Browse by Region/Country
What Pak Media said on May 5
Font size:
Is Zardari looking for scapegoats: By Maqbool Malik in The Nation, May 5
ISLAMABAD – Why President Asif Ali Zardari in particular and his ruling PPP in general are upset over the findings of Cabinet Secretary Rauf Chaudhry-led three-member fact finding committee probing into the issue of hosing down of murder scene of Benazir Bhutto?
It is so unusual after honest and hard work of the committee set up by the Prime Minister Gilani with sole mandate to ascertain causes of hosing down of the site where former party chairperson Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in mysterious circumsstances on December 27, 2007.
The fact-finding committee was supposed to submit its report to the Prime Minister within a week. However, the committee has been granted more time to complete its findings in the light of now altered mandate, a move many believed is directed to find scapegoats.
Well-placed official sources informed TheNation on Tuesday that President Zardari who in the presence of Prime Minister Gilani chaired an important meeting of the PPP’s core committee in Presidency that deliberated findings of the fact-finding committee over three hours late last night.
The sources were of the view that President Zardari was critical about the findings of the committee, which eventually led to a change in mandate its committee. The committee has been directed to complete its findings in the light of UN Commission’s report.
The committee recorded statements of 40 people, including former MI chief and officials of police, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Rescue 15.
The committee saw about 150 evidences, including 39 forensic evidences, and looked into the documentary record of wireless communication of police and mobile record of the accused.
The sources said the former MI chief had already rejected the impression that he had ordered the hosing down of the site. General Ijaz told the committee members that he and his men had nothing to do with the washing of the site.
The former CPO presented the details of evidences and other material police had collected in addition to extensive photographs of the crime scene.
Aziz negated the UN report, saying it was not based on facts because the crime scene was washed after collecting all necessary evidences. He was of the view that in many such incidents, crime scenes were washed even within half an hour after the crime.
He termed the UN report a flawed one, saying a lot credible details he had provided to the commission had not been incorporated in the report.
He apprised the committee that the evidence collected from the site was sufficient and provided lead to the joint investigation team to put hand on real culprits, but no significant progress had been seen so far.
SP Khurram Shahzad endorsed the statement of Saud Aziz, saying the site was washed after the collection of evidences.
Political observers were of the view that one of the primary reasons of President Zardari’s annoyance over the findings of the committee was that sooner or later people being suspected and interrogated would be cleared and all fingers would be directed towards him being BB’s husband and her political heir.
“Now when most of the suspects mentioned in the UN report have been interrogated by the fact finding committee and most of them had been cleared, the blame of assassination of Benazir Bhutto at the end of the day would directly come on the President”, a source said.
He was of the view that President Asif Ali Zardari, the BB husband, had in fact so much at stake. “ Naturally, he should the most worried person if the committee fails in finding some scapegoats.”
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online//Politics/05-May-2010/Is-Zardari-looking-for-scapegoats
What is PPP Core Committee up to: By Ansar Abbasi & Tariq Butt in The News, May 5
ISLAMABAD: Total confusion prevailed on Tuesday night about the fate of a report of the three-man fact-finding committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary Rauf Chaudhry, as conflicting statements were issued by responsible official spokespersons, which did not clarify what would happen next.
The head of the committee, Rauf Chaudhry, said on Tuesday evening that the committee had finalised its report and submitted it to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. A Presidency press release on Monday night had stated that the PPP’s Core Committee meeting was briefed by Interior Minister Rehman Malik on the progress thus far made by the fact-finding committee.
The interesting point in that press release was that it said: “The fact-finding committee will also question some more people before submitting its report to the prime minister.” But talking to The News on Tuesday evening, Rauf Chaudhry said that his committee had not received any additional mandate as reflected by the decision taken at the Presidency by the PPP Core Committee on Monday.
Yet sources told Tariq Butt that the Rauf Chaudhry committee would call nine important personalities, including federal ministers Rehman Malik, Dr Babar Awan and Makhdoom Amin Faheem, Naheed Khan and others to record their statements.
Rauf Chaudhry said his committee was earlier given the specific mandate of probing certain officials, including the former DG MI, the ex-CPO Rawalpindi and others, to ascertain on whose orders the crime seen was washed. That had been done but Rauf did not speak about the findings of the report.
Although the committee had already submitted its report, the PPP’s Core Committee reaffirmed its resolve to pursue investigations in the light of the UN report to expose all elements involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Benazir Bhutto.
The Presidency press release did not specify who else would be questioned though media
reports on Tuesday suggested that Rehman Malik and Babar Awan would be among those to be questioned.
But hardly a day earlier, Presidency spokesman Farhatullah Babar told The News that the PPP co-chairperson after consulting his party had decided that the two ministers would not be probed as there was nothing against them in the UN report.
The Monday’s story in The News and Jang, based on Farhatullah Babar’s statement, seemed to have brought a lot of pressure on the government, which is now giving vague signals about the possible questioning of the two ministers, who are being suspected of some role in Benazir’s murder but are still the closest of all Presidential aides and not yet been questioned.
Yet what is intriguing to note in the Presidency’s Monday night press release is that no one else but Interior Minister Rehman Malik briefed the PPP Core Committee on the progress of the fact-finding committee, which, according to the cabinet secretary, has completed its job. How did he get the report when the PM should have reviewed it first?
The decision to call nine others was taken at the meeting of the Core Committee, which was also attended by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
Sources said Sherry Rehman, Lt-Gen (retd) Tauqir Zia, Farhatullah Babar, Safdar Abbasi and Maj (retd) Imtiaz would also be called by the Rauf committee to record their statements about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007.
According to the Core Committee sources, the briefing given to it on the basis of the Rauf committee’s report showed that some good leads and clues about the gruesome murder had been discovered. However, no specific criminal liability was fixed on the questioned police officers.
The source said the committee called Naheed Khan for at least two times, but she did not positively respond. Now, she has shown her willingness to give her statement. When contacted, Senator Safdar Abbasi told The News that Naheed Khan had not been called so far. However, he said the committee had nothing to do with the criminal investigation that was actually needed at the higher credible level.
Abbasi said Naheed Khan would first see how she would be called to appear before the committee. He said instead of finding facts the need was for criminal investigation as a lot of time has already passed since the martyrdom of Benazir Bhutto.
When contacted, Sherry Rehman said she would give her statement to the Rauf committee if sought. She said that she had met the UN Commission of Inquiry and the Scotland Yard as well.
When approached for comments, Farhatullah Babar said no timeframe has been given to the Rauf committee, but added it had been asked to question some more people for completion of its assignment.
However, it is not clear how the report came in the hands of the interior minister, who briefed the Core Committee on it, when it was required to have been submitted to the prime minister, who had constituted the committee.
All these developments have raised many more questions than answering a few. For instance, whether after submission of its report the mandate of the Rauf committee has been extended and whether it would cross-examine the ministers or would just let them place their statements on record. More importantly, since no timeframe has been given, will the Rauf committee keep on dragging the issue for as long as the PPP Core Committee wanted?http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28639
Unfinished business: edit in The Daily Times, May 5
A core committee of the PPP has decided to interrogate all the people who could help resolve the mystery shrouding the assassination of the party’s leader Benazir Bhutto. There are prominent names from within the PPP and outside the party who would be investigated, including General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, PPP leader Naheed Khan, Law Minister Babar Awan and Interior Minister Rehman Malik. It is good to know that wisdom has finally dawned on the PPP leadership to include its own party members in the interrogation process. For quite some time now the PPP has shown reservations about questioning its own party members but fortunately this does not appear to be the case any more. The party has decided to question all PPP members who were inside Ms Bhutto’s vehicle and those who were in other cars after the rally ended. This is a wise move as it would quash the conspiracy theories floating around and finally there may be an end to the finger pointing at senior PPP leaders and even serving ministers. A three-member fact-finding committee was formed earlier on by the prime minister to look into the issue of hosing down of the assassination site. The issue of washing away the forensic evidence was an important aspect, but an efficacious and comprehensive investigation cannot be carried out without questioning the people who were either present at the crime scene or could have been involved in the murder.
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s two-time premier and leader of the largest political party, in December 2007 shocked the entire world. Pakistan was up in flames and had it not been for the political sagacity of the PPP leadership, all hell would have broken loose. From day one the PPP has been insisting on a UN team to investigate the murder. Now that this has finally happened and the UN Commission has presented its findings, it is the responsibility of the PPP government to bring to book the culprits of this heinous murder. To avoid continuing unnecessary controversy, the party leadership has taken the right decision to interrogate its own members as well. It would go to the credit of this government that it is going to question its sitting ministers in order to uncover the whole truth. A more comprehensive investigation might lead to some aspects that have so far not been revealed. The PPP members have claimed that they have nothing to hide, which should make them all the more willing to cooperate and be open about recalling what actually transpired in those few minutes after the attack took place. It is surprising why the PPP leadership has taken so long to reach this decision when it should have done this at the very beginning. It seems as if the PPP has fallen into the habit of taking decisions at the eleventh hour instead of making the right decision at the right time. We have seen this in the case of the restoration of the judiciary as well as in some other cases. If the PPP government wants to succeed, it will have to overcome this flaw.
Questioning General Musharraf is an integral part of the investigation since he was the one in power at the time of Ms Bhutto’s assassination. It was a high-level conspiracy that could not have taken place without the knowledge, at the very least, of those in the higher echelons of power. If Musharraf does not cooperate, the government should not hesitate in contacting Interpol for help. The government must not show any weakness in unravelling the mystery, as it owes it to the slain leader, to millions of PPP workers and supporters, to the people of Pakistan, and to history.http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\05\story_5-5-2010_pg3_1
A defective document: op-ed by Ahmer Bilal Soofi in the Dawn, May 5
The writer is president of the Research Society of International Law and an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
FROM a strictly legal point of view, the UN report on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is deficient. The manner in which the report has been drafted is not consistent with the way in which documents probing high-profile events are prepared.
There are no annexes and no material listed to show on what the reports and conclusions are based. There are no statements by witnesses or by those people interviewed to ascertain whether or not the opinion of the authors is based on facts. In fact not even the names of the 250 people interviewed have been included. One cannot ascertain whether the relevant people were interviewed and others left out.
Opinions and conclusions in such a report must be based on identified material which is missing. There are no footnotes and often the report refers to anonymous sources. The UN report has given more weight to requests of anonymity by witnesses than shown regard for transparency. In that sense, the report itself belies its purpose which was to make an objective and transparent assessment of the circumstances in which Ms Bhutto was assassinated. The report falls short of the standards that people had expected from a UN commission.
The mandate given to the commission was “to determine the facts and circumstances of the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto”. It was not to write a journalistic piece on the historical background leading to the assassination. A thorough finding was expected that would help in the identification of suspects. The report has attempted to determine facts that are clearly extraneous and least relevant to Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. It contains the finding that the bulk of anti-Indian activity was and remains the work of groups with close ties with the ISI and that they are being used in Afghanistan and Kashmir. This may or may not be the case, but how is it relevant to a UN report focusing on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination?
Was the mandate to find facts which make Pakistan a threat to the region’s stability? Was the mandate to comment on Pakistan’s intervention in Kashmir and Afghanistan? Was the mandate to determine the presence of Al Qaeda and other non-state actors on the soil of Pakistan? If not, then why have extensive discussions been devoted to these issues?
The report in the chapter relating to threats and possible culpabilities discusses threats from the establishment (armed forces, intelligence agencies, etc.) in about 10 paragraphs. It is basically an exercise to link non-state actors to the establishment on the admitted basis of a hypothesis. After one goes through these 10 paragraphs, one ends up believing that the Pakistani establishment is hand in glove with non-state actors and out to destabilise the democratic set-up and further destabilise the region. While everyone believes that the Pakistani establishment needs to discipline itself and depart from past practices the point is whether this was the mandate given to the commission.
The terms of reference of the commission expressly authorised taking testimonies, whereas, the report does not even mention if it has taken a single written testimony from any person. Instead the inquiry commission changed the format of ‘testimony’ to ‘interview’, something that it never had the formal authority to do unless it sought explicit amendments to the terms of reference.
How does one check the commission wrote what it had recorded? Not that one doubts the integrity of its members, but propriety demands that the material, testimonies and documents that form the basis of the opinions and observations in the report are referred to or at least identified so that the reader is satisfied that the findings are well supported.
The commission chose to be selective in interviewing people, something that contradicts the essence of transparency and due process. Ideally, the members should have issued an advertisement inviting people to volunteer any information that they may have had about the assassination. Instead, they interviewed a few and left out several others who later came on television complaining that their statements would have had greater relevancy because they possessed certain knowledge. The report fails to give reasons for why it interviewed a few and left out others, when the terms of reference made clear the need for necessary evidence.
People were expecting that the report would help them assess which version of events was more accurate. In fact confusion is further compounded, and at the end of the report the reader is left with the same questions that he had when he started to read the report to find answers. Further, it allows space to everyone to give his own version. Hence in TV debates, one notices everyone relying on the respective contents of the report to argue his version against another.
The only positive outcome of the report is that its findings put pressure on the government to carry out a serious and credible investigation and exclude none and include all those who are suspected in any way. The report can have serious legal implications for Pakistan’s long-term interest regarding the country’s various institutions and their alleged regional and international roles.
These findings are considered final because the report was commissioned under the UN Charter by the secretary general and has been submitted to the UN Security Council. The commission may have ceased to exist, but the report continues to be a living document and the UN can use or misuse the determination of various facts made in the report in a manner which may not be in Pakistan’s interest.http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/a-defective-document-550
A committee and a half: op-ed by Kamran Shafi in The Dawn, May 4
The committee set up to fix responsibility for the hosing down of the site of Benazir Bhutto’s dastardly assassination is something to behold: a federal secretary, a provincial additional secretary and the vice chief of general staff of the Pakistan Army.
What a committee indeed, with a real general on it whose presence must strike the fear of God into the other members, one of whom is reportedly best buddies with the general being investigated! Only a very unique government of a very unique country could have set up such a committee.
The point is this: a lowly official such as a CPO (city police officer) would not, even in his wildest imagination, even in a horrible nightmare, on his own order the hosing down of a site where a personage as illustrious as Benazir Bhutto had been assassinated.
Neither would a functionary of state so cockily and with such nonchalance dismiss a senior doctor’s request to carry out a post-mortem on a leader of the stature of Benazir Bhutto, a post-mortem that was legally binding on the state to carry out, mind, unless he had friends in very high (and very secure) places who were egging him on. Don’t we know this; don’t we come from the same country as Mr Saud Aziz and his friends? Are we Martians?
The government must get real; it must bend every sinew to get to the bottom of this horrendous crime. Benazir was no ordinary person: she was the daughter of a very great man in whose name the PPP still gets the votes of the poor and the dispossessed of our country. She herself bravely led the PPP for well on 33 years and had an unusual and strong bond with the poor with whom she empathised in a very real way; never cynically. Why, I have seen her weep hearing an old man tell her his problems, and herself making a call to some minor government functionary asking him to please help.
I write what I write only to point out to those that matter, both in government and ‘outside’, not to take Benazir’s cruel and cold-blooded murder lightly. Benazir’s blood will be avenged, mark my words, for there are too many people out there whose lives she touched very deeply. I would caution anyone whose name is being bandied about in the press in relation to this horrible crime to review their stand immediately: to wit, the threesome of Rehman Malik and Babar Awan and Farhatullah Babar to at the very least agree with each other regarding the minutes immediately following the shooting/bombing.
They must tell us why they drove to Zardari House in Islamabad when, according to some of them, they knew that Benazir had come under attack. Rehman Malik must tell us who it was that told him on the telephone that Benazir had survived the attempt on her life when the fact is that she fell down dead immediately after the second shot of the pistol shooter from barely two metres away, and which made her dupatta flutter at what surely must be the exit point of the bullet.
Let me say here and now, that one of the above mentioned, Farhatullah Babar, is well known to me as a gentleman for 22 years now when both of us worked for Benazir — him as speechwriter, I as her press secretary. I cannot for a moment believe that he could ever tell an untruth, and more than that, that he could ever think a bad thought about Benazir. So why the confusion?
Questions: why did the ‘follow-car’ become an ‘advance car’? Did the occupants hear the blast? If so, why did the car not immediately turn back to see what had happened to the leader? Who told Rehman Malik Benazir was unhurt? Why did the car not stop and wait for Benazir’s SUV to overtake them and then follow her to Zardari House? These questions simply must be answered and answered immediately. Remember, the avenging spirit of the very poor is very great, indeed.
One Shaukat Ali, in a letter reminiscent of many others that are written when the establishment is upset (!) has alleged that I lost my temper while on a TV talk show with Sheikh Rashid and said that the corps commanders had no right to object to the Kerry-Lugar Bill. Wrong. I did firmly correct Sheikh Rashid when he suggested that I had ‘abused’ the army which was like a second mother to me for I had served it for 11 of the best years of my life, and that I would not let him get away with raising his voice at me as he was in the habit of doing with others.
As for the Kerry-Lugar Bill, I did not bring it up. Sheikh Rashid did. However, I have always said, and continue to maintain, that it is a perfect piece of legislation that says words to the effect that unless the US secretary of state certifies from time to time that the army is not interfering in the political life of the country it will not receive US aid.
My point has always been that in spite of expressing their ‘fury’ at the KLB the army top brass had no compunction in asking for US aid in a meeting between Generals Kayani and Petraeus exactly nine days after venting their ‘fury’. So why the ‘fury’?
As for our soldiers and officers fighting bravely the enemies of Pakistan, what in the world does that have to do with a handful of senior generals stepping out of line? Indeed, it is because of the wrongheaded policies of our brass hats that we are in the soup we are in, and why brave young men are losing their precious lives.
Incidentally, let me tell Shaukat Ali that while I am well over the age of recall to active duty, I have volunteered my services to my battalion whenever needed. So, no one please lecture me on probity and ‘love’ of the army/country. Not Master Rashid, not Master Ali. Incidentally, a search on the Internet showed that 95 per cent of viewers supported what I had said.
PS I made the mistake of my life when I appeared, against better counsel, on Dr Shahid Masood’s Meray Mutabiq which was recorded and then edited. And by golly was it edited! Suffice it to say that I was shocked out of my wits, and greatly saddened, at the show as aired.http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/kamran-shafi-a-committee-and-a-half-450
ISLAMABAD – Why President Asif Ali Zardari in particular and his ruling PPP in general are upset over the findings of Cabinet Secretary Rauf Chaudhry-led three-member fact finding committee probing into the issue of hosing down of murder scene of Benazir Bhutto?
It is so unusual after honest and hard work of the committee set up by the Prime Minister Gilani with sole mandate to ascertain causes of hosing down of the site where former party chairperson Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in mysterious circumsstances on December 27, 2007.
The fact-finding committee was supposed to submit its report to the Prime Minister within a week. However, the committee has been granted more time to complete its findings in the light of now altered mandate, a move many believed is directed to find scapegoats.
Well-placed official sources informed TheNation on Tuesday that President Zardari who in the presence of Prime Minister Gilani chaired an important meeting of the PPP’s core committee in Presidency that deliberated findings of the fact-finding committee over three hours late last night.
The sources were of the view that President Zardari was critical about the findings of the committee, which eventually led to a change in mandate its committee. The committee has been directed to complete its findings in the light of UN Commission’s report.
According to the sources, the committee has completed its findings on the basis of given statements and evidences and it had reached to a conclusion that police washed the crime scene outside without any pressure or any order from higher authorities.
It said police ordered the hosing down of the site in order to avoid a law and order situation because workers of Pakistan People’s Party were in an agitated state.The committee recorded statements of 40 people, including former MI chief and officials of police, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Rescue 15.
The committee saw about 150 evidences, including 39 forensic evidences, and looked into the documentary record of wireless communication of police and mobile record of the accused.
The sources said the former MI chief had already rejected the impression that he had ordered the hosing down of the site. General Ijaz told the committee members that he and his men had nothing to do with the washing of the site.
The former CPO presented the details of evidences and other material police had collected in addition to extensive photographs of the crime scene.
Aziz negated the UN report, saying it was not based on facts because the crime scene was washed after collecting all necessary evidences. He was of the view that in many such incidents, crime scenes were washed even within half an hour after the crime.
He termed the UN report a flawed one, saying a lot credible details he had provided to the commission had not been incorporated in the report.
He apprised the committee that the evidence collected from the site was sufficient and provided lead to the joint investigation team to put hand on real culprits, but no significant progress had been seen so far.
SP Khurram Shahzad endorsed the statement of Saud Aziz, saying the site was washed after the collection of evidences.
Political observers were of the view that one of the primary reasons of President Zardari’s annoyance over the findings of the committee was that sooner or later people being suspected and interrogated would be cleared and all fingers would be directed towards him being BB’s husband and her political heir.
“Now when most of the suspects mentioned in the UN report have been interrogated by the fact finding committee and most of them had been cleared, the blame of assassination of Benazir Bhutto at the end of the day would directly come on the President”, a source said.
He was of the view that President Asif Ali Zardari, the BB husband, had in fact so much at stake. “ Naturally, he should the most worried person if the committee fails in finding some scapegoats.”
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online//Politics/05-May-2010/Is-Zardari-looking-for-scapegoats
What is PPP Core Committee up to: By Ansar Abbasi & Tariq Butt in The News, May 5
ISLAMABAD: Total confusion prevailed on Tuesday night about the fate of a report of the three-man fact-finding committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary Rauf Chaudhry, as conflicting statements were issued by responsible official spokespersons, which did not clarify what would happen next.
The head of the committee, Rauf Chaudhry, said on Tuesday evening that the committee had finalised its report and submitted it to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. A Presidency press release on Monday night had stated that the PPP’s Core Committee meeting was briefed by Interior Minister Rehman Malik on the progress thus far made by the fact-finding committee.
The interesting point in that press release was that it said: “The fact-finding committee will also question some more people before submitting its report to the prime minister.” But talking to The News on Tuesday evening, Rauf Chaudhry said that his committee had not received any additional mandate as reflected by the decision taken at the Presidency by the PPP Core Committee on Monday.
Yet sources told Tariq Butt that the Rauf Chaudhry committee would call nine important personalities, including federal ministers Rehman Malik, Dr Babar Awan and Makhdoom Amin Faheem, Naheed Khan and others to record their statements.
Rauf Chaudhry said his committee was earlier given the specific mandate of probing certain officials, including the former DG MI, the ex-CPO Rawalpindi and others, to ascertain on whose orders the crime seen was washed. That had been done but Rauf did not speak about the findings of the report.
Although the committee had already submitted its report, the PPP’s Core Committee reaffirmed its resolve to pursue investigations in the light of the UN report to expose all elements involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Benazir Bhutto.
The Presidency press release did not specify who else would be questioned though media
reports on Tuesday suggested that Rehman Malik and Babar Awan would be among those to be questioned.
But hardly a day earlier, Presidency spokesman Farhatullah Babar told The News that the PPP co-chairperson after consulting his party had decided that the two ministers would not be probed as there was nothing against them in the UN report.
The Monday’s story in The News and Jang, based on Farhatullah Babar’s statement, seemed to have brought a lot of pressure on the government, which is now giving vague signals about the possible questioning of the two ministers, who are being suspected of some role in Benazir’s murder but are still the closest of all Presidential aides and not yet been questioned.
Yet what is intriguing to note in the Presidency’s Monday night press release is that no one else but Interior Minister Rehman Malik briefed the PPP Core Committee on the progress of the fact-finding committee, which, according to the cabinet secretary, has completed its job. How did he get the report when the PM should have reviewed it first?
The decision to call nine others was taken at the meeting of the Core Committee, which was also attended by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
Sources said Sherry Rehman, Lt-Gen (retd) Tauqir Zia, Farhatullah Babar, Safdar Abbasi and Maj (retd) Imtiaz would also be called by the Rauf committee to record their statements about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007.
According to the Core Committee sources, the briefing given to it on the basis of the Rauf committee’s report showed that some good leads and clues about the gruesome murder had been discovered. However, no specific criminal liability was fixed on the questioned police officers.
The source said the committee called Naheed Khan for at least two times, but she did not positively respond. Now, she has shown her willingness to give her statement. When contacted, Senator Safdar Abbasi told The News that Naheed Khan had not been called so far. However, he said the committee had nothing to do with the criminal investigation that was actually needed at the higher credible level.
Abbasi said Naheed Khan would first see how she would be called to appear before the committee. He said instead of finding facts the need was for criminal investigation as a lot of time has already passed since the martyrdom of Benazir Bhutto.
When contacted, Sherry Rehman said she would give her statement to the Rauf committee if sought. She said that she had met the UN Commission of Inquiry and the Scotland Yard as well.
When approached for comments, Farhatullah Babar said no timeframe has been given to the Rauf committee, but added it had been asked to question some more people for completion of its assignment.
However, it is not clear how the report came in the hands of the interior minister, who briefed the Core Committee on it, when it was required to have been submitted to the prime minister, who had constituted the committee.
All these developments have raised many more questions than answering a few. For instance, whether after submission of its report the mandate of the Rauf committee has been extended and whether it would cross-examine the ministers or would just let them place their statements on record. More importantly, since no timeframe has been given, will the Rauf committee keep on dragging the issue for as long as the PPP Core Committee wanted?http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28639
Unfinished business: edit in The Daily Times, May 5
A core committee of the PPP has decided to interrogate all the people who could help resolve the mystery shrouding the assassination of the party’s leader Benazir Bhutto. There are prominent names from within the PPP and outside the party who would be investigated, including General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, PPP leader Naheed Khan, Law Minister Babar Awan and Interior Minister Rehman Malik. It is good to know that wisdom has finally dawned on the PPP leadership to include its own party members in the interrogation process. For quite some time now the PPP has shown reservations about questioning its own party members but fortunately this does not appear to be the case any more. The party has decided to question all PPP members who were inside Ms Bhutto’s vehicle and those who were in other cars after the rally ended. This is a wise move as it would quash the conspiracy theories floating around and finally there may be an end to the finger pointing at senior PPP leaders and even serving ministers. A three-member fact-finding committee was formed earlier on by the prime minister to look into the issue of hosing down of the assassination site. The issue of washing away the forensic evidence was an important aspect, but an efficacious and comprehensive investigation cannot be carried out without questioning the people who were either present at the crime scene or could have been involved in the murder.
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s two-time premier and leader of the largest political party, in December 2007 shocked the entire world. Pakistan was up in flames and had it not been for the political sagacity of the PPP leadership, all hell would have broken loose. From day one the PPP has been insisting on a UN team to investigate the murder. Now that this has finally happened and the UN Commission has presented its findings, it is the responsibility of the PPP government to bring to book the culprits of this heinous murder. To avoid continuing unnecessary controversy, the party leadership has taken the right decision to interrogate its own members as well. It would go to the credit of this government that it is going to question its sitting ministers in order to uncover the whole truth. A more comprehensive investigation might lead to some aspects that have so far not been revealed. The PPP members have claimed that they have nothing to hide, which should make them all the more willing to cooperate and be open about recalling what actually transpired in those few minutes after the attack took place. It is surprising why the PPP leadership has taken so long to reach this decision when it should have done this at the very beginning. It seems as if the PPP has fallen into the habit of taking decisions at the eleventh hour instead of making the right decision at the right time. We have seen this in the case of the restoration of the judiciary as well as in some other cases. If the PPP government wants to succeed, it will have to overcome this flaw.
Questioning General Musharraf is an integral part of the investigation since he was the one in power at the time of Ms Bhutto’s assassination. It was a high-level conspiracy that could not have taken place without the knowledge, at the very least, of those in the higher echelons of power. If Musharraf does not cooperate, the government should not hesitate in contacting Interpol for help. The government must not show any weakness in unravelling the mystery, as it owes it to the slain leader, to millions of PPP workers and supporters, to the people of Pakistan, and to history.http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\05\story_5-5-2010_pg3_1
A defective document: op-ed by Ahmer Bilal Soofi in the Dawn, May 5
The writer is president of the Research Society of International Law and an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
FROM a strictly legal point of view, the UN report on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is deficient. The manner in which the report has been drafted is not consistent with the way in which documents probing high-profile events are prepared.
There are no annexes and no material listed to show on what the reports and conclusions are based. There are no statements by witnesses or by those people interviewed to ascertain whether or not the opinion of the authors is based on facts. In fact not even the names of the 250 people interviewed have been included. One cannot ascertain whether the relevant people were interviewed and others left out.
Opinions and conclusions in such a report must be based on identified material which is missing. There are no footnotes and often the report refers to anonymous sources. The UN report has given more weight to requests of anonymity by witnesses than shown regard for transparency. In that sense, the report itself belies its purpose which was to make an objective and transparent assessment of the circumstances in which Ms Bhutto was assassinated. The report falls short of the standards that people had expected from a UN commission.
The mandate given to the commission was “to determine the facts and circumstances of the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto”. It was not to write a journalistic piece on the historical background leading to the assassination. A thorough finding was expected that would help in the identification of suspects. The report has attempted to determine facts that are clearly extraneous and least relevant to Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. It contains the finding that the bulk of anti-Indian activity was and remains the work of groups with close ties with the ISI and that they are being used in Afghanistan and Kashmir. This may or may not be the case, but how is it relevant to a UN report focusing on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination?
Was the mandate to find facts which make Pakistan a threat to the region’s stability? Was the mandate to comment on Pakistan’s intervention in Kashmir and Afghanistan? Was the mandate to determine the presence of Al Qaeda and other non-state actors on the soil of Pakistan? If not, then why have extensive discussions been devoted to these issues?
The report in the chapter relating to threats and possible culpabilities discusses threats from the establishment (armed forces, intelligence agencies, etc.) in about 10 paragraphs. It is basically an exercise to link non-state actors to the establishment on the admitted basis of a hypothesis. After one goes through these 10 paragraphs, one ends up believing that the Pakistani establishment is hand in glove with non-state actors and out to destabilise the democratic set-up and further destabilise the region. While everyone believes that the Pakistani establishment needs to discipline itself and depart from past practices the point is whether this was the mandate given to the commission.
The terms of reference of the commission expressly authorised taking testimonies, whereas, the report does not even mention if it has taken a single written testimony from any person. Instead the inquiry commission changed the format of ‘testimony’ to ‘interview’, something that it never had the formal authority to do unless it sought explicit amendments to the terms of reference.
How does one check the commission wrote what it had recorded? Not that one doubts the integrity of its members, but propriety demands that the material, testimonies and documents that form the basis of the opinions and observations in the report are referred to or at least identified so that the reader is satisfied that the findings are well supported.
The commission chose to be selective in interviewing people, something that contradicts the essence of transparency and due process. Ideally, the members should have issued an advertisement inviting people to volunteer any information that they may have had about the assassination. Instead, they interviewed a few and left out several others who later came on television complaining that their statements would have had greater relevancy because they possessed certain knowledge. The report fails to give reasons for why it interviewed a few and left out others, when the terms of reference made clear the need for necessary evidence.
People were expecting that the report would help them assess which version of events was more accurate. In fact confusion is further compounded, and at the end of the report the reader is left with the same questions that he had when he started to read the report to find answers. Further, it allows space to everyone to give his own version. Hence in TV debates, one notices everyone relying on the respective contents of the report to argue his version against another.
The only positive outcome of the report is that its findings put pressure on the government to carry out a serious and credible investigation and exclude none and include all those who are suspected in any way. The report can have serious legal implications for Pakistan’s long-term interest regarding the country’s various institutions and their alleged regional and international roles.
These findings are considered final because the report was commissioned under the UN Charter by the secretary general and has been submitted to the UN Security Council. The commission may have ceased to exist, but the report continues to be a living document and the UN can use or misuse the determination of various facts made in the report in a manner which may not be in Pakistan’s interest.http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/a-defective-document-550
A committee and a half: op-ed by Kamran Shafi in The Dawn, May 4
The committee set up to fix responsibility for the hosing down of the site of Benazir Bhutto’s dastardly assassination is something to behold: a federal secretary, a provincial additional secretary and the vice chief of general staff of the Pakistan Army.
What a committee indeed, with a real general on it whose presence must strike the fear of God into the other members, one of whom is reportedly best buddies with the general being investigated! Only a very unique government of a very unique country could have set up such a committee.
The point is this: a lowly official such as a CPO (city police officer) would not, even in his wildest imagination, even in a horrible nightmare, on his own order the hosing down of a site where a personage as illustrious as Benazir Bhutto had been assassinated.
Neither would a functionary of state so cockily and with such nonchalance dismiss a senior doctor’s request to carry out a post-mortem on a leader of the stature of Benazir Bhutto, a post-mortem that was legally binding on the state to carry out, mind, unless he had friends in very high (and very secure) places who were egging him on. Don’t we know this; don’t we come from the same country as Mr Saud Aziz and his friends? Are we Martians?
The government must get real; it must bend every sinew to get to the bottom of this horrendous crime. Benazir was no ordinary person: she was the daughter of a very great man in whose name the PPP still gets the votes of the poor and the dispossessed of our country. She herself bravely led the PPP for well on 33 years and had an unusual and strong bond with the poor with whom she empathised in a very real way; never cynically. Why, I have seen her weep hearing an old man tell her his problems, and herself making a call to some minor government functionary asking him to please help.
I write what I write only to point out to those that matter, both in government and ‘outside’, not to take Benazir’s cruel and cold-blooded murder lightly. Benazir’s blood will be avenged, mark my words, for there are too many people out there whose lives she touched very deeply. I would caution anyone whose name is being bandied about in the press in relation to this horrible crime to review their stand immediately: to wit, the threesome of Rehman Malik and Babar Awan and Farhatullah Babar to at the very least agree with each other regarding the minutes immediately following the shooting/bombing.
They must tell us why they drove to Zardari House in Islamabad when, according to some of them, they knew that Benazir had come under attack. Rehman Malik must tell us who it was that told him on the telephone that Benazir had survived the attempt on her life when the fact is that she fell down dead immediately after the second shot of the pistol shooter from barely two metres away, and which made her dupatta flutter at what surely must be the exit point of the bullet.
Let me say here and now, that one of the above mentioned, Farhatullah Babar, is well known to me as a gentleman for 22 years now when both of us worked for Benazir — him as speechwriter, I as her press secretary. I cannot for a moment believe that he could ever tell an untruth, and more than that, that he could ever think a bad thought about Benazir. So why the confusion?
Questions: why did the ‘follow-car’ become an ‘advance car’? Did the occupants hear the blast? If so, why did the car not immediately turn back to see what had happened to the leader? Who told Rehman Malik Benazir was unhurt? Why did the car not stop and wait for Benazir’s SUV to overtake them and then follow her to Zardari House? These questions simply must be answered and answered immediately. Remember, the avenging spirit of the very poor is very great, indeed.
One Shaukat Ali, in a letter reminiscent of many others that are written when the establishment is upset (!) has alleged that I lost my temper while on a TV talk show with Sheikh Rashid and said that the corps commanders had no right to object to the Kerry-Lugar Bill. Wrong. I did firmly correct Sheikh Rashid when he suggested that I had ‘abused’ the army which was like a second mother to me for I had served it for 11 of the best years of my life, and that I would not let him get away with raising his voice at me as he was in the habit of doing with others.
As for the Kerry-Lugar Bill, I did not bring it up. Sheikh Rashid did. However, I have always said, and continue to maintain, that it is a perfect piece of legislation that says words to the effect that unless the US secretary of state certifies from time to time that the army is not interfering in the political life of the country it will not receive US aid.
My point has always been that in spite of expressing their ‘fury’ at the KLB the army top brass had no compunction in asking for US aid in a meeting between Generals Kayani and Petraeus exactly nine days after venting their ‘fury’. So why the ‘fury’?
As for our soldiers and officers fighting bravely the enemies of Pakistan, what in the world does that have to do with a handful of senior generals stepping out of line? Indeed, it is because of the wrongheaded policies of our brass hats that we are in the soup we are in, and why brave young men are losing their precious lives.
Incidentally, let me tell Shaukat Ali that while I am well over the age of recall to active duty, I have volunteered my services to my battalion whenever needed. So, no one please lecture me on probity and ‘love’ of the army/country. Not Master Rashid, not Master Ali. Incidentally, a search on the Internet showed that 95 per cent of viewers supported what I had said.
PS I made the mistake of my life when I appeared, against better counsel, on Dr Shahid Masood’s Meray Mutabiq which was recorded and then edited. And by golly was it edited! Suffice it to say that I was shocked out of my wits, and greatly saddened, at the show as aired.http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/kamran-shafi-a-committee-and-a-half-450
Add to:
del.icio.us |
Digg
del.icio.us |
Digg
Email to a friend
Print version
Plain textRate this article
Comments (0 posted):
Post your comment