Various view points Compiled by Zubair Khan

Former Pakistan ambassador Husain Haqqani’s counsel Asma Jahangir told Dawn TV’s Matiullah Jan in a detailed interview of Jan 1, 2012 – view online at: http://bit.ly/uAofcx – that she had taken up the case because she found it a travesty that an individual was being condemned on the basis of a media trial without due process or representation. The interview, posted in six parts (about 5-6 min each), is worth listening to in full as she makes some crucial points about the significance of this judgement to Pakistan’s politics. She also underscores the danger Haqqani is in from the military and intelligence agencies that are capable of picking him up and `twisting his limbs’ to make him say what they want to hear. She sums some of these points up in this earlier brief interview with Al Jazeera English (http://youtu.be/yhNfFFn9_Kc): “It’s is a very disappointing judgement, because the Supreme Court has actually said it is people’s fundamental right to come set up a commission against anyone that they accuse. So once a commission is set up and if Mr Haqqani is aggrieved by that something the Commission has done, there’s nowhere he can go; his due process has been taken away. But more than that it has restricted fundamental rights to national security. It’s a big blow to those who believe in the democratic process and in the protection of fundamental rights”.The issue as she said, was not about one individual, Husain Haqqani. “The point of the case is to go right up to the government. So this is basically (about the) civil military relationship in which sadly the courts have more or less shifted their weight with the establishment.”
In Pakistan, the military is still in power, there has been no transfer of power, she said. “They have been able to use one of the opponents of the government to go to court and take this petition under the guise of fundamental rights.” So our fundamental rights “are now subservient to national security. When there’s a tussle between what the civilian government says and what the military says, which are two different things, there has to be a showdown and where will that take us?”
Asked what the course of action should have been, she pointed out that there was already a parliamentary commission looking into `Memogate’. And secondly “there are laws in this country under which they could have got an investigation”. Instead, they moved to the highest court as the first instance, taking Mr Haqqani “out of the queue and denying due process”.
In her Dawn News interview she says she expected the judges to uphold the Constitution and fundamental rights, rather than undermining them in the guise of `national security’.
“I don’t have great expectations from the judges, they seem to have expectations of themselves,” she said. “I’ve argued in court, because this is such a politicised matter, let the politicians settle it. Secondly, if we want to further democratic norms and traditions, we need to support the power of the people” rather than the power of the establishment. It is this that will provide the state its true security.
“That’s not the job of the SC. Their job is to support us, the citizens. Judges are subservient to the Constitution. This is a crucial and critical point. They should not make an issue out of national security. There can be many interpretations of national security.”
To Matiullah Jan’s question about the issue of national security, given Pakistan’s status as a “Muslim nation with nuclear weapons”, she replied: “You can’t compromise on fundamental rights, you can’t compromise on people’s rights. Secondly, there was no danger to national security.”
About Mansoor Ijaz, she said, that the DG ISI went to him and said that prima facie this is a case. Someone who has been writing articles against Pakistan for some years, DG ISI never went to him before. He is “a man who is a US citizen, who says his loyalty is to United States, someone who has written many articles against Pakistan, including one that I didn’t read out in court out of respect, in which he’d written that the Chief Justice is indebted to Nawaz Sharif. You’re accepting his credibility, not giving credibility to your ambassador to US. You’re informing the civilian government after you’ve already conspired against them. There are so many holes in the BBM memos that we’ve pointed out, but the CJ can’t see those holes?”
In essence, the army leadership has prevailed over society and institutions. This is a victory for them. There have been many petitions before SC earlier but “this is the first time that that notice was sent to them and they went running.”
Asked what proof there was that the petition was sponsored by the military, she said for one thing, they are never in such a hurry to reply, secondly, they didn’t go through Attorney General, and thirdly, it’s “clear that the federation is giving one answer, they’re giving another”.
Could this have happened if the government wasn’t weak, asks Jan.
“Yes, the government is weak. We wouldn’t have seen this day if it wasn’t. It doesn’t matter which government it is, what matters is whether the army is going to retain its influence on politics in Pakistan. They’ve exposed themselves. They’ve exposed the fact that the DG ISI was carrying out an investigation against the Prime Minister.”
She said she had asked Husain Haqqani to get another lawyer for the Commission, as it was too much for her blood pressure.
“As a professional lawyer, shouldn’t you be able to fight this case also?” asks Jan.
“It’s not about losing a case. We lose 3-4 cases every month,” she replied. “This has been a struggle I’ve been involved in (restoration of judiciary and democracy). There was a hope, but I don’t see that being fulfilled. It’s not personal, it’s not about this government or another. There are much bigger issues at stake.”
The basic issue, she stressed, is the civil-military relationship. The judgement has been a setback to the struggle for democracy and due process. The struggle, as Asma Jahangir said, will continue.
 
On the above mentioned interview one Lawyer Beena of Pakistan commented as followings:-
 
What Asma says makes sense – and I have always admired AJ immensely, if nothing else then for holding her ground. Her views here have been expressed with clarity and she clearly isn’t pulling any punches. However, by saying that the struggle should continue and then subsequently resigning as Haqqani’s lawyer, tends to send mixed signals.
 
I feel that she should have gone all the way, whatever the outcome. She would have looked good – either way. It is quite possible that she has found out since that she is backing the wrong horse and realizes that she now has to find an amicable exit strategy and find a peg to hang her coat on.
 
For some reason, the connection between Memogate and “May2gate” is being downplayed. There is a strong link and overlap between the two and while the two Commissions may be independent, both Commissions should be comparing notes in the process of their investigations. They will find many common denominators. I am no politician or a political analyst, but I do have an audit background. Besides, this is the age of forensic science and lie detectors.
 
When the judiciary and the law cannot be enforced, it becomes a farce. Two people were kidnapped ironically in the Holy month of Ramadan  – Dr Warren Weinstein of JE Austin, a US citizen, and Shahbaz Taseer – in all probability by self-proclaimed good Muslims from pureland. Its been 4+ months now and the army, ISI, police and rest of the great pack is not just clueless about their whereabouts, they do not even seem to be making an attempt to find out where these two are. I am surprised that while President Obama was directly involved in getting Raymond Davis out from PK clutches, Weinstein seems low priority for everyone. No song and dance for that poor soul. The only conclusion one could draw is that the old fella is not a CIA agent. Shahbaz, of course, is another story. If it was the ransom they were looking for, he would have been back home months ago. I feel that he is being held back to be used as leverage in the Mumtaz Qadri verdict. If somebody dare decides to send Qadri early to the waiting virgins, Taseer Jr. will be sent right behind him as his companion.
 
Meanwhile, January 4 is not far away. It would be time to offer fateha – if one can dare do it – for the slain Governor at his barsee – another scapegoat and another collateral damage. Then its business as usual and more of the same madness.
 
Still another expert lawyer and writer Yasmeen of Paksitan commented as followings:-
 
The term “due process” is developed from Clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. Following is promised in Clause 39.” No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land”. Kindly note it states:  except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. Thereby stating that by two forums, a man may be processed against ie by his equals(the Parliment) and by “law of the land” ie the Court.
If Asma Jehangie has depicted due process as a right inalienable & above being proceeded against at all, with due apologies, she is legally incorrect.
Kindly note, US & English laws diverge on some points but we follow,yes,follow English Laws in Pakistan owing the British Rule over the sub continent.
Another term that needs clarification is national security. It may not be defined as anything but as ,”a collective term for the defense & foreign relations in a country,protection of the interests of the country”.
If we look at the above terms, it is clear, that the interpretation by Asma Jehangir is way off mark & poor defense of her client. Her defense should have been based on the facts & merits of the case not legal mis interpretation of terms.
The note above does not mean to state that Haqqani is guilty as accused. That is for the court to decide. However, holding a media trial by those unaware of the law is akin to wielding a surgical knife to an excellent architect, who,though an expert in his field, can only be disastrous as a surgeon.