2.4-0-11-3. But Akram
should consider himself lucky to have Mervyn Dillon caught behind.
Television replays showed that Dillon's bat was no where near the
ball but South African umpire Cyril Mitchley was convinced and gave
him caught behind.
West Indies didn't play bat. In fact, we played better than them,
an elated Akram, who attributed the history-making success to every
individual of the team, said in a post-match conference. They
(West Indies) at times lacked motivation but it's not that they are
a bad team. We didn't actually allow them to lift after winning the
Peshawar Test, Akram said. It is a great moment for every member of
the team because it is only the second time that the West Indies
have been blanked out completely, the Pakistan captain added.
It has not been a very satisfying golden jubilee season because we
lost to South Africa and failed to qualify for the final of the
one-day tournament. But to bounce back from those setbacks is a
great achievement itself. Now we aim at the Sharjah tournament and
I am sure we will deliver the goods because the morale of the team
is sky-high. but cricket is an unpredictable game and one should
not forget that.
Akram believed that his success will help the Pakistan team a long
way in performing well on the African safari. "The boys are
confident and they have started to believe in themselves. I have
always maintained that we have the most talented players in the
world and the only missing element was consistency. I am glad that
it (consistency) came at the right time. All credit to the team for
putting up a great show, Akram said.
West Indies captain Courtney Walsh tried to put up a brave face but
disappointment clearly reflected from his face. We lacked
consistency. We didn't bat properly. The Pakistan batsmen showed
more application than ours, he said. We failed to bowl the
Pakistan out twice while they dismissed us each time we went down
there. They completely outplayed us, Walsh admitted, who was named
as West Indies' Man-of-the-Series after claiming 14 wickets.
Pakistan's victory over the West Indies was mainly due to the
mental toughness of the players. They rose to the occasion and
delivered the goods despite being under pressure after earlier
defeats. The batsmen were more disciplined, responsible and mature
while the bowling attack had variety in it. Whether it be the fast
bowlers, wrist-spinner or finger-spinner, all got wickets. The
fielders extended full support to their bowlers by bringing off
scintillating catches and effecting brilliant run-outs.
Here, coach Haroon Rasheed also needs a pat on his back for making
their players realise how talented and brilliant they were.
Coaching is not a professional job in Pakistan but his association
with the junior team must have helped a lot in dealing with the
players while pointing out their weakness and how they should be
rectified.
It must be a moment of satisfaction for Haroon after his critics
questioned his credentials. "Let the people judge for themselves
about my contributions to the national team and Pakistan cricket,"
Haroon said in a brief statement.
All is well that ends well. Pakistan had a mixed domestic season
but the bottom-line is that they concluded the season a high note
and it is time that the cricket board should awarded the entire
side for putting up a majestic performance.
________ webmaster@dawn.com ______ http://dawn.com/
Dr. Altamash Kamal, DAWN - the Internet Edition
Karachi, Pakistan
Back to the top.
Dawn page