AT 0300 hours on Friday, November 28, 1997, the landing strip of the Islamabad airport was lit up. Punjab Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif flew in, having wished God speed to his party stalwarts travelling by road from Lahore to the capital city. He had come to witness his 'stormers' perform and to arrange a post-storming celebratory luncheon at Punjab House.
With him, amongst others, was Senator Saifur Rahman. Saif was later to deny having had anything to do with the transportation of the hordes, explaining that he had 'rushed' to Lahore the evening before to visit a judge of the Supreme Court. Having met His Lordship at 11 o'clock at night he had hitched a ride back with Shahbaz Sharif.
At 0730 hours the same day, Lt-General Nasim Rana, then heading the ISI, called on COAS General Jehangir Karamat to report that a large crowd of ruling party men had left Lahore the previous night and was now congregating in Islamabad preparing to storm the Supreme Court . General Karamat played by the book and asked Rana to warn the man whose orders he obeyed, Nawaz Sharif, prime and defence minister. Another general in Karamat's place would have perhaps ordered a company of the 111 Brigade to conduct a 'move' exercise around the Supreme Court and the Parliament area that morning. The army is, after all, responsible for the security of the people and their institutions.
That morning whilst Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was presiding in Court No.1, hearing the contempt of court case against the prime minister and other parliamentarians, the Supreme Court was stormed by a horde of members and supporters of the ruling party, the Muslim League. They committed gross and blatant contempt in the face of the court, obstructed the course of justice, and forced Sajjad Ali Shah and his brother judges to rise and take cover. Their plan was to physically prevent the Chief Justice from doing what was feared - from convicting Nawaz Sharif and disqualifying him from political life.
That morning I was in the Supreme Court, in Courtroom No.1. All present , neutral or otherwise, had no doubt that the storming had been organized by the men of the ruling party.
The plan to oust Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, which had taken root as early as August 21, 1997, succeeded and he was deposed.
It was expected that his successor, Justice Ajmal Mian, would immediately, as his first act, take suo motu action to restore the honour of his court. This was not done.
Morris vs Crown Office (1972 QB 114) was the first case in Britain in which the Court of Appeal had to consider "contempt in the face of the court." On February 4, 1970, the court was invaded by eleven students. They were sentenced the same day to terms of imprisonment. Their appeal was heard on February 9 and decided on February 11. The honour and dignity of the court was restored within the space of one week.
On December 13, 1997, fifteen days after the event , I addressed an open letter to Acting Chief Justice Ajmal Mian (my column, 14/12/97) requesting that "it be accepted as a petition and that he take suo motu action, for the gravest contempt committed in the face of the court, against those who stormed the Supreme Court on November 28, 1997, as well as those responsible for organizing, paying, and directing them to so do, and that severe deterrent punishment be handed down to all of them. Collectively responsible and guilty is the entire federal cabinet and its "primus inter pares". Together with the letter, I sent him a video cassette which clearly showed the storming of the court and in which several Muslim League leaders were identified.
Acting Chief Justice Ajmal Mian referred to the 'storming' as a 'very serious incident of rowdyism.' By his order dated 15/12/97 he appointed Abdur Rahman Khan, J, to hold an inquiry. Two months later, on 18/2/98, Justice Rahman submitted a report in which, inter alia, he stated : "As the action of those individuals who forced their entry into the court premises and raised slogans against the judiciary prima facie amounts to gross contempt of this court ..... it is considered appropriate that the honourable Chief Justice may constitute a bench of the court to [initiate] contempt proceedings for the outrageous incident of 28/11/97. The bench so constituted can adopt such measures and take such actions as it may deem necessary to identify the concerned persons ..... the necessity for initiating such action immediately is felt because of paramount importance of the matter as the sanctity, dignity and respect of the apex court of the country is involved. Street power should not be allowed to coerce and intimidate the judiciary."
On 25/2/98, the CJ constituted a bench of three to inquire into the matter. Those of us who helped the court by testifying as to what we had seen, heard and read were given the distinct impression that it was we who were the accused. During the course of the proceedings advocate Akram Shaikh and I pointed out that the Attorney-General and his deputies, employees of the government, could not be expected to prosecute their employers. It was suggested that an independent special prosecutor be appointed. The judges were unmoved. The inquiry ended on 16/6/98, the judges directing that show cause notices be sent to 26 inconsequential members of the ruling party and the administration.
The hearing of the contempt case began on 21/2/99 before a bench of three headed by Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, the same bench that had conducted the inquiry. I was asked to appear before it on May 6 as a prosecution witness. I was further directed : "If you wish to place on record any material regarding the incident, you are requested to send the same in advance." I sent a copy of the video cassette of the recording of the court's own CCTV cameras and fourteen documents, all of which had been handed over to the Supreme Court and/or the DAG between December 1997 and May 1998, i.e. prior to and during the course of the inquiry hearing of Cr.Misc.27/98.
Before the court on May 6, I challenged the capacity and capability of the DAG to prosecute, and handed over a statement suggesting that it was still not too late to appoint a special prosecutor, in conformity with current international judicial norms and practices, who is able to prosecute the case in an unbiased manner. The statement was accepted on record and the DAG was directed to sit down. The judges asked whether I had any statement to make. I accused the prime minister and the ruling party of having stormed the court on November 28, 1997, and of obstructing the course of justice. On what basis had I made my statement? I was asked. On the basis of the video cassette and of all the documents already sent to the court.
During cross examination by a defence lawyer it was "put " to me that my accusation was malafide and made out of malice. "Right or wrong ?" he asked. Wrong, I replied, and there the matter ended. The judges then asked me what I had seen and heard in the courtroom on the day of the storming. Once again I narrated my account, including the passage concerning Saifur Rahman. They asked me what I saw when I left the courtroom. I saw people dancing the 'Peshawar Jig,' I said. When I asked what they were celebrating they informed me it was the success of their mission - they had disrupted the court and forced the judges to rise. Did I recognize any of the dancing mob, the judges asked? No, said I, not one in that madding crowd. They all looked alike, fat and flabby.
On May 14, 1999, over one and a half years after the storming, the judgment was delivered. Statements made under oath, the video cassette recording, newspaper clippings - all these were not considered to be evidence.
On the morning of May 21, a crowing Mushahid Hussain rang and we discussed the judgment. His praise of their Lordships' wisdom clearly implied that the judgment informed the people that in actual fact there had been no storming of the Supreme Court , that no man had committed contempt. For had there been a storming, the law of the land would surely have found the high command and the foot-stormers guilty of the grossest contempt in the face of the court. In any event, I told him, the sole appeal against this judgment lies now before the Master Referee. Ajmal Mian? asked Mushahid. No, I informed him, Allah Mian, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient. He is the one who knows which of us down here possessed 'moral courage' and which lacked it.