KARACHI, Sept 7: “The entire court is a complainant,” a seven-member bench of the Sindh High Court remarked when provincial government counsel Raja Qureshi requested its reconstitution as four of its members were among the judges whose complaints prompted the suo motu proceedings on May 12 events.

The bench consists of Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Mushir Alam, Azizullah M. Memon, Khilji Arif Hussain, Maqbool Baqar and Ali Sain Dino Metlo.

The last-mentioned four are among the judges who faced hurdles in approaching the high court on May 12.

Advocate Qureshi suggested that either the bench be reconstituted or the case transferred to another high court. He wanted a ruling on his objection so that he could approach the Supreme Court for guidance.

Amicus curiae Qazi Faez Isa said the objection should have been taken at the earliest. Home Adviser Waseem Akhtar’s counsel, Iqtidar Hashmi, objected that ‘this is not the role of amicus curiae’.

Nobody, Advocate Qureshi said, could be a judge in his own cause. Citing a full court Supreme Court judgment of 1989 and SHC Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed’s reluctance to sit on the Supreme Judicial Council because of his son’s association with Supreme Court Bar Association President Munir A. Malik’s chamber, he said the principle was well-entrenched in national and foreign jurisprudence. Being an officer of the court, he added, he wanted to secure the ends of justice and suppress mischief.

The bench said it would rule on the objection while finally disposing of the matter. In that case, the counsel said, he would have to seek instructions from the provincial government. After briefly consulting the administration and police officers present in the courtroom, Advocate Qureshi sought a day’s adjournment for seeking instructions from the chief minister but the court disallowed the request and the counsel resumed his submissions. The bench reiterated that the May 12 situation was there for everybody to see and that it was proceeding on admitted facts. “What occurred on May 12 was obstruction of justice,” Justice Baqar said.

The adjournment requested by Deputy Attorney-General Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for ascertaining whether the federal cabinet discussed the situation in Karachi before or after May 12 was also disallowed. He complained to the bench that Karachi Bar Association Secretary Naeem Qureshi got hold of him and called him ‘an agent’ outside the courtroom. He was told to file a complaint with the Sindh Bar Council. At the end of the proceedings, however, Justice Osmany asked Sindh High Court Bar Association Secretary Munirur Rehman to restrain his colleagues. Advocate Mobin Lakho produced the CDs of more talk shows and press conferences. He was asked to supply copies to the respondents’ counsel.

Home Secretary Ghulam Mohammad Mohtaram, meanwhile, submitted a personal affidavit in respect of a missing Muttahida Qaumi Movement letter seeking permission for a rally on May 12.

Relying on the provisions of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, Advocate Qureshi said the responsibility for maintaining law and order devolved on the city nazim. If it were so, the bench asked, why the city nazim was not present at the meetings held to discuss security arrangements for May 12.

Advocate’s ‘audacity’

The bench admonished Advocate Qureshi for producing an affidavit by Deputy Inspector-General (Investigation) Manzoor Mughal, who headed a committee set up to probe the May 12 events, to the effect that he approached the SHC registrar on May 29 for recording his statement on police lapses but he declined to say anything. The bench wondered at the ‘audacity’ of bringing up ‘such a thing’ and asked the counsel to withdraw it.

The bench emphasized that the aim of the proceedings was to fix responsibility and prevent recurrence of May 12-like situation. It wanted to know why only the MQM was allowed to hold a rally. Advocate Qureshi said the MQM was also advised to put off its demonstration but the party said all other parties were intent on taking out processions.

The bench pointed out that while Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was requested in writing, there was no written request to the MQM. Asked whether the prime minister and other executive functionaries were ever requested to postpone their visits, the counsel replied in the affirmative. Security clearance was obtained and conveyed prior to the VVIP visits, he said.

Advocate Qureshi gave year-wise expenditure incurred by the Sindh government on the Pakistan Rangers. The latest budgetary allocation (for 2007-2008) was over Rs411 million. He would submit identical data in respect of the Frontier Constabulary stationed in the province in compliance of a court order.

Under the security arrangements made for the SHC function on May 12, he said, only one access from Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah Road was to be opened for lawyers, who were to park their vehicles in the YMCA ground and taken to the court premises by a shuttle service. Miscreants tried to create trouble but it was warded off. He said after his first meeting with CJ Ahmed, CCPO Azhar Farooqui took measures against any trouble around the SHC building and they were appreciated by the CJ.

The lawyer also gave details of the deployment plan for the safety and security of the person of the chief justice. Asked why armed police were not deployed at certain places, particularly the airport, he said armed police was not assigned to rallies as a matter of policy to avoid clashes. Force was used only when absolutely necessary. Even tear-gas was meant to be used sparingly. The policy was based on UN-adopted standards contained in a book titled ‘Human rights and policing’.

About the measures taken before May 12, he said MQM camps were removed. The security agencies tried their best to ascertain ‘the route of the CJ’s choice’, but were told that it would be known only after his arrival at the airport. All political parties, including the MQM, were advised verbally not to stage rallies. The hearing would resume on Monday.

The missing letter

The home secretary submitted in his affidavit that a letter through which a request was made by the MQM for permission to hold rallies in the city had been misplaced, adds APP.

He submitted that the permission was not granted by the Sindh home department to the MQM for holding rallies in the city on May 12.

Habib-ur-Rehman, counsel for the city government, presented a notification issued by the CDGK on May 7, and submitted that on a written request by the MQM Rabita Committee, the MQM was given permission for rallies.

The SHC bench sought the footage record of the CCTV cameras installed in the SHC surroundings on May 12.

Mr Qureshi also filed the English translation of the 10 FIRs registered about the incidents of May 12.