May 2 advance knowledge reports: PML-N wants envoy to London summoned

Published: December 17, 2011
Email
Senator Ishaq Dar and MNA Khwaja Asif request the court to club their application with memogate case.

Senator Ishaq Dar and MNA Khwaja Asif request the court to club their application with memogate case.

ISLAMABAD: 

While the memogate case is already keeping all the stakeholders on their toes, the opposition Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz on Friday filed another application in the Supreme Court seeking clarification of media reports that some Pakistani officials knew in advance about the May 2 Abbottabad raid.

The applicants – Senator Ishaq Dar and MNA Khwaja Asif – requested the court to club the application with the memogate case and summon Pakistan’s High Commissioner to the UK Wajid Shamsul Hasan for his testimony on the events leading up to the Abbottabad raid that had killed al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.

Officially, they said, the Pakistani authorities gave the impression that nobody knew about the raid before it took place. But Wajid Shamsul Hasan, in his interviews, stated otherwise.

“Pakistan had at least 8 to 10 days advance knowledge of the May 2 operation” and it “assisted in terms of authorisation of the helicopter flights in our airspace”, the applicants quoted Hasan as saying in interviews with foreign television news channels. According to them, Hasan also said that Pakistan knew about Bin Laden’s whereabouts and had helped the Americans get him.

The applicants said Mehreen Zahra also quoted Mansoor Ijaz in the December 3 issue of Newsweek that “Ambassador Haqqani and President Asif Ali Zardari had prior knowledge of the US stealth mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden.”

They requested the court to ensure Hasan’s presence through the ministry of foreign affairs for an examination by the court itself or any commission so appointed by the court for the purpose.

In an interview with India’s NDTV, Hasan said: “Pakistan intelligence agencies – like the CIA – had been monitoring him. And they had known where he was. And that’s how the Americans reached him. The Americans could not have reached him without our help.”

The two PML-N legislators asked the court to also restrain Hasan from travelling abroad, after he comes to Pakistan, unless the court satisfies itself of the entire background of the raid. They also asked the court to summon two journalists, Shaheen Sehbai and Mohammad Malick, who had reported on Hasan’s claim that the Pakistani authorities knew about the Bin Laden raid in advance.

According to a statement issued from London on December 8, 2011, Hasan had clarified that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s ‘felicitations to the Americans for hunting down the al Qaeda chief the same day had initially created an impression that the operation was an outcome of the shared knowledge and intelligence of the two sides”.

“During my later interaction with the media when complete facts came to light, I had repeatedly mentioned that Pakistan was stabbed in the back because, as a coalition partner in the war on terror, there was very close liaison between the intelligence networks of the two countries but the information about OBL’s presence in Abbottabad and the operation to hunt him down were not shared with Pakistan,” he clarified.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 17th, 2011.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (3)

  • Dec 17, 2011 - 10:44AM

    PML Nawaz is scoring all the points. Good show Nawaz. Salams to your party.Recommend

  • Mirza
    Dec 17, 2011 - 11:03PM

    How about the killings in Baluchistan? Would the SC ever have time to pay attention on the domestic killings? Or the foreign cases and letters are more important?

    Recommend

  • MarkH
    Dec 18, 2011 - 4:03AM

    They’re doing their job as the opposition, which is to be the thorn in the side of anyone currently in power to keep them on their toes. However, there’s little point in caring about that statement. Them knowing previously is not something that is isolated to their reaction to the attack. It also applies to the US reaction to their actions being criticized. I could go on a rant with the details to back this up but, I’ll take a break from it considering my low laptop battery being low. The US statements/actions following the incident do not reflect those of someone who did not truly work as unilaterally as originally claimed. One of the more annoying things for the US was the fact he was in Pakistan and that it had to be one sided action to be certain of its success.

    Recommend

More in Pakistan