Supreme Court’s correct decision and PPP attempt to come out as victims.

PPP and Zardari especially have shown their incapability to run their country and hide their corruption.
In order to overshadow their weaknesses they are trying to go in a clash with institutions and other forces especially judiciary so that they can come out as victims.

The recent notification of President Zardari is also an attempt in this direction.

Supreme Court has rightly suspended the unconstitutional notification of Zardari to appoint the judges against the advice of Chief Justice.

In cases where president or governor or anyone requires consultancy means they need to consult the office whose consent is required for must. And the office being consulted needs to agree with the position otherwise the decision will not be implemented.

However in case of an advice given by the office whose consultancy is required for must, the advice needs to be implemented. It not only happens in SC CJ but also for PM advice to President, CM advice to governor and Provincial HC advice to government.

The office which needs consultancy (here presidency) cannot take the decision on their own on the matters where consultancy is required.

SC also has the duty (not only right) to interpret the wordings of the constitution. This
is not only in case of Pakistan but in most part of the world including so-called mother of
democracy, UK.

In this case which comes under article 177 the situation is same. Article says:

177. Appointment of Supreme Court Judges.
(1) The Chief Justice of Pakistan shall be appointed by the President, and each of the other Judges shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

(2) A person shall not be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of Pakistan and-

(a) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating, not less than five years been a judge of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day); or

(b) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating not less than fifteen years been an advocate of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day). ”

The role of president here again is of just giving Presidential approval.
This is adapted from British system where in issues like these “Royal Assent” is required and even if it is not given due to some reason it is assumed that it is given after some given period but in this case formal approval is required.

According to the interpretation in Judges Case or Al-Jihad Case,in the appointment of the Supreme Court Chief Justice seniority principle will prevail and senior most will be made the Chief Justice (This was done to ensure judicial independence from executive discretion).
The issue currently is of new appointments in Supreme Court as Justice where the
consultation is binding on the president not the seniority principle.

Similarly in appointments of the High Court judges the consultation from CJ  is binding on the president according to article 193.

SC once again proved their independence and their will to strengthen the judiciary by stopping the PLUTOCRATS to damage the federation for their evil goals.

Delaying the appointments of judiciary in High Courts is also an attempt by government to not only undermine judiciary but also to frustrate the common man from judiciary.

Another motive is to start a seniority issue between judges to break their strength but this also has failed.

For once we need to go for across the board accountability without becoming a prey of illusions created by the players of National Security Card, Democracy Card, Shaheed Card, Ethnic Card, Sectarian or any other Card.

Anyone who wants strong Pakistan instead of few faces ruling the country cannot afford a weak judiciary.

Also, the commitment for free judiciary shown by Justice Saqib Nisar and Justice Khwaja Shareef is appreciable.

Advertisements

President enjoys no immunity, SC decided in 2007–>Ansar Abbasi in TheNews

Source : http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26955

Musharraf was denied immunity in CJP restoration case

By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: The critical issue whether the president enjoys immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution was categorically and specifically decided by the Supreme Court and it was denied to former president Pervez Musharraf in the case of restoration of the then-deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry.

While the short order in the case given on July 20, 2007, by a 13-member bench, headed by Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, restored the chief justice, in its detailed judgment of the same case, given just 35 days ago, no room for any ambiguity has been left.

The detailed judgment, which did not receive much legal or media attention, addressed the issue, which Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has now referred back to the Supreme Court in his speeches in the National Assembly, and gave reasons and past references to deny immunity to a sitting president, even in criminal cases as provided for in Article 248 of the Constitution.

The detailed judgment issued on Dec 24 clearly states: “…allegations of mala fide had been levelled against the person of the president by no less a person than the chief justice, no exception could be taken to implead the president as a respondent…”

Responding to objections raised in 2007 by the then-government (of Gen Musharraf), over impleading the then-president, the detailed judgment also refers to several previous judgments on this specific issue of Article 248 and cites examples where such immunities were not accepted.

The Ramday judgment refers to mala fide actions of Gen Musharraf and ruled in Para 107: “As would appear from the averments made in this petition, some of which have even been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, the mainstay of the case of the petitioner, the chief justice of Pakistan, is that the entire exercise in question had been commenced for collateral purposes and suffered from mala fides which was sought to be established, inter alia, through the chief justice of Pakistan being summoned by the president to the Army House/President’s Camp Office; detention of the chief justice at the said office for about five hours; attempts made to secure the resignation of the chief justice under duress and through coercion; the alleged illegal detention of the wife and the children of the chief justice in their house and the alleged unconstitutional removal of the chief justice from his office and appointment of acting chief justice of Pakistan. Since such serious allegations of mala fide had been levelled against the person of the president by no less a person than the chief justice of Pakistan, no exception could be taken to implead the president as a respondent in this petition, which was in fact imperative in view of the above-mentioned precedent cases.”

Interestingly, this judgment says the president can be impleaded for his actions of illegal detention of the chief justice, his wife and children, etc. All these actions are of criminal nature, which a sitting president ordered, but the Supreme Court did not give him immunity under Article 248(2), which says no criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against a sitting president. The Constitution does not give immunity to president or any other public office holder in civil matters.

Referring to the objection raised that Gen Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, had been impleaded in the said petition as one of the respondents, which was seen by the then government as against the provisions of Article 248(1) of the Constitution, the judgment reproduced the said Article, which reads as: “The president, a governor, the prime minister, a federal minister, a minister of state, the chief minister and a provincial minister shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions: Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a province.”

Many past judgments were also quoted by the Ramday judgment of Dec 24, 2009. It said that such an immunity clause had been examined by the Privy Council in HB Gills case (AIR 1948 Privy Council 148) and the reaction of the Privy Council to such-like protective provisions was as under: “Their Lordships, while admitting the cogency of the argument that in the circumstances prevailing in India a large measure of protection from harassing proceedings may be necessary for public officials cannot accede to the view that the relevant words have the scope that has in some cases been given to them. A public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such as to lie within the scope of his official duty. Thus, a judge neither acts nor purports to act as a judge in receiving a bribe, though the judgment which he delivers may be such an act: nor does a government medical officer acts or purport to act as a public servant in picking the pocket of a patient whom he is examining, though the examination itself may be such an act. The test may well be whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office.”

The judgment added: “In our jurisdiction the pleaded Article 248 came up for interpretation in Chaudhry Zahur Elahi’s case (PLD 1975 SC 383). The scope and the operational area of the said provision was so stated by this court: “…the immunity provisions must, in accordance with the accepted principles of interpretation, be construed strictly and unless persons claiming the immunity come strictly within the terms of the provisions granting the immunity, the immunity cannot be extended. The immunity is in the nature of an exception to the general rule that no one is above the law.”

The matter was further explained in these words: “Hence, since neither the Constitution nor any law can possibly authorise him to commit a criminal act or do anything which is contrary to law, the immunity cannot extend to illegal or un-constitutional acts.”

This court, the judgment said, when confronted again with the protection provisions of Article 248 in Amanullah Khan’s Case (PLD 1990 SC 1092) reiterated that the said provisions were required to be strictly construed and added in para 56 that: “If mala fide of fact was pleaded by a party then it had to decide for itself whether on the material with it, the minister has to be impleaded in spite of the protecting provisions of the Constitution; because if his act does not fall within the purview of the provision so interpreted, then he can be impleaded as a party and all objections to such impleadment dealt with in the proceedings. In the absence of the party, no finding with regard to mala fide of fact (as distinguished from mala fide of law) can be recorded, should be recorded and should have been recorded. Recourse to the principles of natural justice to overcome the prohibition contained in Article 248 of the Constitution is not permissible.”

“It was further declared: “Protection under Article 248 of the Constitution is not available to the designated functionaries if their actions suffer from mala fide of fact where the allegation against the protected functionaries is one of mala fide of fact, they have to be personally impleaded as a party to the proceedings;”

“The views of Nasim Hassan Shah J in the same case are also enlightening for the resolution of the issue in question. His views were: “Now the immunity to a minister extends only to the exercise of powers and performance of functions of his office or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions. A minister can be said to be acting in exercise of the powers and functions of his office, if his acts are such which not only lie within the scope of the powers and functions conferred on him by law but are performed bona fide and for carrying into effect the intention and purposes of the statute under which, he is acting. If on the other hand his acts are performed with mala fide intent or for a colourable purpose, such acts will not be deemed to have been performed in the lawful exercise of the powers and functions vested in him and will not, therefore, be covered by the immunity. Accordingly, where it transpires that a minister has acted illegally and abused his discretion and the illegality committed was not in the bona fide exercise of his powers and functions but on account of mala fides the immunity contained in Article 248(1) would not extend to protect such an act.”

Similar views were expressed by this court in Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan’s Case (1992 SCMR 2450) which were as under: “Secondly, where allegations of mala fide of fact are involved or alleged, it is necessary that the parties against whom such mala fide of fact is alleged must be impleaded as a party so that it has occasion to meet the allegation. This is notwithstanding the constitutional protection enjoyed by such functionaries under Article 248 of the Constitution vide Amanullah Khan and others Vs the Federal Government of Pakistan through secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad, and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092).”

While there are such specific rulings and judgments given by the Supreme Court itself, the latest being on December 24, 2009, a new case filed by Khalid Khwaja is again before the Supreme Court to give another judgment on the subject.

The prime minister has promised in Parliament that he would act if the SC clarified the ambiguity, although after reading the Dec 24, 2009, judgment of Justice Ramday, there is no ambiguity left, an expert said, lamenting that perhaps no one in the government had bothered to go through this detailed judgment that has squarely discussed the issue of President’s immunity.

Be Ghairti–>Dr. A.Q Khan article in Jang

Another column on national self-esteem and self-respect by Dr. A.Q Khan published in Jang Karachi which I hope will start another useful debate on how our leaders sold their souls to foreign powers without any shame for their acts.

His previous column ‘Ghairat Kahan Hai Tu’ really made people to think on our behavior and actions as a nation and the sort of leadership coming on our national scene.

Mr Chidambaram’s War–>Article for DAWN By Arundhati Roy

Here is a real thought provoking article for people who want to know how capitalism expands by creating enemies from no where, create a monster out of it, start a hunt for it and then expand it’s hold on the desired areas in the name of fighting the evil.

We are seeing it in US lead so called war against terror and now India is using the same idea against Maoists.

I think civil society in India should learn from a real horrible experience through which Pakistanis are going due to capitalist-imperialism.
———————————————————————————————————————–

Mr Chidambaram’s War

By Arundhati Roy

The low, flat-topped hills of south Orissa have been home to the Dongria Kondh long before there was a country called India or a state called Orissa. The hills watched over the Kondh. The Kondh watched over the hills and worshipped them as living deities. Now these hills have been sold for the bauxite they contain.

Perhaps the Kondh are supposed to be grateful that their Niyamgiri hill, home to Niyam Raja, their ‘god of universal law’, has been sold to a company with a name like Vedanta (the branch of Hindu philosophy that teaches the Ultimate Nature of Knowledge).

It’s one of the biggest mining corporations in the world and is owned by Anil Aggarwal, the Indian billionaire who lives in London in a mansion that once belonged to the Shah of Iran. Vedanta is only one of the many multinational corporations closing in on Orissa.

If the flat-topped hills are destroyed, the forests that clothe them will be destroyed too. So will the rivers and streams that flow out of them and irrigate the plains below. So will the Dongria Kondh. So will the hundreds of thousands of tribal people who live in the forested heart of India, and whose homeland is similarly under attack.

In our smoky, crowded cities, some people say, ‘So what? Someone has to pay the price of progress.’ Some even say, ‘Let’s face it, these are people whose time has come. Look at any developed country, Europe, the US, Australia — they all have a ‘past’.’

Indeed they do. So why shouldn’t ‘we’? In keeping with this line of thought, the government has announced Operation Green Hunt, a war purportedly against the ‘Maoist’ rebels headquartered in the jungles of central India.

Of course, the Maoists are by no means the only ones rebelling. There is a whole spectrum of struggles all over the country that people are engaged in — the landless, the Dalits, the homeless, workers, peasants, weavers.

They’re pitted against a juggernaut of injustices, including policies that allow a wholesale corporate takeover of people’s land and resources. However, it is the Maoists who the government has singled out as being the biggest threat.

Two years ago, when things were nowhere near as bad as they are now, the prime minister described the Maoists as the ‘single-largest internal security threat’ to the country.

This will probably go down as the most popular and often-repeated thing he ever said. For some reason, the comment he made on January 6, 2009, at a meeting of state chief ministers, when he described the Maoists as having only ‘modest capabilities’ doesn’t seem to have had the same raw appeal.

He revealed his government’s real concern on June 18, 2009, when he told parliament: ‘If left-wing extremism continues to flourish in parts which have natural resources of minerals, the climate for investment would certainly be affected.’

At current market rates, the minerals in the region have been valued not in millions but in trillions of dollars.

Right now in central India, the Maoists’ guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only associate with sub-Saharan Africa.

They are people who, even after 60 years of India’s so-called independence, have not had access to education, healthcare or legal redress. They are people who have been mercilessly exploited for decades, consistently cheated by small businessmen and moneylenders, the women raped as a matter of right by police and forest department personnel.

Their journey back to a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist cadre who have lived and worked and fought by their side for decades.

If the tribals have taken up arms, they have done so because a government which has given them nothing but violence and neglect now wants to snatch away the last thing they have — their land. Clearly, they do not believe the government when it says it only wants to ‘develop’ their region.

Clearly, they do not believe that the roads as wide and flat as aircraft runways that are being built through their forests in Dantewada by the National Mineral Development Corporation are being built for them to walk their children to school on. They believe that if they do not fight for their land, they will be annihilated. That is why they have taken up arms.

MoUist corridor
The forest once known as the Dandakaranya, which stretches from West Bengal through Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, parts of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, is home to millions of India’s tribal people.

The media has taken to calling it the Red corridor or the Maoist corridor. It could just as accurately be called the MoUist corridor. It doesn’t seem to matter at all that the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution provides protection to adivasi people and disallows the alienation of their land.

It looks as though the clause is there only to make the Constitution look good — a bit of window-dressing, a slash of make-up. Scores of corporations, from relatively unknown ones to the biggest mining companies and steel manufacturers in the world, are in the fray to appropriate adivasi homelands — the Mittals, Jindals, Tata, Essar, Posco, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and, of course, Vedanta.There’s an MoU on every mountain, river and forest glade.

We’re talking about social and environmental engineering on an unimaginable scale. And most of this is secret. It’s not in the public domain. Somehow I don’t think that the plans that are afoot to destroy one of the world’s most pristine forests and ecosystems, as well as the people who live in it, will be discussed at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

Our 24-hour news channels that are so busy hunting for macabre stories of Maoist violence — and making them up when they run out of the real thing — seem to have no interest at all in this side of the story. I wonder why?

Perhaps it’s because the development lobby to which they are so much in thrall says the mining industry will ratchet up the rate of GDP growth dramatically and provide employment to the people it displaces. This does not take into account the catastrophic costs of environmental damage. But even on its own narrow terms, it is simply untrue.

Most of the money goes into the bank accounts of the mining corporations. Less than 10 per cent comes to the public exchequer. A very tiny percentage of the displaced people get jobs, and those who do, earn slave-wages to do humiliating, backbreaking work.

By caving in to this paroxysm of greed, we are bolstering other countries’ economies with our ecology. The mining companies desperately need this ‘war’. It’s an old technique. They hope the impact of the violence will drive out the people who have so far managed to resist the attempts that have been made to evict them.

Whether this will indeed be the outcome, or whether it’ll simply swell the ranks of the Maoists remains to be seen.

The real problem is that the flagship of India’s miraculous ‘growth’ story has run aground. It came at a huge social and environmental cost. And now, as the rivers dry up and forests disappear, as the water table recedes and as people realise what is being done to them, the chickens are coming home to roost.

All over the country, there’s unrest, there are protests by people refusing to give up their land and their access to resources, refusing to believe false promises any more. Suddenly, it’s beginning to look as though the 10 per cent growth rate and democracy are mutually incompatible.

Militarisation
To get the bauxite out of the flat-topped hills, to get iron ore out from under the forest floor, to get 85 per cent of India’s people off their land and into the cities (which is what Home Minister Chidambaram says he’d like to see), India has to become a police state.

The government has to militarise. To justify that militarisation, it needs an enemy. The Maoists are that enemy. They are to corporate fundamentalists what the Muslims are to Hindu fundamentalists. (Is there a fraternity of fundamentalists? Is that why the RSS has expressed open admiration for Mr Chidambaram?)

It would be a grave mistake to imagine that the paramilitary troops, the Rajnandgaon air base, the Bilaspur brigade headquarters, the Unlawful Activities Act, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and Operation Green Hunt are all being put in place just to flush out a few thousand Maoists from the forests.

In all the talk of Operation Green Hunt, whether or not Mr Chidambaram goes ahead and ‘presses the button’, I detect the kernel of a coming state of emergency. (Here’s a math question: If it takes 600,000 soldiers to hold down the tiny valley of Kashmir, how many will it take to contain the mounting rage of hundreds of millions of people?)

Instead of narco-analysing Kobad Gandhy, the recently arrested Maoist leader, it might be a better idea to talk to him.

In the meanwhile, will someone who’s going to the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen later this year please ask the only question worth asking: Can we leave the bauxite in the mountain?

 

Source:http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-mr+chidambarams+war–bi-11

What creates this hate?–>Dr Masooda Banu in The News

A sensible article as far as the overall idea is concerned with some real good points raised.

The writer has explained what motivates people to get ready for suicide bombings.

Though in many cases like the killing of Benazir Bhutto or recent attacks on International Islamic University and many others in which the chances of the involvement by CIA,RAW or even Pakistani Security agencies are more and 9/11 is seen as an inside job but still the overall context of the article remains quite valid.
————————————————————————————-
What creates this hate?

Dissenting note

Friday, October 23, 2009
Dr Masooda Bano

The rise in suicide attacks in the past three weeks have left the nation shocked. The GHQ as well as ordinary institutions such as the International Islamic University (IIU) have been attacked. These attacks are making the government commit to starting even heavy military operations in Waziristan. But this increased number of suicide attacks needs to also raise the question why have some Pakistanis come to hate the rest so much that they are willing to take such extreme measures.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, one dominant outcry in the US was that “Why have they come to hate us so much?” The question was never fully answered as the Bush administration soon moved into a militarist mode finding and attacking targets overseas. However, Pakistan cannot afford such a luxury because it is having to face the consequences of such a militarist approach on its own soil. There is thus the critical need to understand why some Pakistanis could be driven to a level of hatred that can result in making deadly attacks on other ordinary Pakistanis, such as the innocent students of IIU who so unfortunately died in the recent attack.

Those who try to attribute religious indoctrination as the prime basis of these suicide attacks have to provide better evidence to support such simplistic claims. Academic research on suicide missions conducted in either secular or religious contexts does not support the claim that suicide missions are ever driven purely by an ideological impulse. In fact, the basis of such a violent expression are often very political in nature, a religious or secular ideology only help sustain the momentum of the recruits after they have joined the struggle due to a feeling a sense of gross political injustice. To say that the militants in Pakistan are driven by some religious indoctrination where people are taught to hate others is too simplistic a solution. It helps ignore the more complex and demanding question that why are so many Pakistanis is a state of mind where they are willing to gather around the radical rhetoric and give up their own lives as well as taking life of other innocent people.

The answer to this is complex but one factor that could lead people to such extreme hate is the element of revenge. Those who suffer from the unjust excesses of the state end up retaliating in extreme ways because they find that there are no legal mechanisms left to secure justice. Palestinians pitted against Israel have faced that problem for long. I have not been to Swat during the period of military confrontation, nor I have been to Waziristan but I was closely engaged in studying the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza when it was staging the resistance and when it was under siege by the military. The state in this case was definitely an unjust aggressor. There was simply no need for the military operation that resulted in death of at the least 100 students.

The resist was triggered by some legitimate concerns about Pakistani military operations in the tribal belts and other issues such as that of the ‘missing people.’ It started moving in other directions, such as securing public piety, and of course needed to be curtailed. However, it could have been curtailed through a dialogue and through giving some concessions rather than opting for a full military operation. If today some relatives of students who died in those military operations had become recruits for such suicide attacks that are taking place in Pakistan, one won’t be surprised. Such gross level of injustice committed by a state is often not absorbed easily by those harmed by it.

What we have to remember if we want to find a solution to this problem that no one wants to give up his or her life for nothing. The promises of rewards in the other world could be tempting. To give up life in this world for promises of the rewards in the other is too extreme a measure, which is never just a product of search for heavenly rewards. After all, less costly measures, such as Haj, Hifz, fasting, khairat promise generous heavenly rewards too. There have to be actual political factors that are making people go to such extremes. Those who all along asked for making this “US-led war” our war now need to answer that what have we benefited from making it our war. If these are ordinary Pakistanis who are involved in these attacks, then we need to find out why they are doing this so that we are better placed to dissuade this from such actions. Cheering making an ever bigger and deadlier enemy out of them serves no purpose.

The writer is a research fellow at the Oxford University. Email: mb294@hotmail.com

Source:http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=204559

March for Justice and Freedom

The nation has been fighting for more than a year for the noble cause of restoration of judiciary, for the cause of justice and rule of law.

The movement which started with a ‘NO’ to the dictator by the honorable CJ of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhary has now seems to be in the crucial stages and I also hope that it’s in the final stages to the path of success.

Though the nation was fighting for the cause, giving lives and facing the brutality of government institutions some of our ‘leaders’ were busy in making deals outside the country, making decisions regarding the future of our country, taking dictations from imperialist powers on how to run the country and who should run the affairs of the state.

The movement would have achieved its goal immediately after the 18 Feb elections but it didn’t because the lust of power and greed of our elected representatives who on the foreign dictation are delaying the issue, it seems they don’t care what the people of Pakistan want, what is the need of time for the nation, where we have to take our future as a nation, what are our national objectives, how to safeguard the national integrity and honor, how to improve the lives of our people, how to get rid of the dictatorship and above all how to give confidence to the nation by respecting there mandate to restore the independent judiciary of 2nd November 2007 BUT they are busy in getting assurances from the Americans for the protection of their status as ‘rulers of Pakistan’(or in-fact loyal servants of the USA).

When ever there is a chance of restoration of judiciary we see Americans arriving in Islamabad to meet our so called democratic leadership and then we see hypocritical statements by Mr. Zardari

such as:”We want to change the system it’s not just about the restoration of few judges” or ”Murree declaration was just a political statement “…

Now he has said,”We are ready to face the lawyers’ movement”.

The reason why our American ‘masters’ don’t want their slaves to have an independent judiciary is that they  want to protect their best asset in the country (the dictator who served them more than he served his nation) and cannot afford to lose him before 2008 presidential elections in USA because if CJP Iftikhar gets restored then it means a farewell to Musharraf and his anti-Pakistan policies and it will be serious set back for the Republican party in the elections who are banking on Musharraf to give them a breakthrough in our mountains and so they again will be able to use the same old fake war against terrorism in their elections.

Americans are very clever they always have a backup plan and that plan is now evident in the shape of PPP lead by Zardari and well assisted by people like Rehman Malik,Hussain Haqqani and the same old Mehmood Ali Durrani (former Pakistani ambassador and currently working as national security advisor to the PM) under the influence of NRO and under the umbrella of Dogar Lead judiciary .

Now we have to be really alert in this situation we not only have to protect our judiciary but also to safeguard our freedom, we have to cry out loud that we reject any foreign interference in our national affairs, we don’t accept any involvement of USA in our judicial issue, we are a nuclear power and a free country we know how to take it on the path of success.

I appeal to the whole nation to think as sincere Pakistanis and join the long from Multan to Islamabad for the cause of Justice and Freedom.

LONG LIVE PAKISTAN!

GO MUSHARRAF GO!