1990 elections: SC asks ex-spymaster to answer poll rigging charge

The then army chief had blamed the ISI for fraudulent practices.


Azam Khan May 11, 2012

ISLAMABAD:


A day after former army chief Gen (retd) Aslam Beg blamed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) for rigging in the 1990 elections, the Supreme Court gave former ISI chief Lt-Gen Asad Durrani a chance to submit his response to Beg’s allegations.


Beg, in his statement submitted on Wednesday, had said that the ISI maintained the accounts of money distributed during the 1990s election campaigns, and Durrani, who was DG ISI at that time, would have information in this regard.

During the hearing of the case on Thursday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, heading a two-member bench, said the composition of the bench would be changed and at least a three-judge bench will hear the petition from next week.

The court will conclude proceedings on the petition by May 18, he said.

Raja submits inquiry report

Meanwhile, Salman Akram Raja, the counsel for petitioner Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan, handed Mehran Bank’s inquiry commission’s report to the bench. Journalist Hamid Mir provided him a copy of the report, he said.

Attorney General Irfan Qadir informed the court that the reports could not be traced from official records. A copy of the report, from Raja, will be sent to the law ministry to verify its authenticity, Qadir said.

The report bears signatures of the commission members and its authenticity can be verified from the judges, some of whom are still alive, Raja said.

Establishing the commissions

A notification was issued on June 17, 1994 for the establishment of the judicial commission to probe the Mehran Bank scam, a copy of which is available with The Express Tribune.

The notifications – SRO 617 (1)/94 for Mehran Bank and SRO 618 (1)/94 for Habib Bank judicial commissions – issued by the law ministry were also published in the Gazette of Pakistan. The Mehran Bank notification stated that there are reasons to believe that the bank was incorporated, operated and administered in a manner that was contrary to law, directions of the State Bank of Pakistan, normal banking practices, prudence and propriety.

It also gave reference of the reports that suggest that Younus Habib obtained the position of the chief operating officer of Mehran Bank through illegal and improper means due to which unlawful practices of money distribution increased in the bank.

The federal government is of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to appoint a commission to inquire into these matters, the notification states.

Terms of references

The government formed two commissions subsequently.

The Mehran Bank commission was headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, and comprised Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza, Justice (retd) ZA Channa, Justice Nazir Ahmad Bhatti, and Justice Qazi Muhammad Farooq.

Besides investigation misappropriation of funds, the main task of the commission was to probe the circumstances in which promoters, shareholders and directors were granted necessary sanctions and permission for establishment and incorporation of Mehran Bank. The commission was given three months initially for completion of its task.

The main task of the Habib Bank commission was to probe the source of generation of funds and subsequent methods adopted for depositing it in different accounts of an intelligence agency (ISI) by Younus Habib during the specified period preceding the general elections of 1990, and utilising them to affect the result of the elections.  The commission was also given three months initially.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 11th, 2012.

COMMENTS (2)

Mohammad | 11 years ago | Reply

Well, president GIK is part of history. Gen Baig's claim of know-nothing is very rediculous. No one can believe that COAS will not know any thing. Benezir is dead. There is no interest for her followers to conclude any thing out of this case except guilty verdict for Sherifs. Two generals are now blaming eachother. It will be very interestinng to see how SC proceeds on this. End of the day, our beloved politicians are in trouble. But, who cares. A gulity PM is still the PM. So, why not others to follow same tradition. An example has been set.

Mirza | 11 years ago | Reply

When is the SC going to finalize the verdict on this case? It has been almost two decades.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ