Memogate hearing: Haqqani’s counsel refuses to cross-examine Ijaz in a huff
The memo commission, probing the origin, authenticity and the purpose of the memorandum allegedly sent by former ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, to retired US admiral Mike Mullen, on Friday turned into a fish market when Haqqani’s counsel refused to cross-examine Mansoor Ijaz.
“I cannot work with an angry judge, I don’t want to continue, I have conveyed to my client that I will not represent him anymore,” said Zahid Bukhari, Haqqani’s counsel, to the head of the commission Justice Qazi Faez Isa. Haqqani sought ten minutes from the commission to convince his counsel to continue.
At the outset of the proceedings, Ijaz had handed over his passport to the commission’s secretary to prove that he had visited the US last year. Resuming the cross-examination, Zahid asked Ijaz to disclose the name of the person who arranged his meeting with Director General ISI Ahmad Shuja Pasha. Ijaz replied that a person code named Burhan who claimed to be an assistant of General Pasha arranged the meeting. He said if the US government would have stopped him from meeting General Pasha he could decline the request, adding that Pasha had also given him his email and contact number after the meeting.
Replying to a question, Ijaz said that the contents of the memo were dictated to him by Haqqani over the phone on May 9, 2011, and he was taking notes during the call. He said after delivering the memo he sent a message to Haqqani and also shared the draft of memo with him. Ijaz added that the call between himself and Haqqani on May 9 was the first time the memo was discussed.
Ijaz told the commission that when General James Johns was a National Security Advisor he had asked him about Haqqani and told him that Haqqani claimed to be a National Security Adviser to the President.
He added that Haqqani is a close confidant of President Zardari and it is plausible that he might have given him additional responsibility which no one else knew about. At this point, the commission adjourned the proceedings for Saturday.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 17th, 2012.
COMMENTS (4)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1721377568-0/BeFunky-collage-(18)1721377568-0-165x106.webp "article")
1732603037-0/BeFunk_§_]__-(51)1732603037-0.jpg "sc dismisses ji s petition in panama scandal case")
1732610150-0/Untitled-design-(3)1732610150-0-270x192.webp "bushra bibi firm on d chowk protest amid police shelling")
1732610854-0/Untitled-design-(68)1732610854-0-270x192.webp "pti convoy marches towards islamabad s d chowk amid tense clashes")
1732608486-0/BeFunk_§_]__-(54)1732608486-0.jpg "indian teenager breaks record as youngest player sold in ipl auction")
Hussain Haqqani is not going to frame himself. The Supreme Court and High Court judges have to ask the prosecution to prove their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and establish the credibility of Mansoor Ijaz. Hussain Haqqani has no burden of proof, he is innocent till proven guilty. When did a judge ask a murderer to offer the murder weapon? The state/prosecution has to make the case and prove it. In this case the judges are the prosecution thus making a mockery of justice. In any other country SC would not even entertain a case based upon the insinuation of an confessed criminal like Mansoor Ijaz, who has admitted writing against Pakistan, army and delivering to Americans.
"He added that Haqqani is a close confidant of President Zardari and it is plausible that he might have given him additional responsibility which no one else knew about." Is the foreign agent MI replying the questions or making innuendos, insinuations, imaginations and personal fantasies? No court let alone three Chiefs of High Courts would allow this kind of personal story telling to the court. If these judges have so much time to spare then they should also ask MI why he is running away from his own country of birth the USA.
"He added that Haqqani is a close confidant of President Zardari and it is plausible that he might have given him additional responsibility which no one else knew about."
Normally a lawyer would interrupt such conjecture. He's not very good at his job. But I suppose the hissy fit he had over the meanie judge established that first.
Its obvious from Haqqani\Bukhari tactics that their intent is to frustrate the Commission and Ijaz from getting to truth. Haqqani unlike Ijaz is not providing his BB details because his lies would surface. Regretably, the Judiciary should not have appointed a commission, but CJ should have dealt with it personally, keeping hearings going on a daily basis until a verdict was ready. This is a lost case for anyone to prove.