Memogate scandal: Haqqani seeks exemption from appearance in SC

Former ambassador’s life at risk in Pakistan, his counsel says.

Our Correspondent July 17, 2012

ISLAMABAD: Former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani has forwarded an application seeking review of the Supreme Court‘s earlier order that obligated him to appear in person before the court in the Memogate scandal case.

Asma Jahangir, Haqqani’s counsel, has filed the application requesting the apex court to reconsider summoning Haqqani in person. She said her client was threatened by powerful forces within Pakistan, who do not hold any official authority in the country.

“At this stage, the physical presence of the respondent is not required. It is enormously risky for Haqqani to attend the hearing in person. Security of his life outweighs the requirement of him being physically present at the hearing,” she vehemently argued.

She requested the court to reconsider the order as under the jurisdiction of the criminal procedure code or the civil procedure code his physical presence was not mandatory.

A new job

Meanwhile, the former ambassador has joined a private government relations and lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates as a senior advisor in the US.

A press release issued by Cassidy & Associates stated that Haqqani’s appointment is a significant step in ensuring “the firm’s clients are protected and connected around the world.”

(Additional reporting by Huma Imtiaz from Washington)

Published in The Express Tribune, July 17th, 2012.

contempt law.


In order to discuss this further, the court adjourned the hearing till July 31, 2012.

JIT issues fresh notices to Riaz

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has issued fresh notices to Riaz to appear before investigators probing the Dr Arsalan fiasco, according to an official statement.

The businessman requested NAB’s Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for a fresh date of appearance, sometime next week.

Hence, NAB issued a new summon for his appearance on July 19 (Thursday), added the statement.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 17th, 2012.


Haider | 10 years ago | Reply The Memo Commission’s methods and the report bear similarities with the spite with which the SC prosecuted Khan Abdul Wali Khan and other National Awami Party (NAP) leaders in 1975. The ignominious judgment in the Wali Khan Case, written by the otherwise respected, nay celebrated, Justice Hamoodur Rehman who was endorsed by an ideologically charged Justice Gul Muhammad, had drawn criticism from across the board including from the greats like Justice Dorab Patel. Among other things, Justice Patel criticised the SC for using intelligence agencies’ reports, newspaper clippings and the speeches/books/pamphlets by the accused leaders to ‘determine’ that the latter were working against the so-called ideology of Pakistan. Fast forward 38 years and one finds the Memo Commission quoting from Husain Haqqani’s book Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military to draw the monumental conclusion that because Haqqani has been advocating civilian supremacy over the military in Pakistan, he must, therefore, have dictated the memo to Mansoor Ijaz. In its zeal to pin down Haqqani, the Commission glaringly omitted Mansoor Ijaz’s own admission during cross-examination that he had nothing but his own notes to prove that the former ambassador had asked him to write the memo. When asked during the cross-examination, “Can you produce any document, email, SMS or BBM, which would show that Mr Haqqani had asked you to write the memorandum?” Ijaz’s reply was, “The only document, which I can produce is exhibit W4-1, which was my handwritten notes that I took down when Mr Haqqani telephoned me. In the history of Pakistan you will find no such example that a person has been declared unpatriotic, blasphemous and traitor without any solid evidence. What else to say that “ Jo chahay ap ka husn.e.krishma saz kre”.
Gohar | 10 years ago | Reply all are the same zardari, hussain haqqani every one in Pak Land
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

Most Read