KARACHI: SHC seeks transcript of alleged interview: Arbab’s remarks on May 12 events
By Shujaat Ali Khan
KARACHI, July 3: Chief Minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim denied on Tuesday having made any contemptuous remarks, and a seven-member bench of the Sindh High Court asked the petitioner lawyers to produce the transcript of his alleged interview and other relevant documents by August 8, the next date of hearing, if they insisted on their allegations.
The bench, consisting of Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Mushir Alam, Azizullah M. Memon, Khilji Arif Hussain, Maqbool Baqar and Ali Sain Dino Metlo, was conducting contempt and suo motu proceedings into the incidents of May 12.
A counter-affidavit on behalf of the chief minister was filed by Advocate Wasim Sajjad while Advocate Mohammad Ashraff Kazi submitted counter-affidavits sworn by Chief Secretary Shakeel Durrani, Home Secretary Ghulam Mohammad Mohtaram and Capital City Police Officer Azhar Ali Farooqui. Additional Inspector-General of Police Niaz A. Siddiqui’s counter-affidavit would be filed on the next date while Advocate A.Q. Halepota, counsel for Federal Interior Secretary Syed Kamal Shah, who has been granted exemption from appearance, is on general adjournment. Amici curiae Khalid Anwer and Qazi Faez Isa were also not available. Except for the home secretary, who was granted exemption for Tuesday, all the alleged contemnors were present.
Plea against MQM chief
Representing petitioner Syed Iqbal Kazmi, who has cited Muttahida Qaumi Movement leader Altaf Hussain as a respondent, Advocate Naheed Afzal sought adjournment for amending his petition. The request was granted and the petition was adjourned to a date in office. The provincial government was represented at the proceedings by acting Advocate-General Masood Noorani and Additional Advocates-General Sarwar Khan and M. Ahmed Pirzada. A number of lawyers representing the bar organisations were also present in the packed courtroom of Justice Osmany.
CM on ‘distorted facts’
The chief minister said in his affidavit that he had full respect for the dignity and honour of the judiciary and had been taking measures to meet its requirements. If an honest judge expressed his desire to resign, he tried to convince him against resigning in the interest of a strong judicial system.
He never baulked at giving official assignments to honest and competent retired judges. Some newspapers distorted facts and presented his statements out of context. When he was questioned about mistreatment of certain high officials by lawyers during their appearance in the court, he said he would bring the matter to the chief justice’s notice.
He even issued a hand-out on June 6 to clarify his press statements and a BBC report based on a telephonic interview with him. (The hand-out was annexed to the affidavit).
The administration and police officers said in their affidavits that ‘foolproof’ security measures were adopted on May 12 for Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry’s visit, particularly after an SHC division bench order of May 11 on a petition.
Since the CJ declined to come out of the airport building and visit the SHC and other venues through a route of his choice, the security arrangements were never put to test and the question of violation of the court direction did not arise. (The detailed deployment plan and the minutes of the meetings held to work it out were annexed to the affidavits).
The affidavits said the CJ’s visit, ‘not formally intimated to the home department or any other authority’, was drawing immense political interest and there was no political party worth the name that did not plan a rally on May 12.
The plans had generated tension and the home secretary informed the Supreme Court registrar on May 9 of the tense atmosphere in the city, asking him to request the CJ to put off his visit to a convenient new date. The letter was endorsed to all concerned, but there was no response and the administration continued to make security arrangements. The army special squad, the Airport Security Force, the Rangers anti-terrorist wing and the police Elite Force were also put on alert. However, neither the hosts nor the guest informed the home department about the route to be taken by the CJ.
The CM’s helicopter and protocol vehicles were placed at the CJ’s disposal but his counsel said he would not move out of the airport unless his hosts, the SHC Bar Association, came to receive him at the airport. Barriers had been placed on the Shahrah-i-Faisal to block the rallies and prevent violence. Yet clashes soon broke out at various points and the road was no longer safe for travel except under heavy escort.
‘SHC building siege’
As for the besieging of the SHC building, the affidavits said, cordoning of roads leading to the building with containers was done in consultation with the SHCBA and the KBA purely from the security point of view. The lawyers desired that the security arrangements should be as tight as during the main Muharram procession.
In accordance with the mutually-agreed plan, only the rear entrance of Ghluam Hussain Hidayatullah Road was to be used by the invitees. A lifter was placed along the container on the road to open it at the time of arrival of guests. Only 22 judges’ vehicles were to enter the SHC while lawyers and invitees were to park their cars on the YMCA ground and were to be brought to the SHC building by a shuttle service.
Problems, however, arose when some miscreants forced their way from the controlled access point in the morning. Uncalled for and ‘highly regrettable’ inconvenience was thus caused to judges. A case has been registered against the unknown miscreants. Inquiries have also been ordered into other incidents but have been suspended in view of the court proceedings. The respondents said most of them came to the high court when called by the SHC chief justice and tried to rectify the situation.
