APA
1 August 2009
The Congolese President Joseph Kabila has dismissed 80 officers of the government of his country accused of extortion, bribery, embezzlement, forgery, under an order issued by the Broadcasting and Congolese national television (RTNC - public channel).
Among the 80 executives dismissed, 25 are the Ministry of Lands, 7 of Finance, 3 Budget, 18 Public Health, 1 Primary and Secondary Education, 1 National Economy and Commerce, Mines 2 , 19 of the Town Planning and Housing and 4 of Justice.
The decision of revocation of President Kabila is due to a report of the Disciplinary Board of the Public Service of the DRC.
The head of the Congolese state has signed five other orders retirement of 1,200 staff and appointment of new managers in public administration from the DRC.
Decisions about public Congolese involved less than a month after those who have dismissed hundreds of magistrates and retired and named several others.
They are part of a reorganization referred to as "zero tolerance" decided by President Kabila in the various sectors of the country.
01 August, 2009
Text of Supreme Court Verdict on Musharraf Case.
31 July 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction).
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk
Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani
Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany
Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali
Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja.
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 09 OF 2009
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its secretary.
PETITIONER
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 08 OF 2009
Nadeem Ahmed Advocate
PETITIONER
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others.
RESPONDENTS
For the petitioner: Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC.
(Const.P.09/2009) Mr. Rashid A. Razvi, ASC.
Mr. MS Khattak, AOR
Assisted by
M/s Waqar Rana, Waheed Khalid Khan and Haq Nawaz Talpur, Advocates.
For the petitioner: Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC.
(Const.P.08/2009)
Assisted by
Barristers Ms Natalya Kamal & Syed Shehryar, Advocates
For respondent No.1
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa Attorney General of Pakistan.
Agha Tariq Mehmood Khan, DAG
Mr. Shah Khawar, DAG.
Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, AOR.
For respondent No.2
Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Leghari, A.G. Sindh.
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.
For respondent Nos.3 & 4. Nemo.
Respondent No.5. Not represented.
Dates of hearing: 20th to 24th and 27th to 31st July, 2009.
JUDGEMENT
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
The above Constitutional Petitions bearing Nos. 9 of 2009 and 8 of 2009 involve common questions of facts and law and are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. In the first mentioned petition, the petitioner while referring to several provisions of Constitution and the case law, beside making other contentions, legal and factual, has stated, in para No.5, that:
“The removal of Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts on 3.11.2007 was not only violative of Article 209 of the Constitution, 1973 but was against the rule laid down by the bench of twelve (12) Judges of Supreme Court in the case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah (PLD 2000 SC 869). The subsequent validation in the case of Tika Iqbal Khan (PLD 2008 SC 178) a smaller bench of the Supreme Court is per-incuriam and in any event, is not by a Supreme Court that is de jure. It is respectfully submitted, that Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar could not be treated as Constitutional head of the Supreme Court even after the decision in the case of Tika Iqbal Khan (supra) as he himself was the real beneficiary of the said Judgement and contrary to one of the cardinal principles of natural justice, “no person should be judge in his own cause” had headed the bench. Hence, in view of the facts and reasons stated above Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is still the Chief Justice of Pakistan as per Constitution and all appointments and re-appointments made in the Supreme Court and High Courts without consultation of de jure Chief justice of Pakistan are unlawful, illegal, ultra-vires of the Constitution as well as malafide”.
3. Having made above averments, the petitioner has, inter-alia, sought a declaration to the effect that the respondents Nos 3 and 4 namely Justice Zaffar Ahmad Khan Sherwani and Justice Abdul Rashid Kalwar are and continue to be Judges of High Court of Sindh and that they would continue as Additional Judges till 25.8.2010 and that their term of appointment has not expired as opined by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, as then he was called. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for him prayed further that following declarations be also granted:
i) that the purported acts done by General Pervez Musharraf, (Rtd) between 3.11.2007 to 16.12.2007 aimed at to suspend and amend the Constitution through several instruments are unconstitutional, invalid and without any legal consequence;
ii) that on account of his acts taken during 3.11.2007 to 15.12.2007 relating to superior judiciary, General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) became a usurper;
iii) all the appointments of judges of superior judiciary on or after 3.11.2007 up till 22.3.2008 which were without consultation of de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan are/were unconstitutional, invalid and without any legal consequence;
iv) that the two (so called) judgements dated 23.11.2007 and 15.2.2008 on Constitutional Petitions No. 87 and 88 of 2007 filed by Tika Iqbal Muhammad and WATAN Party and the Review Petition No.7 of 2008 filed by the former are/were nullity in law, being decisions per incuriam, corum-non-judice, without any legal basis and based on malafide proceedings rendered by biased persons of Tribunal (then calling themselves as Judges of this Court) fraudulently, collusively and lacking in bona-fides;
4. In the other petition No. 8 of 2009 which has been filed by Nadeem Ahmad, a practicing Advocate, while criticising the judgement delivered in case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan versus Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2008 SC 178), the petitioner has, inter-alia, averred as follows:
“All the persons who were not judges on 3rd November 2007 but who were brought into Supreme Court and High Courts as ‘judges’ despite the fact that the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan was never consulted before their appointment which meant that they were never appointed under the Constitution.”
AND
“On the night of 22 March 2009, issuance of cause lists comprising persons who have not been appointed in strict adherence to Article 177 and who are therefore complete strangers to the Supreme Court, is a serious matter and it is incumbent on the Honourable Chief Justice, before proceeding with any other judicial work, to forthwith stop all these persons from hearing any cases till such time that he, along with other validly appointed judges, are able to look into and judicially determine validity of their appointments as judges.”
5. The petitioner has, among others, sought a declaration that all those persons, both in Supreme Court and High Courts, regardless of whether they have taken oath under PCO or the Constitution, who have been appointed without ‘consultation’ of Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan as not judges and therefore, not entitled to function as such.
6. On 22.7.2009 a notice was issued to General Pervez Musharraf (r) on his available address intimating him about the proceedings in this case and 29.7.2009 as the date fixed therein before this court. The Process Serving Officer reported on the same day that he had gone to the residential place viz: C-1, B Park Road, Chak Shahzad, Islamabad where a person identifying himself as Muhammad Hussain son of Amir and that on formers offer the latter refused to receive the notice. The factum of issuance of the afore-referred notice was widely televised through National and International TV channels. Also, it was widely published in National and International print media, but, on the date so fixed no one entered appearance.
7. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Attorney General for Pakistan.
8. Before dilating upon the pleas taken in the arguments by learned counsel for the parties, in our view, some of the facts/events which took place before 3rd November, 2007 touching the very basis of the issues involved in the matter are brought on record.
9. In our country, during sixty years of its independence after partition, to the misfortune of people, several times, the Constitutions framed by Legislative Bodies were desecrated. Sovereignty of people was not allowed to flourish and get deep-rooted in the polity of our country. Prior to 3rd November, 2007, the Constitutions were either abrogated or put in abeyance and the democratic system of governance was put to an end. For the first time, Constitution of 1956 was abrogated on 7th October, 1958 and Martial Law was imposed by the then president, Sikandar Mirza who dismissed the Central and Provincial Governments; dissolved the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies and abolished all Political Parties and appointed General Muhammad Ayub Khan, the then Commander in Chief as Martial Law Administrator. Sikandar Mirza was soon, within few days, replaced by the latter. On 25th March, 1969, again the then head of Army, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, abrogated the Constitution of 1962 and by proclamation (PLD 1969 Central Statutes 42) Promulgated Martial Law followed by Provisional Constitution Order (Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary 4th April, 1969). On 5th July, 1977 once again Martial Law was imposed throughout the country by the then head of Army Chief vis former General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who, vide Proclamation of Martial Law (PLD 1969 Federal Statutes 326) dissolved the National Assembly, the Senate, the Provincial Assemblies etc. and put the Constitution of 1973 in abeyance followed by Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977. When the Constitution was revived, it was undeniably, in a mutilated form by the notorious Eighth Amendment.
10. Later, there was another onslaught on the ongoing democratic system of governance. On 12th October, 1999, the then Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, now retired, once more, put the Constitution in abeyance and the whole of Pakistan was brought under the control of Armed Forces. The National Assembly, the Senate and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended, so also, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended and it was declared that the Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Provincial Governors, the Provincial Chief Ministers and the Adviser to the Chief Ministers would cease to hold offices, followed by issuance of Provisional Constitution Order and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000. General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd), self-styled himself as chief executive and started ruling the country under the new dispensation. Later, he, unceremoniously, occupied the office of president and in the coming years revived the Constitution with Seventeenth Amendment.
11. Again, on 3rd November, 2007 the General Pervez Musharraf, (Rtd), in his capacity as Chief of Army Staff, in the garb of declaration of emergency, put the Constitution in abeyance, issued Provisional Constitution Order No 1 of 2007 followed by the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, making as many as sixty-one (61) Judges of superior judiciary including Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chief Justices of three Provinces dysfunctional for many of them either did not agree to take or were not given the oath. Of them were; from Supreme Court 13 out of 18 (17 permanent and one ad-hoc) Judges including Chief Justice of Pakistan, 18 out of 31 Judges of the Lahore High Court, 24 out of 28 Judges including Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh, 6 out of 13 Judges including Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court. It is quite saddening that all the five Judges including the Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court took oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007.
12. An independent and strong judiciary is a backbone of viable democratic system all over the world. The time-tested experience has proved that independent and strong judiciary provides strength to the institutions running government particularly, those who roll on the wheels of democracy. Equally the independent and strong judiciary acts as an arbiter striking balance among various segments of Democratic system. It helps State organs, such, as, Legislature, Executive and the judiciary itself to function smoothly maintaining balance inter se. The constitution of Pakistan, of 1973, too, provides the judiciary guarantees enshrined in it and states that the judiciary shall be fully secured, but, unfortunately, to its great dismay, this organ of State has, all along been under the wrath of adventurers imposing their dictatorial terms obviously for their ulterior designs. The history of this country witnessed that in a set up of one government tenure of a Chief Justice of Pakistan was curtailed with ulterior motives and was restored to its original position when the designs were stood achieved. Likewise, through various instruments, the favorites and pliant members of superior judiciary were out rightly given underserved benefits while the others were shown doors. This happened during the era of the then Martial Law Administrator General Zia-ul-Haq and following the same foot steps, General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) did the same in the year 2000. Many judges of superior judiciary who declined to toe his line of action were unceremoniously sacked.
13. General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) through his 1999/2000 action, declared that the National Assembly, the provincial Assemblies, Senate, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, Speaker of National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended and the Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Provincial Governors and the provincial Chief Ministers and the Advisers to the Chief Ministers, to have ceased to hold offices. However, his November 2007 action was a singular in nature, in that, the onslaught was on judiciary alone. All other institutions were intact. The independence of judiciary was given a serious blow. In order to save the judiciary from being destroyed, for the first time in the history of this Country, a seven member bench of this Court headed by the de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan, passed an order, inter-alia, restraining the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan from undertaking any such action, which was contrary to the Independence of Judiciary. So also the Judges of this Court and that of the High Courts including Chief Justice(s) were required not to take oath under the Provincial Constitution Order or any other extra Constitutional step and on the same day viz: 3.11.2007, the order was served on the members of superior judiciary through the respective Registrars of the Courts by way of Fax. It was also sent to all the relevant Executive functionaries.
14. The action of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) was, undeniably, taken to prevent the 11-member Bench of this Court, which was hearing the Petition No. 73 of 2007 filed by Mr. Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad and others in which the qualification of the General was in question, and perhaps, he was not expecting a favourable decision. The reasons shall, in that behalf, be found in the detailed judgement. Be that as it may, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, as then he was called, alongwith four other Judges of this Court took oath in pursuance of unconstitutional Provisional Constitution Order and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007 and by that he also violated the order of seven member Bench of this Court which was headed by de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan. Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar took the oath of Chief Justice of Pakistan, although, the office was not vacant. Some of High Courts Judges too took oath likewise violating the constitution and the order of seven-member Bench, legally and lawfully passed. Besides, many other Judges in this Court and in the High Courts were appointed and they took oath in violation of constitutional provisions and the order of seven-member Bench of this Court.
15. Subsequently, in order to dilute the effect of afore-referred seven-member Bench order, Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, the CJP, as then was called, constituted a Bench of eight Judges including those appointed afresh in pursuance of Provisional Constitution Order and took up CMA bearing No. 2874 of 2007 in Constitution Petition No. 73 of 2007 and by their order dated 6.11.2007 illegally and unlawfully, without the mandate of the Constitution, declared the order dated 3.11.2007 to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Later, a 10-member Bench was also constituted, which was headed by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan, as then he was called. This Bench again illegally and unlawfully took up and dismissed the petition No. 73 and Original Criminal Petition No. 51 of 2007 filed by Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad calling in question the eligibility of General Pervez Musharraf to contest election to the office of President although, it already stood dismissed for want of instruction. Further details in this behalf shall be given in the detailed judgment.
16. Also subsequently, another seven-member bench headed by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan, as then he was called, took up hearing the case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan and WATAN Party and decided the same on the principle of ‘Salus Populi Supreme Lex’ and granted that relief which was even not prayed by the petitioner. This judgement is/was, ex-facie, per incuriam, corum-non-judice illegal and unlawful. Later, a time-barred Review Petition was filed by Tikka Iqbal Khan, which was heard by 13-member Bench and was dismissed, palpably to give impression that a larger Bench decided the matter to dilute the effect of a previous judgment handed down in case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah (PLD 2000 SC 869).
17. It may be noted that the chosen representative of the time, too, did not extend validation to the unconstitutional acts taken up to 3rd November, 2007 as is universally known. It is, however, quite heartening that, for the first time, in the history of our beloved country, the chosen representative of people, who took their offices as a result of election taking place on 18th February, 2008 have, commendably, stayed their hands off and have not sanctified the unconstitutional acts, such as, the Declaration of Emergency, the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1, the Oath of Office (Judges), Order, 2007, the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 (President’s Order No. 5 of 2007), the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order of 2007 (President’s Order No. 6 of 2007) and many other instruments made and declared by General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd). In this, their restraint not extending validity to all these unconstitutional and illegal instruments and other steps taken by retired General are laudable. Evidently, this was done by the present representatives of people believing firmly that the prosperity of the country lies in the strong and independent democratic system which can alone flourish and survive with democratic steps to be taken in the better interest of people always apt and keen to choose them in such a viable system of governance. We are sanguine that the current democratic dispensation comprising of the President, the Prime Minister, Ministers and the Parliament shall continue to uphold the Constitution, its institutions and sacred values.
18. From above, the conclusions drawn are that:
i) The General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) in the garb of Emergency Plus and the Provisional Constitution Order made amendments in the Constitution by self-acquired the powers which all are unconstitutional, unauthorised, without any legal basis, hence, without any legal consequences;
ii) Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, took oath as CJP in violation of the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by a 7 member Bench headed by de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan and in pursuance of unconstitutional instruments introduced by General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd), additionally knowing well that the office of Chief Justice of Pakistan was not lying vacant;
iii) Also, the Judges who were either retired or were not holding any judicial office, beside those in High Courts took fresh oath on their appointment on and after 3.11.2007 till 15.12.2007 in Supreme Court where the full strength of Judges alongwith an Ad-hoc Judge appointed under the Constitution were already working and thus there was no vacancy. Similarly, many Judges took oath in Provincial High Courts. All of them did so in violation of order dated 3.11.2007 passed by seven-member Bench headed by de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan. Four incumbent Judges already functioning in the Supreme Court took fresh oath under the influence of and in pursuance of unconstitutional steps of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd);
iv) The Petition No.73 of 2007 filed by Mr. Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad challenging the eligibility of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) to contest for the office of President in uniform was dismissed purportedly on merits although the record maintained in the Supreme Court revealed otherwise;
iv) The decisions in the cases of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan granting validity to the actions of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) were per incuriam, corum-non-judice, without any legal basis hence, of no legal consequences;
vi) The amendments in the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, (XXXIII, 1997) 1997 by way of Finance Act, 2008 raising the strength of Judges in Supreme Court from 17 (1+ 16) to 30 (1+29) seemingly aimed at providing allocation of funds for increasing the strength of Judges is unconstitutional because the strengths of Judges of Supreme Court is be increased by Parliament as defined in Article 50 to be read with Article 260 of the Constitution which defines the acts of Parliaments;
vii) Surprisingly, in the past the Courts of the time used to extend favours empowering the adventurers to amend the Constitution in actual effect were to achieve their overt and covert agenda but this time, such powers were acquired by the General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) himself through the PCO and brought a host of unconstitutional amendments for his own benefits; and
viii) The present representative of people firmly believe in strong and independent judiciary and the democratic system which is evident that the deposed Judges of Supreme Court, High Courts and the de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan were restored with effect from 3rd of November, 2007 implied that the present representatives of people denied the validity of the actions of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) taken from 3.11.2007 to 15.12.2007 during which the Constitution remained suspended.
19. Considering the above, in the light of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the material brought before us and for the detailed reasons to be recorded, we dispose the above petitions as follows.
20. The judgment purported to have been delivered in Constitutional Petitions bearing No: 87 and 88 of 2007 in the case titled as TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN VS. GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF AND OTHERS (PLD 2008 SC 25 and PLD 2008 SC 178) and the judgement dated 15.2.2008, purported to have been passed in C.R.P.No. 7 of 2008 titled as TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN VS. GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF AND OTHERS and any other judgwment/judgwments passed on the strength of the said two judgements are hereby declared to be void ab initio.
21. The Proclamation of Emergency issued by General Pervez Musharraf as the Chief of Army Staff (as he then was) on November 3, 2007; the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007 issued by him on the same date in his said capacity; the Oath of Office (Judges) Order of 2007 issued by him also on the same date though as the President of Pakistan but in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Proclamation of Emergency and the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007; The Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 issued by him like-wise on 15.11.2007; the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 being President’s Order No. 5 of 2007 issued on November 20, 2007; the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 2007 being the President’s Order No. 6 of 2007 issued on 14th December, 2007; the Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order 2007 dated 14th December 2007 being the President’s Order No. 7 of 2007; the High Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being Presidents Order No. 8 of 2007; the Supreme Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being President’s Order No. 9 of 2007 dated 14th December, 2007 are hereby declared to be un-constitutional, ultra-vires of the Constitution and consequently being illegal and of no legal effect.
22. As a consequence thereof:-
i) the Chief Justice of Pakistan; the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; any Chief Justice of any of the High Courts and the Judges of the High Courts who were declared to have ceased to hold their respective offices in pursuance of the afore-mentioned alleged judgments or any other such judgment and on account of the instruments mentioned in para 21 above, shall be deemed never to have ceased to be such Judges, irrespective of any notification issued regarding their reappointment or restoration;
ii) it is declared that the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan never fell vacant on November 3, 2007 and as a consequence thereof it is further declared that the appointment of Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the Chief Justice of Pakistan was un-constitutional; void ab initio and of no legal effect;
Provided that subject to whatever is contained hereinafter, the said un-constitutional appointment of Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the Chief Justice of Pakistan shall not affect the validity of any administrative or financial acts performed by him or of any oath made before him in the ordinary course of the affairs of the said office;
iii) since Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar was never a constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan, therefore, all appointments of Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, of the Chief Justices of the High Courts and of the Judges of the High Courts made, in consultation with him, during the period that he, un-constitutionally, held the said office from 3.11.2007 to 22.3.2009 (both days inclusive) are hereby declared to be un-constitutional, void ab initio and of no legal effect and such appointees shall cease to hold office forthwith;
Provided that the Judges so un-constitutionally appointed to the Supreme Court while holding the offices as Judges of any of the High Courts shall revert back as Judges of the respective High Courts subject to their age of superannuation and likewise, the Judges of the High Courts, who were District and Sessions Judges before their said unconstitutional elevation to the High Courts shall revert back as District and Sessions Judge subject to limitation of superannuation;
iv) the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, if any, the Chief Justices of the High Court, if any, and the Judges of any of the High Courts, if any, who stood appointed to the said offices prior to 3.11.2007 but who made oath or took oath of their respective offices in disobedience to the order passed by a Seven-Member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 3.11.2007 in C.M.A.No. 2869 of 2007 in Constitution Petition No.73 of 2007, shall be proceeded against under Article 209 of the Constitution. The Secretary of the Law Division of the Government of Pakistan shall take steps in the matter accordingly;
Provided that nothing hereinabove shall affect those Judges who though had been appointed as Judges/Chief Justices of any of the High Courts between 3.11.2007 to 22.3.2009 but had subsequently been appointed afresh to other offices in consultation with or with the approval of or with the consent of the Constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan;
v) any judgements delivered or orders made or any decrees passed by any Bench of the Supreme Court or of any of the High Courts which comprised of or which included the afore-described Judges whose appointments had been declared void ab initio, are protected on the principle laid down in MALIK ASAD ALI’S CASE (PLD 1998 SC 161);
vi) since the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 being the President’s Order No. 5 of 2007 and the Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order being President’s Order No.7 of 2007 establishing Islamabad High Court for the Federal Capital Territory, have been declared to be un-constitutional and of no legal effect, therefore, the said Islamabad High Court shall cease to exist forthwith. All judicial matters pending before the said High Court before the passing of this order shall revert/stand transferred to the courts which had jurisdiction in the said matters before the promulgation of afore-mentioned President’s Order No.5 of 2007 and President’s Order No. 7 of 2007 promulgated on 14th December, 2007. The Judges of the said Court shall, as a consequence thereof, cease to be Judges except such Judges or the Chief Justice of the said court, who prior to their appointments in the said Islamabad High Court, were Judges of some other High Court who shall revert to the court of which they were originally the Judges, subject to their age of superannuation. The officers and employees of the said Court shall also cease to hold their respective appointments and shall become part of the Federal Government Surplus Pool for their further appointments. However, if any such officer or employee was an officer or an employee of some other court or department or office, such officers or employees shall revert to their respective courts, departments or offices to which they belonged before joining the service in the Islamabad High court, subject again to their age of superannuation;
we would like to mention here that establishment of a High Court or a Federal Court for the Federal Capital Territory might be a desirable act but it is unfortunate that such a step was taken in an unconstitutional and a highly objectionable manner. We may, therefore, add that notwithstanding what has been declared and ordered above, the relevant and competent authorities may take steps to establish such a court in accordance with the Constitution/the law.
vii) the Ordinances promulgated by the President or a Governor of a Province before 3.11.2007 which were given permanence by the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007 as also the Ordinances issued by the President or a Governor between 3.11.2007 and 15.12.2008 (both days inclusive) which were also, likewise given permanence through the same instrument and which legislative measures alongwith the said Provisional Constitution Order had been validated by the afore-mentioned judgment delivered in TIKA IQBAL MUHAMAD KHAN’S CASE, stand shorn of their purported permanence on account of our aforementioned declarations. Since on account of the said judgment in TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN’S CASE purporting to be a judgment of this Court, the presumption that the said Ordinances were valid laws not requiring approval of the Parliament or the respective Provincial Assemblies in terms of Article 89 or 128 of the Constitution and since it is today that this Court has attributed invalidity to the said legislative instruments, therefore, the period of 120 days and 90 days mentioned respectively in the said Article 89 and the said Article 128 of the Constitution, would be deemed to commence to run from today and steps may be taken to place the said Ordinances before the Parliament or the respective Provincial Assemblies in accordance with law;
viii) since the Constitution, through its Article 176, authorises only the Parliament to determine the number of Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and since the Parliament had so done through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act XXXIII of 1997, therefore, the increase in the strength of the Judges through the Finance Act of 2008 which Act was not passed by the Parliament but was passed only by the National Assembly would be deemed to be valid only for financial purposes and not for the purposes of Article 176 of the Constitution. It is resultantly declared that the number of Judges of the Supreme Court for purposes of the said Article 176 shall continue to remain sixteen.
ix) in the Code of Conduct prescribed for the Judges of the Superior Courts in terms of Article 209(8) of the Constitution, a new clause shall be added commanding that no such Judge shall, hereinafter, offer any support in whatever manner to any unconstitutional functionary who acquires power otherwise than through the modes envisaged by the Constitution and that any violation of the said clause would be deemed to be misconduct in terms of the said Article 209 of the Constitution;
x) in view of our findings above regarding Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar not being a constitutional and a valid consultee, the notification dated 26.8.2008 and the notification dated 15.9.2008 extending the term of office of Mr. Justice Abdur Rashid Kalwar and of Mr. Justice Zafar Kalwar Khan Sherwani as Additional Judges of the High Court of Sindh are declared to be un-constitutional and of no legal effect.
xi) that the court acknowledges and respects the mandate given by the sovereign authority i.e. elec
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Original Jurisdiction).
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday
Mr. Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk
Mr. Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Chaudhry Ijaz Ahmed
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani
Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany
Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali
Mr. Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui
Mr. Justice Jawwad S Khawaja.
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 09 OF 2009
Sindh High Court Bar Association through its secretary.
PETITIONER
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 08 OF 2009
Nadeem Ahmed Advocate
PETITIONER
VERSUS
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others.
RESPONDENTS
For the petitioner: Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC.
(Const.P.09/2009) Mr. Rashid A. Razvi, ASC.
Mr. MS Khattak, AOR
Assisted by
M/s Waqar Rana, Waheed Khalid Khan and Haq Nawaz Talpur, Advocates.
For the petitioner: Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC.
(Const.P.08/2009)
Assisted by
Barristers Ms Natalya Kamal & Syed Shehryar, Advocates
For respondent No.1
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa Attorney General of Pakistan.
Agha Tariq Mehmood Khan, DAG
Mr. Shah Khawar, DAG.
Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, AOR.
For respondent No.2
Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Leghari, A.G. Sindh.
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.
For respondent Nos.3 & 4. Nemo.
Respondent No.5. Not represented.
Dates of hearing: 20th to 24th and 27th to 31st July, 2009.
JUDGEMENT
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.
The above Constitutional Petitions bearing Nos. 9 of 2009 and 8 of 2009 involve common questions of facts and law and are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. In the first mentioned petition, the petitioner while referring to several provisions of Constitution and the case law, beside making other contentions, legal and factual, has stated, in para No.5, that:
“The removal of Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts on 3.11.2007 was not only violative of Article 209 of the Constitution, 1973 but was against the rule laid down by the bench of twelve (12) Judges of Supreme Court in the case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah (PLD 2000 SC 869). The subsequent validation in the case of Tika Iqbal Khan (PLD 2008 SC 178) a smaller bench of the Supreme Court is per-incuriam and in any event, is not by a Supreme Court that is de jure. It is respectfully submitted, that Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar could not be treated as Constitutional head of the Supreme Court even after the decision in the case of Tika Iqbal Khan (supra) as he himself was the real beneficiary of the said Judgement and contrary to one of the cardinal principles of natural justice, “no person should be judge in his own cause” had headed the bench. Hence, in view of the facts and reasons stated above Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is still the Chief Justice of Pakistan as per Constitution and all appointments and re-appointments made in the Supreme Court and High Courts without consultation of de jure Chief justice of Pakistan are unlawful, illegal, ultra-vires of the Constitution as well as malafide”.
3. Having made above averments, the petitioner has, inter-alia, sought a declaration to the effect that the respondents Nos 3 and 4 namely Justice Zaffar Ahmad Khan Sherwani and Justice Abdul Rashid Kalwar are and continue to be Judges of High Court of Sindh and that they would continue as Additional Judges till 25.8.2010 and that their term of appointment has not expired as opined by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, as then he was called. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for him prayed further that following declarations be also granted:
i) that the purported acts done by General Pervez Musharraf, (Rtd) between 3.11.2007 to 16.12.2007 aimed at to suspend and amend the Constitution through several instruments are unconstitutional, invalid and without any legal consequence;
ii) that on account of his acts taken during 3.11.2007 to 15.12.2007 relating to superior judiciary, General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) became a usurper;
iii) all the appointments of judges of superior judiciary on or after 3.11.2007 up till 22.3.2008 which were without consultation of de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan are/were unconstitutional, invalid and without any legal consequence;
iv) that the two (so called) judgements dated 23.11.2007 and 15.2.2008 on Constitutional Petitions No. 87 and 88 of 2007 filed by Tika Iqbal Muhammad and WATAN Party and the Review Petition No.7 of 2008 filed by the former are/were nullity in law, being decisions per incuriam, corum-non-judice, without any legal basis and based on malafide proceedings rendered by biased persons of Tribunal (then calling themselves as Judges of this Court) fraudulently, collusively and lacking in bona-fides;
4. In the other petition No. 8 of 2009 which has been filed by Nadeem Ahmad, a practicing Advocate, while criticising the judgement delivered in case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan versus Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2008 SC 178), the petitioner has, inter-alia, averred as follows:
“All the persons who were not judges on 3rd November 2007 but who were brought into Supreme Court and High Courts as ‘judges’ despite the fact that the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan was never consulted before their appointment which meant that they were never appointed under the Constitution.”
AND
“On the night of 22 March 2009, issuance of cause lists comprising persons who have not been appointed in strict adherence to Article 177 and who are therefore complete strangers to the Supreme Court, is a serious matter and it is incumbent on the Honourable Chief Justice, before proceeding with any other judicial work, to forthwith stop all these persons from hearing any cases till such time that he, along with other validly appointed judges, are able to look into and judicially determine validity of their appointments as judges.”
5. The petitioner has, among others, sought a declaration that all those persons, both in Supreme Court and High Courts, regardless of whether they have taken oath under PCO or the Constitution, who have been appointed without ‘consultation’ of Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan as not judges and therefore, not entitled to function as such.
6. On 22.7.2009 a notice was issued to General Pervez Musharraf (r) on his available address intimating him about the proceedings in this case and 29.7.2009 as the date fixed therein before this court. The Process Serving Officer reported on the same day that he had gone to the residential place viz: C-1, B Park Road, Chak Shahzad, Islamabad where a person identifying himself as Muhammad Hussain son of Amir and that on formers offer the latter refused to receive the notice. The factum of issuance of the afore-referred notice was widely televised through National and International TV channels. Also, it was widely published in National and International print media, but, on the date so fixed no one entered appearance.
7. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Attorney General for Pakistan.
8. Before dilating upon the pleas taken in the arguments by learned counsel for the parties, in our view, some of the facts/events which took place before 3rd November, 2007 touching the very basis of the issues involved in the matter are brought on record.
9. In our country, during sixty years of its independence after partition, to the misfortune of people, several times, the Constitutions framed by Legislative Bodies were desecrated. Sovereignty of people was not allowed to flourish and get deep-rooted in the polity of our country. Prior to 3rd November, 2007, the Constitutions were either abrogated or put in abeyance and the democratic system of governance was put to an end. For the first time, Constitution of 1956 was abrogated on 7th October, 1958 and Martial Law was imposed by the then president, Sikandar Mirza who dismissed the Central and Provincial Governments; dissolved the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies and abolished all Political Parties and appointed General Muhammad Ayub Khan, the then Commander in Chief as Martial Law Administrator. Sikandar Mirza was soon, within few days, replaced by the latter. On 25th March, 1969, again the then head of Army, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, abrogated the Constitution of 1962 and by proclamation (PLD 1969 Central Statutes 42) Promulgated Martial Law followed by Provisional Constitution Order (Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary 4th April, 1969). On 5th July, 1977 once again Martial Law was imposed throughout the country by the then head of Army Chief vis former General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who, vide Proclamation of Martial Law (PLD 1969 Federal Statutes 326) dissolved the National Assembly, the Senate, the Provincial Assemblies etc. and put the Constitution of 1973 in abeyance followed by Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977. When the Constitution was revived, it was undeniably, in a mutilated form by the notorious Eighth Amendment.
10. Later, there was another onslaught on the ongoing democratic system of governance. On 12th October, 1999, the then Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf, now retired, once more, put the Constitution in abeyance and the whole of Pakistan was brought under the control of Armed Forces. The National Assembly, the Senate and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended, so also, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended and it was declared that the Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Provincial Governors, the Provincial Chief Ministers and the Adviser to the Chief Ministers would cease to hold offices, followed by issuance of Provisional Constitution Order and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2000. General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd), self-styled himself as chief executive and started ruling the country under the new dispensation. Later, he, unceremoniously, occupied the office of president and in the coming years revived the Constitution with Seventeenth Amendment.
11. Again, on 3rd November, 2007 the General Pervez Musharraf, (Rtd), in his capacity as Chief of Army Staff, in the garb of declaration of emergency, put the Constitution in abeyance, issued Provisional Constitution Order No 1 of 2007 followed by the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007, making as many as sixty-one (61) Judges of superior judiciary including Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chief Justices of three Provinces dysfunctional for many of them either did not agree to take or were not given the oath. Of them were; from Supreme Court 13 out of 18 (17 permanent and one ad-hoc) Judges including Chief Justice of Pakistan, 18 out of 31 Judges of the Lahore High Court, 24 out of 28 Judges including Chief Justice of High Court of Sindh, 6 out of 13 Judges including Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court. It is quite saddening that all the five Judges including the Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court took oath under the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007.
12. An independent and strong judiciary is a backbone of viable democratic system all over the world. The time-tested experience has proved that independent and strong judiciary provides strength to the institutions running government particularly, those who roll on the wheels of democracy. Equally the independent and strong judiciary acts as an arbiter striking balance among various segments of Democratic system. It helps State organs, such, as, Legislature, Executive and the judiciary itself to function smoothly maintaining balance inter se. The constitution of Pakistan, of 1973, too, provides the judiciary guarantees enshrined in it and states that the judiciary shall be fully secured, but, unfortunately, to its great dismay, this organ of State has, all along been under the wrath of adventurers imposing their dictatorial terms obviously for their ulterior designs. The history of this country witnessed that in a set up of one government tenure of a Chief Justice of Pakistan was curtailed with ulterior motives and was restored to its original position when the designs were stood achieved. Likewise, through various instruments, the favorites and pliant members of superior judiciary were out rightly given underserved benefits while the others were shown doors. This happened during the era of the then Martial Law Administrator General Zia-ul-Haq and following the same foot steps, General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) did the same in the year 2000. Many judges of superior judiciary who declined to toe his line of action were unceremoniously sacked.
13. General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) through his 1999/2000 action, declared that the National Assembly, the provincial Assemblies, Senate, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, Speaker of National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies were suspended and the Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the Provincial Governors and the provincial Chief Ministers and the Advisers to the Chief Ministers, to have ceased to hold offices. However, his November 2007 action was a singular in nature, in that, the onslaught was on judiciary alone. All other institutions were intact. The independence of judiciary was given a serious blow. In order to save the judiciary from being destroyed, for the first time in the history of this Country, a seven member bench of this Court headed by the de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan, passed an order, inter-alia, restraining the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan from undertaking any such action, which was contrary to the Independence of Judiciary. So also the Judges of this Court and that of the High Courts including Chief Justice(s) were required not to take oath under the Provincial Constitution Order or any other extra Constitutional step and on the same day viz: 3.11.2007, the order was served on the members of superior judiciary through the respective Registrars of the Courts by way of Fax. It was also sent to all the relevant Executive functionaries.
14. The action of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) was, undeniably, taken to prevent the 11-member Bench of this Court, which was hearing the Petition No. 73 of 2007 filed by Mr. Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad and others in which the qualification of the General was in question, and perhaps, he was not expecting a favourable decision. The reasons shall, in that behalf, be found in the detailed judgement. Be that as it may, Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, as then he was called, alongwith four other Judges of this Court took oath in pursuance of unconstitutional Provisional Constitution Order and the Oath of Office (Judges) Order, 2007 and by that he also violated the order of seven member Bench of this Court which was headed by de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan. Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar took the oath of Chief Justice of Pakistan, although, the office was not vacant. Some of High Courts Judges too took oath likewise violating the constitution and the order of seven-member Bench, legally and lawfully passed. Besides, many other Judges in this Court and in the High Courts were appointed and they took oath in violation of constitutional provisions and the order of seven-member Bench of this Court.
15. Subsequently, in order to dilute the effect of afore-referred seven-member Bench order, Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, the CJP, as then was called, constituted a Bench of eight Judges including those appointed afresh in pursuance of Provisional Constitution Order and took up CMA bearing No. 2874 of 2007 in Constitution Petition No. 73 of 2007 and by their order dated 6.11.2007 illegally and unlawfully, without the mandate of the Constitution, declared the order dated 3.11.2007 to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Later, a 10-member Bench was also constituted, which was headed by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan, as then he was called. This Bench again illegally and unlawfully took up and dismissed the petition No. 73 and Original Criminal Petition No. 51 of 2007 filed by Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad calling in question the eligibility of General Pervez Musharraf to contest election to the office of President although, it already stood dismissed for want of instruction. Further details in this behalf shall be given in the detailed judgment.
16. Also subsequently, another seven-member bench headed by Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Chief Justice of Pakistan, as then he was called, took up hearing the case of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan and WATAN Party and decided the same on the principle of ‘Salus Populi Supreme Lex’ and granted that relief which was even not prayed by the petitioner. This judgement is/was, ex-facie, per incuriam, corum-non-judice illegal and unlawful. Later, a time-barred Review Petition was filed by Tikka Iqbal Khan, which was heard by 13-member Bench and was dismissed, palpably to give impression that a larger Bench decided the matter to dilute the effect of a previous judgment handed down in case of Syed Zafar Ali Shah (PLD 2000 SC 869).
17. It may be noted that the chosen representative of the time, too, did not extend validation to the unconstitutional acts taken up to 3rd November, 2007 as is universally known. It is, however, quite heartening that, for the first time, in the history of our beloved country, the chosen representative of people, who took their offices as a result of election taking place on 18th February, 2008 have, commendably, stayed their hands off and have not sanctified the unconstitutional acts, such as, the Declaration of Emergency, the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1, the Oath of Office (Judges), Order, 2007, the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 (President’s Order No. 5 of 2007), the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order of 2007 (President’s Order No. 6 of 2007) and many other instruments made and declared by General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd). In this, their restraint not extending validity to all these unconstitutional and illegal instruments and other steps taken by retired General are laudable. Evidently, this was done by the present representatives of people believing firmly that the prosperity of the country lies in the strong and independent democratic system which can alone flourish and survive with democratic steps to be taken in the better interest of people always apt and keen to choose them in such a viable system of governance. We are sanguine that the current democratic dispensation comprising of the President, the Prime Minister, Ministers and the Parliament shall continue to uphold the Constitution, its institutions and sacred values.
18. From above, the conclusions drawn are that:
i) The General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) in the garb of Emergency Plus and the Provisional Constitution Order made amendments in the Constitution by self-acquired the powers which all are unconstitutional, unauthorised, without any legal basis, hence, without any legal consequences;
ii) Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, took oath as CJP in violation of the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by a 7 member Bench headed by de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan and in pursuance of unconstitutional instruments introduced by General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd), additionally knowing well that the office of Chief Justice of Pakistan was not lying vacant;
iii) Also, the Judges who were either retired or were not holding any judicial office, beside those in High Courts took fresh oath on their appointment on and after 3.11.2007 till 15.12.2007 in Supreme Court where the full strength of Judges alongwith an Ad-hoc Judge appointed under the Constitution were already working and thus there was no vacancy. Similarly, many Judges took oath in Provincial High Courts. All of them did so in violation of order dated 3.11.2007 passed by seven-member Bench headed by de-jure Chief Justice of Pakistan. Four incumbent Judges already functioning in the Supreme Court took fresh oath under the influence of and in pursuance of unconstitutional steps of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd);
iv) The Petition No.73 of 2007 filed by Mr. Justice (Rtd) Wajihuddin Ahmad challenging the eligibility of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) to contest for the office of President in uniform was dismissed purportedly on merits although the record maintained in the Supreme Court revealed otherwise;
iv) The decisions in the cases of Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan granting validity to the actions of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) were per incuriam, corum-non-judice, without any legal basis hence, of no legal consequences;
vi) The amendments in the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, (XXXIII, 1997) 1997 by way of Finance Act, 2008 raising the strength of Judges in Supreme Court from 17 (1+ 16) to 30 (1+29) seemingly aimed at providing allocation of funds for increasing the strength of Judges is unconstitutional because the strengths of Judges of Supreme Court is be increased by Parliament as defined in Article 50 to be read with Article 260 of the Constitution which defines the acts of Parliaments;
vii) Surprisingly, in the past the Courts of the time used to extend favours empowering the adventurers to amend the Constitution in actual effect were to achieve their overt and covert agenda but this time, such powers were acquired by the General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) himself through the PCO and brought a host of unconstitutional amendments for his own benefits; and
viii) The present representative of people firmly believe in strong and independent judiciary and the democratic system which is evident that the deposed Judges of Supreme Court, High Courts and the de jure Chief Justice of Pakistan were restored with effect from 3rd of November, 2007 implied that the present representatives of people denied the validity of the actions of General Pervez Musharraf (Rtd) taken from 3.11.2007 to 15.12.2007 during which the Constitution remained suspended.
19. Considering the above, in the light of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the material brought before us and for the detailed reasons to be recorded, we dispose the above petitions as follows.
20. The judgment purported to have been delivered in Constitutional Petitions bearing No: 87 and 88 of 2007 in the case titled as TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN VS. GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF AND OTHERS (PLD 2008 SC 25 and PLD 2008 SC 178) and the judgement dated 15.2.2008, purported to have been passed in C.R.P.No. 7 of 2008 titled as TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN VS. GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF AND OTHERS and any other judgwment/judgwments passed on the strength of the said two judgements are hereby declared to be void ab initio.
21. The Proclamation of Emergency issued by General Pervez Musharraf as the Chief of Army Staff (as he then was) on November 3, 2007; the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007 issued by him on the same date in his said capacity; the Oath of Office (Judges) Order of 2007 issued by him also on the same date though as the President of Pakistan but in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Proclamation of Emergency and the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007; The Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 issued by him like-wise on 15.11.2007; the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 being President’s Order No. 5 of 2007 issued on November 20, 2007; the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 2007 being the President’s Order No. 6 of 2007 issued on 14th December, 2007; the Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order 2007 dated 14th December 2007 being the President’s Order No. 7 of 2007; the High Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being Presidents Order No. 8 of 2007; the Supreme Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 being President’s Order No. 9 of 2007 dated 14th December, 2007 are hereby declared to be un-constitutional, ultra-vires of the Constitution and consequently being illegal and of no legal effect.
22. As a consequence thereof:-
i) the Chief Justice of Pakistan; the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; any Chief Justice of any of the High Courts and the Judges of the High Courts who were declared to have ceased to hold their respective offices in pursuance of the afore-mentioned alleged judgments or any other such judgment and on account of the instruments mentioned in para 21 above, shall be deemed never to have ceased to be such Judges, irrespective of any notification issued regarding their reappointment or restoration;
ii) it is declared that the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan never fell vacant on November 3, 2007 and as a consequence thereof it is further declared that the appointment of Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the Chief Justice of Pakistan was un-constitutional; void ab initio and of no legal effect;
Provided that subject to whatever is contained hereinafter, the said un-constitutional appointment of Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar as the Chief Justice of Pakistan shall not affect the validity of any administrative or financial acts performed by him or of any oath made before him in the ordinary course of the affairs of the said office;
iii) since Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar was never a constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan, therefore, all appointments of Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, of the Chief Justices of the High Courts and of the Judges of the High Courts made, in consultation with him, during the period that he, un-constitutionally, held the said office from 3.11.2007 to 22.3.2009 (both days inclusive) are hereby declared to be un-constitutional, void ab initio and of no legal effect and such appointees shall cease to hold office forthwith;
Provided that the Judges so un-constitutionally appointed to the Supreme Court while holding the offices as Judges of any of the High Courts shall revert back as Judges of the respective High Courts subject to their age of superannuation and likewise, the Judges of the High Courts, who were District and Sessions Judges before their said unconstitutional elevation to the High Courts shall revert back as District and Sessions Judge subject to limitation of superannuation;
iv) the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, if any, the Chief Justices of the High Court, if any, and the Judges of any of the High Courts, if any, who stood appointed to the said offices prior to 3.11.2007 but who made oath or took oath of their respective offices in disobedience to the order passed by a Seven-Member Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 3.11.2007 in C.M.A.No. 2869 of 2007 in Constitution Petition No.73 of 2007, shall be proceeded against under Article 209 of the Constitution. The Secretary of the Law Division of the Government of Pakistan shall take steps in the matter accordingly;
Provided that nothing hereinabove shall affect those Judges who though had been appointed as Judges/Chief Justices of any of the High Courts between 3.11.2007 to 22.3.2009 but had subsequently been appointed afresh to other offices in consultation with or with the approval of or with the consent of the Constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan;
v) any judgements delivered or orders made or any decrees passed by any Bench of the Supreme Court or of any of the High Courts which comprised of or which included the afore-described Judges whose appointments had been declared void ab initio, are protected on the principle laid down in MALIK ASAD ALI’S CASE (PLD 1998 SC 161);
vi) since the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 being the President’s Order No. 5 of 2007 and the Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order being President’s Order No.7 of 2007 establishing Islamabad High Court for the Federal Capital Territory, have been declared to be un-constitutional and of no legal effect, therefore, the said Islamabad High Court shall cease to exist forthwith. All judicial matters pending before the said High Court before the passing of this order shall revert/stand transferred to the courts which had jurisdiction in the said matters before the promulgation of afore-mentioned President’s Order No.5 of 2007 and President’s Order No. 7 of 2007 promulgated on 14th December, 2007. The Judges of the said Court shall, as a consequence thereof, cease to be Judges except such Judges or the Chief Justice of the said court, who prior to their appointments in the said Islamabad High Court, were Judges of some other High Court who shall revert to the court of which they were originally the Judges, subject to their age of superannuation. The officers and employees of the said Court shall also cease to hold their respective appointments and shall become part of the Federal Government Surplus Pool for their further appointments. However, if any such officer or employee was an officer or an employee of some other court or department or office, such officers or employees shall revert to their respective courts, departments or offices to which they belonged before joining the service in the Islamabad High court, subject again to their age of superannuation;
we would like to mention here that establishment of a High Court or a Federal Court for the Federal Capital Territory might be a desirable act but it is unfortunate that such a step was taken in an unconstitutional and a highly objectionable manner. We may, therefore, add that notwithstanding what has been declared and ordered above, the relevant and competent authorities may take steps to establish such a court in accordance with the Constitution/the law.
vii) the Ordinances promulgated by the President or a Governor of a Province before 3.11.2007 which were given permanence by the Provisional Constitution Order No. 1 of 2007 as also the Ordinances issued by the President or a Governor between 3.11.2007 and 15.12.2008 (both days inclusive) which were also, likewise given permanence through the same instrument and which legislative measures alongwith the said Provisional Constitution Order had been validated by the afore-mentioned judgment delivered in TIKA IQBAL MUHAMAD KHAN’S CASE, stand shorn of their purported permanence on account of our aforementioned declarations. Since on account of the said judgment in TIKA IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN’S CASE purporting to be a judgment of this Court, the presumption that the said Ordinances were valid laws not requiring approval of the Parliament or the respective Provincial Assemblies in terms of Article 89 or 128 of the Constitution and since it is today that this Court has attributed invalidity to the said legislative instruments, therefore, the period of 120 days and 90 days mentioned respectively in the said Article 89 and the said Article 128 of the Constitution, would be deemed to commence to run from today and steps may be taken to place the said Ordinances before the Parliament or the respective Provincial Assemblies in accordance with law;
viii) since the Constitution, through its Article 176, authorises only the Parliament to determine the number of Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and since the Parliament had so done through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act XXXIII of 1997, therefore, the increase in the strength of the Judges through the Finance Act of 2008 which Act was not passed by the Parliament but was passed only by the National Assembly would be deemed to be valid only for financial purposes and not for the purposes of Article 176 of the Constitution. It is resultantly declared that the number of Judges of the Supreme Court for purposes of the said Article 176 shall continue to remain sixteen.
ix) in the Code of Conduct prescribed for the Judges of the Superior Courts in terms of Article 209(8) of the Constitution, a new clause shall be added commanding that no such Judge shall, hereinafter, offer any support in whatever manner to any unconstitutional functionary who acquires power otherwise than through the modes envisaged by the Constitution and that any violation of the said clause would be deemed to be misconduct in terms of the said Article 209 of the Constitution;
x) in view of our findings above regarding Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar not being a constitutional and a valid consultee, the notification dated 26.8.2008 and the notification dated 15.9.2008 extending the term of office of Mr. Justice Abdur Rashid Kalwar and of Mr. Justice Zafar Kalwar Khan Sherwani as Additional Judges of the High Court of Sindh are declared to be un-constitutional and of no legal effect.
xi) that the court acknowledges and respects the mandate given by the sovereign authority i.e. elec
Lockheed eyes more deals after India-U.S. defence pact.
By Bappa Majumdar
July 30 2009
Reuters
U.S.-based Lockheed Martin Corp says it will speed up delivery of six C-130J military planes to India and is negotiating for sale of six more in a deal potentially worth $1.1 billion, a senior official said.
Lockheed, one of the world's largest defence companies, last year sold six C-130J military transport planes for about $1.1 billion, India's biggest arms deal ever with the United States.
"We will start delivering the planes from the first quarter of 2011 and work is speeding at the moment to meet deadlines," Jack Giese, a senior manager at Lockheed Martin, told Reuters on Thursday.
"The current agreement with the Indian Air Force for six C-130J aircraft has an option for another six and we are holding talks at the moment."
A defence pact agreed with the U.S. last week allowing U.S. inspectors to check all defence equipment sold to India periodically, has paved the way for companies like Lockheed to eye the growing Indian defence market.
India is one of the world's biggest arms importers, and its government plans to spend more than $30 billion over the next five years to upgrade its largely Soviet-era arsenal to counter potential threats from Pakistan and China.
Lockheed is aiming for deals with India worth $15 billion in the next five years and is focusing on winning contracts for fighter aircraft, military transport aircraft, naval helicopters and missiles.
Lockheed and Boeing are two big U.S. companies trying to enter the Indian market, but New Delhi's reluctance to sign the defence pact, allowing U.S. inspectors to examine defence equipment sold to other countries was delaying new deals.
"It is a landmark agreement and Lockheed is looking forward to a long-term partnership with India," Giese, who is visiting India, said referring to the pact signed last week.
Lockheed is also gearing up for field trials in August to win a $10.4 billion contract to supply 126 F-16 fighter aircraft to India.
Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, France's Dassault Rafale, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab JAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium of European companies, are the other companies in the race.
"We are very excited and ready since April for the trials to start and show what the F-16 can do," Giese added.
(Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Sanjeev Miglani)
July 30 2009
Reuters
U.S.-based Lockheed Martin Corp says it will speed up delivery of six C-130J military planes to India and is negotiating for sale of six more in a deal potentially worth $1.1 billion, a senior official said.
Lockheed, one of the world's largest defence companies, last year sold six C-130J military transport planes for about $1.1 billion, India's biggest arms deal ever with the United States.
"We will start delivering the planes from the first quarter of 2011 and work is speeding at the moment to meet deadlines," Jack Giese, a senior manager at Lockheed Martin, told Reuters on Thursday.
"The current agreement with the Indian Air Force for six C-130J aircraft has an option for another six and we are holding talks at the moment."
A defence pact agreed with the U.S. last week allowing U.S. inspectors to check all defence equipment sold to India periodically, has paved the way for companies like Lockheed to eye the growing Indian defence market.
India is one of the world's biggest arms importers, and its government plans to spend more than $30 billion over the next five years to upgrade its largely Soviet-era arsenal to counter potential threats from Pakistan and China.
Lockheed is aiming for deals with India worth $15 billion in the next five years and is focusing on winning contracts for fighter aircraft, military transport aircraft, naval helicopters and missiles.
Lockheed and Boeing are two big U.S. companies trying to enter the Indian market, but New Delhi's reluctance to sign the defence pact, allowing U.S. inspectors to examine defence equipment sold to other countries was delaying new deals.
"It is a landmark agreement and Lockheed is looking forward to a long-term partnership with India," Giese, who is visiting India, said referring to the pact signed last week.
Lockheed is also gearing up for field trials in August to win a $10.4 billion contract to supply 126 F-16 fighter aircraft to India.
Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet, France's Dassault Rafale, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Saab JAS-39 Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium of European companies, are the other companies in the race.
"We are very excited and ready since April for the trials to start and show what the F-16 can do," Giese added.
(Editing by Alistair Scrutton and Sanjeev Miglani)
Act Tough On Abuses Clinton Told.
Daily Nation
31 July 2009
The US has been asked to focus on human rights abuses during an African trip by its Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
Africa director of Human Rights Watch, Ms Georgette Gagnon, in a letter asks the US official to put Kenya's leaders to account for human rights abuses committed after the 2007 General Election.
Mrs Clinton's eight-day trip, which begins in Nairobi on August 5, will see her visit Kenya, South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, and Cape Verde.
Travel bans
While in Kenya, Mrs Clinton will meet with President of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed.
The civil society groups want the US official to press President Kibaki to replace Attorney General Amos Wako and Police Commissioner Mohammed Hussein Ali.
Mrs Clinton has also been asked to publicly state that the US may consider imposing sanctions, including travel bans, against those deemed most responsible for serious human rights violations.
31 July 2009
The US has been asked to focus on human rights abuses during an African trip by its Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
Africa director of Human Rights Watch, Ms Georgette Gagnon, in a letter asks the US official to put Kenya's leaders to account for human rights abuses committed after the 2007 General Election.
Mrs Clinton's eight-day trip, which begins in Nairobi on August 5, will see her visit Kenya, South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, and Cape Verde.
Travel bans
While in Kenya, Mrs Clinton will meet with President of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed.
The civil society groups want the US official to press President Kibaki to replace Attorney General Amos Wako and Police Commissioner Mohammed Hussein Ali.
Mrs Clinton has also been asked to publicly state that the US may consider imposing sanctions, including travel bans, against those deemed most responsible for serious human rights violations.
31 July, 2009
Former Somali senior military officials to meet in Washington, DC.
UNPOS
PRESS RELEASE 023/2009
31 July 2009
The United Nations Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) is convening a workshop for former Somali senior military officials under the auspices of the Somali Ministry of Defense from 1 – 5 August in Washington DC.
The workshop, which follows a preparatory forum held in June, will bring together former high ranking officers from the military, police, custodial and intelligence services for in-depth discussions on both the historical background of the Somali security forces, and on the re-establishment and the strengthening of the capacity of the security sector institutions in Somalia. .
Engaging the former leadership of the Somali Forces is expected to enable them to share their institutional memory and know-how with the current leadership. The workshop will not only serve as a practical capacity building measure but it will also help move towards a comprehensive understanding on the Somali security situation.
"In keeping with the spirit of the Djibouti process, this is an opportunity for the former Somali military leaders to contribute to the rebuilding of their nation," the UN Special Representative for Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah said.
During the workshop the participants will produce a framework document to address strategies for both short-term security challenges and longer-term capacity building measures.
"History has a lot to teach us if we're willing to learn from past experiences – failures and successes. These former senior military officials will have an opportunity to serve their country in another capacity," Mr Ould-Abdallah said.
PRESS RELEASE 023/2009
31 July 2009
The United Nations Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) is convening a workshop for former Somali senior military officials under the auspices of the Somali Ministry of Defense from 1 – 5 August in Washington DC.
The workshop, which follows a preparatory forum held in June, will bring together former high ranking officers from the military, police, custodial and intelligence services for in-depth discussions on both the historical background of the Somali security forces, and on the re-establishment and the strengthening of the capacity of the security sector institutions in Somalia. .
Engaging the former leadership of the Somali Forces is expected to enable them to share their institutional memory and know-how with the current leadership. The workshop will not only serve as a practical capacity building measure but it will also help move towards a comprehensive understanding on the Somali security situation.
"In keeping with the spirit of the Djibouti process, this is an opportunity for the former Somali military leaders to contribute to the rebuilding of their nation," the UN Special Representative for Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah said.
During the workshop the participants will produce a framework document to address strategies for both short-term security challenges and longer-term capacity building measures.
"History has a lot to teach us if we're willing to learn from past experiences – failures and successes. These former senior military officials will have an opportunity to serve their country in another capacity," Mr Ould-Abdallah said.
Nigeria's Oil-Producing Senators Rebuff Petroleum Industry Bill.
Content Works
7/31/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=78834
Senators from Nigeria's six oil-producing states Wednesday rejected a proposed oil and gas sector reform bill.
The Petroleum Industry Bill is currently being debated both in parliament and at public hearings.
Senator George Sekibo of Rivers State, one of the objecting lawmakers, said the bill does not adequately address the core concerns of the Niger Delta region.
"This Petroleum Industry Bill is supposed to be a reform bill on the petroleum sector. Unfortunately, the proposal is focusing only on the production aspect and the commercial aspect without considering the environment where this being explored and also carrying along the local people," he said.
Sekibo said he and other senators opposed to the bill are asking Nigerian President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua to withdraw the bill.
"Yes, it is too drastic, but you see we need to protect our people; we need to protect our future. And what is happening now is like the Niger Delta has no future. Our future is more important than any drastic decision one can take now," Sekibo said.
He also defended the objecting lawmakers' request for President Yar'Adua to dismiss Oil Minister Rilwanu Lukman.
"We want him to be replaced because his attitude, his utterances are not utterances that can bring peace in the Niger Delta region...so we think that we need a better person, a de-tribalized Nigerian who can see the suffering of the people, and if he is making recommendations have them in mind," he said.
The main militant group in the Niger Delta, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta said its struggle is about the equitable distribution of oil revenues.
Sekibo said the senator's rejection of the Petroleum Industry Bill does not further inflame the crisis in the Niger Delta.
"The area is already inflamed; it's already burning. I don't think it will burn more than it is already burning. We believe that Mr. President may have good thinking for the people of the region. But perhaps those who coming between him and administrative process may be doing the wrong thing," he said.
Senator Sekibo said it does not make sense for President Yar'Adua to offer amnesty to militants without what he called a backup plan.
7/31/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=78834
Senators from Nigeria's six oil-producing states Wednesday rejected a proposed oil and gas sector reform bill.
The Petroleum Industry Bill is currently being debated both in parliament and at public hearings.
Senator George Sekibo of Rivers State, one of the objecting lawmakers, said the bill does not adequately address the core concerns of the Niger Delta region.
"This Petroleum Industry Bill is supposed to be a reform bill on the petroleum sector. Unfortunately, the proposal is focusing only on the production aspect and the commercial aspect without considering the environment where this being explored and also carrying along the local people," he said.
Sekibo said he and other senators opposed to the bill are asking Nigerian President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua to withdraw the bill.
"Yes, it is too drastic, but you see we need to protect our people; we need to protect our future. And what is happening now is like the Niger Delta has no future. Our future is more important than any drastic decision one can take now," Sekibo said.
He also defended the objecting lawmakers' request for President Yar'Adua to dismiss Oil Minister Rilwanu Lukman.
"We want him to be replaced because his attitude, his utterances are not utterances that can bring peace in the Niger Delta region...so we think that we need a better person, a de-tribalized Nigerian who can see the suffering of the people, and if he is making recommendations have them in mind," he said.
The main militant group in the Niger Delta, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta said its struggle is about the equitable distribution of oil revenues.
Sekibo said the senator's rejection of the Petroleum Industry Bill does not further inflame the crisis in the Niger Delta.
"The area is already inflamed; it's already burning. I don't think it will burn more than it is already burning. We believe that Mr. President may have good thinking for the people of the region. But perhaps those who coming between him and administrative process may be doing the wrong thing," he said.
Senator Sekibo said it does not make sense for President Yar'Adua to offer amnesty to militants without what he called a backup plan.
Clashes displaces thousands in CAR.
Reuters
31 July 2009
By Natasha Elkington
Fighting in the north of Central African Republic (CAR) has uprooted more than 125 000 people in the last year and access to them is likely to worsen with the approaching rainy season, a UN official said.
Up to one million people have been affected by the clashes between rebel factions and government forces, and thousands of displaced are living in "deplorable conditions", having fled to remote areas where aid workers have little access, the U.N. deputy chief for humanitarian affairs, Catherine Bragg, said.
"The population is living in fear and this is a very unique situation... where people have fled their villages and gone into the bush for up to three to four years with absolutely no means of survival and very little access by humanitarian agencies," Bragg told Reuters in a telephone interview from CAR's capital Bangui late on Wednesday.
Despite an abundance of diamonds and timber, Central African Republic is one of Africa's poorest and most isolated countries, with a weak government struggling to end several years of internal rebellions.
The insecurity, coupled with potholed roads, means that aid agencies have been unable to reach remote areas hit by the fighting, especially the northeastern region of Ndele which saw deadly clashes last month between security forces and rebels.
In April, humanitarian access to Ndele was completely blocked by government forces because of military operations, Bragg said during a five-day trip to the former French colony.
Although a peace agreement was recently signed, restoring security remains the most pressing issue facing the landlocked country, especially with elections coming up in 2010.
Bragg blamed both the government and rebels for the violence, but added that the complete lack of government presence in the north had not helped matters.
Aid workers say the country and its problems have been overlooked due to larger crises in the rest of the region and as a result donor aid has dropped off in the past two years.
"People think that because the border is too close that somehow the problems of Chad and Darfur are spilling over, but I think that's exaggerated," Bragg said.
"The situation is not going to get any better soon and that's why we need continued humanitarian assistance."
31 July 2009
By Natasha Elkington
Fighting in the north of Central African Republic (CAR) has uprooted more than 125 000 people in the last year and access to them is likely to worsen with the approaching rainy season, a UN official said.
Up to one million people have been affected by the clashes between rebel factions and government forces, and thousands of displaced are living in "deplorable conditions", having fled to remote areas where aid workers have little access, the U.N. deputy chief for humanitarian affairs, Catherine Bragg, said.
"The population is living in fear and this is a very unique situation... where people have fled their villages and gone into the bush for up to three to four years with absolutely no means of survival and very little access by humanitarian agencies," Bragg told Reuters in a telephone interview from CAR's capital Bangui late on Wednesday.
Despite an abundance of diamonds and timber, Central African Republic is one of Africa's poorest and most isolated countries, with a weak government struggling to end several years of internal rebellions.
The insecurity, coupled with potholed roads, means that aid agencies have been unable to reach remote areas hit by the fighting, especially the northeastern region of Ndele which saw deadly clashes last month between security forces and rebels.
In April, humanitarian access to Ndele was completely blocked by government forces because of military operations, Bragg said during a five-day trip to the former French colony.
Although a peace agreement was recently signed, restoring security remains the most pressing issue facing the landlocked country, especially with elections coming up in 2010.
Bragg blamed both the government and rebels for the violence, but added that the complete lack of government presence in the north had not helped matters.
Aid workers say the country and its problems have been overlooked due to larger crises in the rest of the region and as a result donor aid has dropped off in the past two years.
"People think that because the border is too close that somehow the problems of Chad and Darfur are spilling over, but I think that's exaggerated," Bragg said.
"The situation is not going to get any better soon and that's why we need continued humanitarian assistance."
Yar'Adua proposes new oil bill.
AFP
31`July 2009
Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua, his country hit by an unprecedented fall in crude production after three years of militant attacks, is facing mounting pressure to divert more government revenues towards oil-producing states in the impoverished south.
The governors of Delta, Edo, Bayelsa, Rivers, Cross River and Akwa Ibom states recently threatened to withdraw from an amnesty scheme, offered by Yar'Adua last month to the region's militants, if a proposed new law designed to reform the oil sector is not amended.
The support of legislators and community leaders in the volatile Niger Delta, where international oil giants operate is crucial to the realisation of the amnesty scheme.
A bloc of southern lawmakers has asked Yar'Adua to dismiss Oil Minister Rilwanu Lukman, alleging that he favours states in his own northern region.
The north of Nigeria, a country of 140 million people, is dominated by Muslims while the south is mainly Christian.
The reform bill, also called the PIB, has revived long-standing tensions between the south - rich in oil but whose population is mired in poverty - and the north.
Eighteen senators from six oil-producing states on Wednesday rejected the proposed new oil law which seeks to reform the corruption-ridden oil and gas sector.
One of the senators, Victor Ndoma-Egba, told reporters the law "neither addresses the fundamental issues of the degraded environment of the region nor the participation of its people in their God-given endowments."
The region produces 90 percent of the nation's foreign exchange earnings.
"We propose that the bill be withdrawn and completely redrafted to ensure respect for the component parts of the federation, fair play and equity," Rivers state's environment commissioner Ezemonye Ezekiel-Amadi told a public hearing on the bill.
Oil companies recognise the tensions caused by the bill.
"The atmosphere is hot between them" a representative of a foreign oil company told AFP.
"We are happy to explain our stand from a technical and professional point of view on the reform."
Yar'Adua, former governor of northern Katsina state, unveiled proposals in late June for an unconditional amnesty for all militants who have attacked the oil sector.
The activities of the armed militant groups, especially the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), have gravely affected oil production, compromising a presidential hope to make the country one of the world's 20 largest economies in 2020.
In 2006, before MEND came on the scene, Nigeria produced 2,6 million barrels per day (bpd). But its "total oil war", characterised by sabotage of oil installations and kidnapping of oil workers, has brought production to its knees.
Nigeria's oil revenue was slashed by half to $4,92-billion in the first quarter of 2009 compared to the previous quarter, the national bureau of statistics said last week.
Current estimations put the oil production figure at between 1,2 and 1,4 million pbd.
31`July 2009
Nigerian President Umaru Yar'Adua, his country hit by an unprecedented fall in crude production after three years of militant attacks, is facing mounting pressure to divert more government revenues towards oil-producing states in the impoverished south.
The governors of Delta, Edo, Bayelsa, Rivers, Cross River and Akwa Ibom states recently threatened to withdraw from an amnesty scheme, offered by Yar'Adua last month to the region's militants, if a proposed new law designed to reform the oil sector is not amended.
The support of legislators and community leaders in the volatile Niger Delta, where international oil giants operate is crucial to the realisation of the amnesty scheme.
A bloc of southern lawmakers has asked Yar'Adua to dismiss Oil Minister Rilwanu Lukman, alleging that he favours states in his own northern region.
The north of Nigeria, a country of 140 million people, is dominated by Muslims while the south is mainly Christian.
The reform bill, also called the PIB, has revived long-standing tensions between the south - rich in oil but whose population is mired in poverty - and the north.
Eighteen senators from six oil-producing states on Wednesday rejected the proposed new oil law which seeks to reform the corruption-ridden oil and gas sector.
One of the senators, Victor Ndoma-Egba, told reporters the law "neither addresses the fundamental issues of the degraded environment of the region nor the participation of its people in their God-given endowments."
The region produces 90 percent of the nation's foreign exchange earnings.
"We propose that the bill be withdrawn and completely redrafted to ensure respect for the component parts of the federation, fair play and equity," Rivers state's environment commissioner Ezemonye Ezekiel-Amadi told a public hearing on the bill.
Oil companies recognise the tensions caused by the bill.
"The atmosphere is hot between them" a representative of a foreign oil company told AFP.
"We are happy to explain our stand from a technical and professional point of view on the reform."
Yar'Adua, former governor of northern Katsina state, unveiled proposals in late June for an unconditional amnesty for all militants who have attacked the oil sector.
The activities of the armed militant groups, especially the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), have gravely affected oil production, compromising a presidential hope to make the country one of the world's 20 largest economies in 2020.
In 2006, before MEND came on the scene, Nigeria produced 2,6 million barrels per day (bpd). But its "total oil war", characterised by sabotage of oil installations and kidnapping of oil workers, has brought production to its knees.
Nigeria's oil revenue was slashed by half to $4,92-billion in the first quarter of 2009 compared to the previous quarter, the national bureau of statistics said last week.
Current estimations put the oil production figure at between 1,2 and 1,4 million pbd.
Angola searches for killers.
Reuters
30 July 2009
Angolan police on Thursday launched a city-wide manhunt for the killers of a parliamentarian from the ruling MPLA party, who was gunned down in the outskirts of Luanda, a spokesperson said.
MPLA member Beatriz Salucombo and her brother Antonio Neves were shot several times outside her home on Wednesday in a rare attack on a public official since the end of Angola's civil war.
"We are investigating the double murder. The search has begun," said police spokesperson Nestor Gobel.
"We know that several individuals were inside the Toyota RAV4 model that passed in front of the house where the superintendent and his sister were standing and opened fire".
30 July 2009
Angolan police on Thursday launched a city-wide manhunt for the killers of a parliamentarian from the ruling MPLA party, who was gunned down in the outskirts of Luanda, a spokesperson said.
MPLA member Beatriz Salucombo and her brother Antonio Neves were shot several times outside her home on Wednesday in a rare attack on a public official since the end of Angola's civil war.
"We are investigating the double murder. The search has begun," said police spokesperson Nestor Gobel.
"We know that several individuals were inside the Toyota RAV4 model that passed in front of the house where the superintendent and his sister were standing and opened fire".
Brazil, Chile, Spain question US military bases in Columbia.
Sydney Morning Herald
31 July 2009
Brazil, Chile and Spain challenged the United States' decision to use and expand military bases in Colombia, saying they feared the move could heighten already simmering tensions in Latin America.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile said in Sao Paulo they would put the issue before an August 10 meeting of a nascent South American Defence Council in Ecuador.
Spain's foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, and his Brazilian counterpart, Celso Amorim, simultaneously told reporters in Brasilia that they would demand explanations from Washington over the bases.
The Colombian government's announcement July 15 that three of its military air bases were to be used by the United States as part of joint anti-drug operations has ignited concerns and anger among Colombia's neighbours.
Venezuela and its ally Ecuador have warned the move could aggravate already deep tensions with Colombia.
The two almost went to war last year against Colombia over a raid its army made into Ecuador, supposedly to destroy a FARC rebel camp.
Venezuelan's president, Hugo Chavez, said he viewed the bases as sign a "Yankee military force" was preparing to invade his country from Colombia.
Chavez this week signed deals with Russia reinforcing military ties that have already seen him acquire new tanks, combat helicopters, and fighter jets.
He also on Tuesday froze diplomatic links to Colombia over allegations from Bogota that weapons Venezuela bought from Sweden in the 1980s ended up in the hands of the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
31 July 2009
Brazil, Chile and Spain challenged the United States' decision to use and expand military bases in Colombia, saying they feared the move could heighten already simmering tensions in Latin America.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile said in Sao Paulo they would put the issue before an August 10 meeting of a nascent South American Defence Council in Ecuador.
Spain's foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, and his Brazilian counterpart, Celso Amorim, simultaneously told reporters in Brasilia that they would demand explanations from Washington over the bases.
The Colombian government's announcement July 15 that three of its military air bases were to be used by the United States as part of joint anti-drug operations has ignited concerns and anger among Colombia's neighbours.
Venezuela and its ally Ecuador have warned the move could aggravate already deep tensions with Colombia.
The two almost went to war last year against Colombia over a raid its army made into Ecuador, supposedly to destroy a FARC rebel camp.
Venezuelan's president, Hugo Chavez, said he viewed the bases as sign a "Yankee military force" was preparing to invade his country from Colombia.
Chavez this week signed deals with Russia reinforcing military ties that have already seen him acquire new tanks, combat helicopters, and fighter jets.
He also on Tuesday froze diplomatic links to Colombia over allegations from Bogota that weapons Venezuela bought from Sweden in the 1980s ended up in the hands of the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
Security Teams Blamed for Killings.
Daily Nation
By Fred Mukinda
30 July 2009
Nairobi — Kenya's security agencies and politicians are to blame for the brutal murders of 42 people in clashes between Mungiki and vigilantes in parts of Central Province.
The victims were killed in parts of Kirinyaga West and Nyeri East districts with the most atrocious attack occurring at midnight on April 21 when Mungiki members slaughtered 29 Mathira residents.
A report tabled in Parliament on Thursday blamed the National Security Intelligence Service for providing inaccurate information to law enforcers while the police are accused of lacking the capacity and skills to deal with organised gangs.
Keeping quiet
Politicians and local leaders were accused of keeping quiet as Mungiki members entrenched themselves in the area.
The report was compiled by the House committee on Administration, National Security and Local Authorities whose members visited the affected areas.
"NSIS security briefs anticipated attacks in Muragara and Kagumo. The attack (in which 29 died) took place in a different village, Gathaithi," says the report.
Mt Elgon MP Fred Kapondi, who is the committee chairman, tabled the report.
"The committee is concerned at the inability of Intelligence Service agents to gather information on the intentions (of Mungiki) and curtail their activities."
Mr Kapondi said NSIS owed Kenyans an explanation for failing to detect a crime of such magnitude. "The fact they were outwitted by a criminal gang poses serious questions as to whether they are prepared to deal effectively with gangs," he said.
The Mathira massacre was in retaliation for an attack by a vigilante group on Karatina in Nyeri District, a Mungiki stronghold, the previous day.
Vigilantes from Kirinyaga rode to Karatina on 300 motorcycles, each carrying three panga-wielding raiders.
Police in Karatina are blamed for dismantling a roadblock to let the armed men pass. Police Commissioner Hussein Ali defended the force when he appeared before the team, saying the law was weak and did not allow officers to deal with the gangs. He said the police response to the Karatina attack was quick.
Maj-Gen Ali also blamed politicians, according to the report, which says: "There was a conspiracy of silence from the political leadership, especially from Central Province who did not openly condemn criminal activities by the sect."
Rogue officers
An assistant director of the NSIS told the team that the war on Mungiki was frustrated by lack of political goodwill, rogue security officers, weak laws, media coverage and propaganda and lack of specialised training for officers.
The committee recommended that the minister sets up a different committee to vet and "weed out officers accused of complicity," with criminal gangs.
The committee was tasked to carry out the investigate after Gichugu MP Martha Karua objected to a statement by Internal Security minister George Saitoti over the number of people who died.
By Fred Mukinda
30 July 2009
Nairobi — Kenya's security agencies and politicians are to blame for the brutal murders of 42 people in clashes between Mungiki and vigilantes in parts of Central Province.
The victims were killed in parts of Kirinyaga West and Nyeri East districts with the most atrocious attack occurring at midnight on April 21 when Mungiki members slaughtered 29 Mathira residents.
A report tabled in Parliament on Thursday blamed the National Security Intelligence Service for providing inaccurate information to law enforcers while the police are accused of lacking the capacity and skills to deal with organised gangs.
Keeping quiet
Politicians and local leaders were accused of keeping quiet as Mungiki members entrenched themselves in the area.
The report was compiled by the House committee on Administration, National Security and Local Authorities whose members visited the affected areas.
"NSIS security briefs anticipated attacks in Muragara and Kagumo. The attack (in which 29 died) took place in a different village, Gathaithi," says the report.
Mt Elgon MP Fred Kapondi, who is the committee chairman, tabled the report.
"The committee is concerned at the inability of Intelligence Service agents to gather information on the intentions (of Mungiki) and curtail their activities."
Mr Kapondi said NSIS owed Kenyans an explanation for failing to detect a crime of such magnitude. "The fact they were outwitted by a criminal gang poses serious questions as to whether they are prepared to deal effectively with gangs," he said.
The Mathira massacre was in retaliation for an attack by a vigilante group on Karatina in Nyeri District, a Mungiki stronghold, the previous day.
Vigilantes from Kirinyaga rode to Karatina on 300 motorcycles, each carrying three panga-wielding raiders.
Police in Karatina are blamed for dismantling a roadblock to let the armed men pass. Police Commissioner Hussein Ali defended the force when he appeared before the team, saying the law was weak and did not allow officers to deal with the gangs. He said the police response to the Karatina attack was quick.
Maj-Gen Ali also blamed politicians, according to the report, which says: "There was a conspiracy of silence from the political leadership, especially from Central Province who did not openly condemn criminal activities by the sect."
Rogue officers
An assistant director of the NSIS told the team that the war on Mungiki was frustrated by lack of political goodwill, rogue security officers, weak laws, media coverage and propaganda and lack of specialised training for officers.
The committee recommended that the minister sets up a different committee to vet and "weed out officers accused of complicity," with criminal gangs.
The committee was tasked to carry out the investigate after Gichugu MP Martha Karua objected to a statement by Internal Security minister George Saitoti over the number of people who died.
30 July, 2009
US envoy says US sanctions hurt Sudan.
AP
By Foster Klug
30 July 2009
President Barack Obama's special envoy to Sudan said Thursday that there is no evidence to back up the U.S. designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Scott Gration told lawmakers at a Senate hearing that the U.S. sanctions linked to that designation hinder his and others' work to rebuild the war-torn African country's infrastructure and to help people suffering in camps.
"It's a political decision," Gration said of the terror designation.
Gration's comments underscored an ongoing debate in the Obama administration about how to deal with the government in Khartoum about Darfur and how to keep a separate conflict between the country's north and south from re-igniting.
Gration recently irked Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, when he said the situation in Darfur was no longer a "genocide" but rather reflected the "remnants of genocide."
He did not back away from his comments on Thursday. "There's significant difference between what happened in 2004 and 2003, which we characterized as a genocide, and what is happening today."
The level of violence in Darfur, Gration said, is not coordinated and is not as bad as in some other areas of the country, though he added that it "must end." He called the disagreement with Rice an "honest debate" over a "definitional issue."
"Right now, we're focusing on saving lives," he said. "It really doesn't matter what we call it, in my view; what matters is that we have people living in dire, desperate conditions."
Sudan is pushing for stronger diplomatic ties with the United States, the lifting of sanctions and its removal from the U.S. list of states said to sponsor terrorism.
Gration says that the Khartoum government has been helpful in stopping the flow of weapons and in dealing with key members of the terror group al-Qaida.
Sanctions, Gration said, affect the ability of aid workers to ship in heavy equipment to build roads and other crucial material. "At some point, we're going to have to unwind some of these sanctions so we can do the very things we need to do," Gration said.
He agreed with the assessment of Sen. Bob Corker. D-Tenn., that "we're cutting our nose off to spite our face."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., disagreed, claiming statements of Sudan's cooperation are "overstated."
The senators said they would discuss specific intelligence of Sudan's efforts on terrorism and the sanctions issue with Gration in a closed session.
The United States is trying to help Sudan fully apply the terms of a 2005 peace accord that ended a 22-year civil war between the northern and southern parts of the country.
Time is running out before the peace accord faces a crucial test with national elections in February and a referendum after that on self-determination for southern Sudan in 2011.
"Our timeline is so very short," Gration said. Though he said he hopes the votes could be a success, he also called the efforts "almost mission impossible."
By Foster Klug
30 July 2009
President Barack Obama's special envoy to Sudan said Thursday that there is no evidence to back up the U.S. designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Scott Gration told lawmakers at a Senate hearing that the U.S. sanctions linked to that designation hinder his and others' work to rebuild the war-torn African country's infrastructure and to help people suffering in camps.
"It's a political decision," Gration said of the terror designation.
Gration's comments underscored an ongoing debate in the Obama administration about how to deal with the government in Khartoum about Darfur and how to keep a separate conflict between the country's north and south from re-igniting.
Gration recently irked Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, when he said the situation in Darfur was no longer a "genocide" but rather reflected the "remnants of genocide."
He did not back away from his comments on Thursday. "There's significant difference between what happened in 2004 and 2003, which we characterized as a genocide, and what is happening today."
The level of violence in Darfur, Gration said, is not coordinated and is not as bad as in some other areas of the country, though he added that it "must end." He called the disagreement with Rice an "honest debate" over a "definitional issue."
"Right now, we're focusing on saving lives," he said. "It really doesn't matter what we call it, in my view; what matters is that we have people living in dire, desperate conditions."
Sudan is pushing for stronger diplomatic ties with the United States, the lifting of sanctions and its removal from the U.S. list of states said to sponsor terrorism.
Gration says that the Khartoum government has been helpful in stopping the flow of weapons and in dealing with key members of the terror group al-Qaida.
Sanctions, Gration said, affect the ability of aid workers to ship in heavy equipment to build roads and other crucial material. "At some point, we're going to have to unwind some of these sanctions so we can do the very things we need to do," Gration said.
He agreed with the assessment of Sen. Bob Corker. D-Tenn., that "we're cutting our nose off to spite our face."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., disagreed, claiming statements of Sudan's cooperation are "overstated."
The senators said they would discuss specific intelligence of Sudan's efforts on terrorism and the sanctions issue with Gration in a closed session.
The United States is trying to help Sudan fully apply the terms of a 2005 peace accord that ended a 22-year civil war between the northern and southern parts of the country.
Time is running out before the peace accord faces a crucial test with national elections in February and a referendum after that on self-determination for southern Sudan in 2011.
"Our timeline is so very short," Gration said. Though he said he hopes the votes could be a success, he also called the efforts "almost mission impossible."
Hillary Clinton moved to halt disclosure of CIA torture evidence, court told.
The Guardian
29 July 2009
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, personally intervened to suppress evidence of CIA collusion in the torture of a British resident, the high court heard today.
The dramatic turn emerged as lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, the UK resident abused in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Guantánamo Bay, joined by lawyers for the Guardian and other media groups, asked the court to order the disclosure of CIA material.
It consists of a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA knew, and what it told MI5 and MI6, about the treatment of Mohamed. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, the judges hearing the case, have said that the summary contains nothing that could possibly be described as "highly sensitive classified US intelligence".
However, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has repeatedly told the court that the US would stop sharing intelligence with the UK if the CIA material was published. The judges, as well as lawyers for Mohamed and the media, have challenged that assertion.
"Is it remotely credible that [the Obama administration] would stop intelligence-sharing?" Thomas asked yesterday, referring to Obama's recent decision to publish CIA torture documents in the US. "The judgment of the foreign secretary is the key," he added.
The court has heard how the Foreign Office and Miliband have solicited US help in keeping the CIA material secret. Today, it heard how Miliband met Clinton in Washington on 12 May this year.
In a written statement proposing a gagging order, Miliband told the court that she "indicated" that the disclosure of CIA evidence "would affect intelligence sharing". Pressed repeatedly by the judges on the claim yesterday, Karen Steyn, Miliband's counsel, insisted that Clinton was indeed saying that if the seven-paragraph summary of CIA material was disclosed, the US would "reassess" its intelligence relationship with the UK, a move that "would put lives at risk".
Guy Vassall-Adams, for the Guardian and other media groups, told the court earlier that Miliband's claims – including his account of his conversation with Clinton – "lack any credibility". He questioned the foreign secretary's claim that whatever the actual contents of the CIA material it was the principle that mattered. Miliband has insisted that any intelligence provided to the UK from a foreign government must always remain secret.
"The ultimate decision as to where the balance of the public interest lies is a matter for the courts and not for the executive – and any [foreign] country providing intelligence to the UK which understood otherwise would be labouring under a fundamental misapprehension," Vassall-Adams said.
Thomas intervened, saying that the absolute control over intelligence material the UK and US governments were claiming was not based on any legal principle but was "the exercise of naked political power".
A letter recently sent by the CIA to the high court "merely demonstrated that the CIA would like the court to withhold from the public … findings about CIA wrongdoing", he added.
The CIA letter was couched in vague language and Miliband's interpretation of the US claims was completely unreasonable, lawyers for Mohamed and the media said.
The court was also provided with a 35-page MI5 document – of which all but three are blacked out – relating to its instructions to one of its officers in 2002.
Nevertheless, the document shows that the officer, known in the case as Witness B, was sent a list of detailed questions to ask Mohamed, including about his acquaintances in London. Mohamed had been arrested in Karachi trying to return to Britain on an false passport.
Officer B, whose conduct is being investigated by Scotland Yard, questioned Mohamed while he was being held incommunicado in a Pakistani jail. It is unclear why so many pages in the MI5 document have been redacted, but the information contained in them may relate to Mohamed's condition and how he should be interrogated.One unredacted passage refers to Mohamed as "The Dirty Bomber" a reference to claims about him which were dropped years later after he was secretly flown to Guantánamo Bay.The high court judges, who have described the case as "troublesome", reserved their ruling on whether the CIA material should be published.
29 July 2009
By Richard Norton-Taylor
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, personally intervened to suppress evidence of CIA collusion in the torture of a British resident, the high court heard today.
The dramatic turn emerged as lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, the UK resident abused in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Guantánamo Bay, joined by lawyers for the Guardian and other media groups, asked the court to order the disclosure of CIA material.
It consists of a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA knew, and what it told MI5 and MI6, about the treatment of Mohamed. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, the judges hearing the case, have said that the summary contains nothing that could possibly be described as "highly sensitive classified US intelligence".
However, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has repeatedly told the court that the US would stop sharing intelligence with the UK if the CIA material was published. The judges, as well as lawyers for Mohamed and the media, have challenged that assertion.
"Is it remotely credible that [the Obama administration] would stop intelligence-sharing?" Thomas asked yesterday, referring to Obama's recent decision to publish CIA torture documents in the US. "The judgment of the foreign secretary is the key," he added.
The court has heard how the Foreign Office and Miliband have solicited US help in keeping the CIA material secret. Today, it heard how Miliband met Clinton in Washington on 12 May this year.
In a written statement proposing a gagging order, Miliband told the court that she "indicated" that the disclosure of CIA evidence "would affect intelligence sharing". Pressed repeatedly by the judges on the claim yesterday, Karen Steyn, Miliband's counsel, insisted that Clinton was indeed saying that if the seven-paragraph summary of CIA material was disclosed, the US would "reassess" its intelligence relationship with the UK, a move that "would put lives at risk".
Guy Vassall-Adams, for the Guardian and other media groups, told the court earlier that Miliband's claims – including his account of his conversation with Clinton – "lack any credibility". He questioned the foreign secretary's claim that whatever the actual contents of the CIA material it was the principle that mattered. Miliband has insisted that any intelligence provided to the UK from a foreign government must always remain secret.
"The ultimate decision as to where the balance of the public interest lies is a matter for the courts and not for the executive – and any [foreign] country providing intelligence to the UK which understood otherwise would be labouring under a fundamental misapprehension," Vassall-Adams said.
Thomas intervened, saying that the absolute control over intelligence material the UK and US governments were claiming was not based on any legal principle but was "the exercise of naked political power".
A letter recently sent by the CIA to the high court "merely demonstrated that the CIA would like the court to withhold from the public … findings about CIA wrongdoing", he added.
The CIA letter was couched in vague language and Miliband's interpretation of the US claims was completely unreasonable, lawyers for Mohamed and the media said.
The court was also provided with a 35-page MI5 document – of which all but three are blacked out – relating to its instructions to one of its officers in 2002.
Nevertheless, the document shows that the officer, known in the case as Witness B, was sent a list of detailed questions to ask Mohamed, including about his acquaintances in London. Mohamed had been arrested in Karachi trying to return to Britain on an false passport.
Officer B, whose conduct is being investigated by Scotland Yard, questioned Mohamed while he was being held incommunicado in a Pakistani jail. It is unclear why so many pages in the MI5 document have been redacted, but the information contained in them may relate to Mohamed's condition and how he should be interrogated.One unredacted passage refers to Mohamed as "The Dirty Bomber" a reference to claims about him which were dropped years later after he was secretly flown to Guantánamo Bay.The high court judges, who have described the case as "troublesome", reserved their ruling on whether the CIA material should be published.
Council conclusions on Somalia.
2958th EXTER AL RELATIO S Council meeting
Brussels, 27 July 2009
The Council adopted the following conclusions:
"1. The Council condemns the armed attacks against Somalias Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and against the UN and NGOs. It expresses its deep concern over the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and calls on all parties to the conflict to respect international law. The situation in Somalia remains one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.
2. The Council reaffirms its support to the Transitional Federal Government under the leadership of President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and the President's commitments to honour the principles laid down in the Djibouti Peace Agreement, including the spirit of reconciliation and the search for an inclusive political process. It calls on all armed groups to urgently lay down their weapons and join in a genuine broad-based dialogue with the TFG. The Council expresses its appreciation and support to the AU and AMISOM for their efforts.
3. The Council underlines the importance of a comprehensive approach to the situation in Somalia, linking security with development, rule of law and respect for human rights, gender related aspects and international humanitarian law. It stresses that long term assistance from international partners cannot be effective without a stabilization of the security situation.
4. The Council encourages constructive engagement from all regions of Somalia, including Puntland and Somaliland, in building an environment of trust and cooperation to mutual benefit. The Council also recognises that the situation in Somalia must be addressed in a regional and international context, with all neighbouring states playing a constructive role for a lasting and peaceful solution to the present conflict.
5. The Council welcomes the successful conduct of the EU NAVFOR ATALANTA operation, which is playing a leading role in international anti-piracy efforts. It also welcomes the international community’s ongoing work to ensure prosecution of piracy.
The Council recognizes the important work conducted within the International Contact
Group on Piracy off the coast of Somalia. It stresses the need to fight the root causes of piracy.
6. The Council recalls the longstanding and continuing efforts of Member States and the Community to address the dire humanitarian situation and to provide humanitarian and development assistance. Furthermore, it welcomes the additional Community contributions of 60 MEUR for AMISOM and 13 MEUR for the UNDP-managed Rule of Law and Security programme, as well as Member States' contributions to the security sector, as pledged at the donor’s conference in April.
7. The Council has decided to step up the EU engagement for promoting peace and development in Somalia, in line with the High Representative’s recommendations. Due to the difficulties of engaging effectively in the country, efforts will entail a flexible and phased approach. EU engagement will be guided by the principles of accountability, transparency and Somali ownership. Priority will be given to activities that produce quick, yet sustainable, results to promote peace and recovery for the Somali people. Capacity building of public institutions will be of particular importance in this context.
8. The Council underlines that EU efforts will have to be closely coordinated with all relevant actors. It recognises the important role played by the International Contact Group on Somalia under the leadership of the UN SRSG.
9. In this context the Council (a) will explore ways to increase assistance to support TFG institutions. It welcomes the first steps taken by the TFG to establish accountable financing systems; (b) expresses its continued support to AMISOM, given its pivotal role in the peace process. Further engagement with the AU and AMISOM should identify the most urgent needs and possible additional EU support in order for AMISOM to develop capabilities commensurate with its mandate; (c) will explore the possibility of additional EU support to the security sector, including through support to the UN-led assessment process and TFG priorities and commitments as well as through the training of security forces. The Council agrees that support in the security sector should be well coordinated, notably with the AU, the UN and other relevant EU partners, in particular the US. It should support a Somali national security strategy, committed to the rule of law, respect for human rights and gender; (d) intends to assess possible additional EU support to regional maritime capabilities in cooperation with the International Maritime Organisation and the International Contact Group on Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Related issues such as coastal environmental protection and fishery protection should be addressed; (e) will encourage diaspora communities to engage constructively in the peace process for the state-building and development of Somalia; (f) views positively the possibility of appointing an EUSR for the Horn of Africa in order to further enhance the EU's ongoing strategic policy formulation and the coordination of EU activities.
10. The Council invites the relevant Council bodies and institutions and the Commission to urgently elaborate detailed and concrete proposals on the implementation of these conclusions."
Brussels, 27 July 2009
The Council adopted the following conclusions:
"1. The Council condemns the armed attacks against Somalias Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and against the UN and NGOs. It expresses its deep concern over the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and calls on all parties to the conflict to respect international law. The situation in Somalia remains one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world.
2. The Council reaffirms its support to the Transitional Federal Government under the leadership of President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and the President's commitments to honour the principles laid down in the Djibouti Peace Agreement, including the spirit of reconciliation and the search for an inclusive political process. It calls on all armed groups to urgently lay down their weapons and join in a genuine broad-based dialogue with the TFG. The Council expresses its appreciation and support to the AU and AMISOM for their efforts.
3. The Council underlines the importance of a comprehensive approach to the situation in Somalia, linking security with development, rule of law and respect for human rights, gender related aspects and international humanitarian law. It stresses that long term assistance from international partners cannot be effective without a stabilization of the security situation.
4. The Council encourages constructive engagement from all regions of Somalia, including Puntland and Somaliland, in building an environment of trust and cooperation to mutual benefit. The Council also recognises that the situation in Somalia must be addressed in a regional and international context, with all neighbouring states playing a constructive role for a lasting and peaceful solution to the present conflict.
5. The Council welcomes the successful conduct of the EU NAVFOR ATALANTA operation, which is playing a leading role in international anti-piracy efforts. It also welcomes the international community’s ongoing work to ensure prosecution of piracy.
The Council recognizes the important work conducted within the International Contact
Group on Piracy off the coast of Somalia. It stresses the need to fight the root causes of piracy.
6. The Council recalls the longstanding and continuing efforts of Member States and the Community to address the dire humanitarian situation and to provide humanitarian and development assistance. Furthermore, it welcomes the additional Community contributions of 60 MEUR for AMISOM and 13 MEUR for the UNDP-managed Rule of Law and Security programme, as well as Member States' contributions to the security sector, as pledged at the donor’s conference in April.
7. The Council has decided to step up the EU engagement for promoting peace and development in Somalia, in line with the High Representative’s recommendations. Due to the difficulties of engaging effectively in the country, efforts will entail a flexible and phased approach. EU engagement will be guided by the principles of accountability, transparency and Somali ownership. Priority will be given to activities that produce quick, yet sustainable, results to promote peace and recovery for the Somali people. Capacity building of public institutions will be of particular importance in this context.
8. The Council underlines that EU efforts will have to be closely coordinated with all relevant actors. It recognises the important role played by the International Contact Group on Somalia under the leadership of the UN SRSG.
9. In this context the Council (a) will explore ways to increase assistance to support TFG institutions. It welcomes the first steps taken by the TFG to establish accountable financing systems; (b) expresses its continued support to AMISOM, given its pivotal role in the peace process. Further engagement with the AU and AMISOM should identify the most urgent needs and possible additional EU support in order for AMISOM to develop capabilities commensurate with its mandate; (c) will explore the possibility of additional EU support to the security sector, including through support to the UN-led assessment process and TFG priorities and commitments as well as through the training of security forces. The Council agrees that support in the security sector should be well coordinated, notably with the AU, the UN and other relevant EU partners, in particular the US. It should support a Somali national security strategy, committed to the rule of law, respect for human rights and gender; (d) intends to assess possible additional EU support to regional maritime capabilities in cooperation with the International Maritime Organisation and the International Contact Group on Piracy off the coast of Somalia. Related issues such as coastal environmental protection and fishery protection should be addressed; (e) will encourage diaspora communities to engage constructively in the peace process for the state-building and development of Somalia; (f) views positively the possibility of appointing an EUSR for the Horn of Africa in order to further enhance the EU's ongoing strategic policy formulation and the coordination of EU activities.
10. The Council invites the relevant Council bodies and institutions and the Commission to urgently elaborate detailed and concrete proposals on the implementation of these conclusions."
Dwyka to fast-track Minerva’s Ethiopian projects.
Mining Weekly.com
By: Esmarie Swanepoel
22nd July 2009
ASX-listed gold and nickel explorer Dwyka Resources said on Wednesday that it had replaced the board of Minerva Resources with Dwyka directors.
Dwyka recently gained control of Minerva, after its shareholding increased to 80,9%.
The company also said that it had assumed immediate management control of Minerva’s assets, chief among which were two gold exploration licences and one platinum mining licence, all in Ethiopia.
Dwyka noted in a statement that it would now use its cash reserves to fast-track the development of these assets, while also progressing its existing portfolio asset, the Muremera nickel project, in Burundi.
Dwyka CEO Melissa Sturgess said that the company had significant cash reserves, which would allow it to advance Minerva’s projects.
“We also believe there is potential to expand the existing gold resource meaning that subject to ongoing exploration, there is an opportunity for Dwyka to establish substantial gold, platinum and nickel resources, delivering significant short, medium and long term revenue opportunities."
Dwyka stated that work has now started to define a maiden joint ore reserve committee compliant resource at the Tulu Kapi exploration license, from the data collected during a recently completed 34-drill hole programme.
Preliminary test work undertaken has been completed on representative core samples from the recent drill programme, and Dwyaka noted that these tests indicated that the gold recovery rate would be in excess of 94%.
Trench excavation and sampling has also started at the Tulu Kapi project with a series of excavations planned to extend from the limit of the existing drill grid in an easterly direction with a view to intersecting the expected up dip extensions of gold mineralisation previously intersected in the recent diamond drilling programme.
Dwyka believed that the Tulu Kapi prospect had to date, been underexplored and that potential upside exists to establish a sizeable gold resource. As a result, Dwyka plans to extend the drill programme beyond its current focus. “The company considers that this a low risk exploration strategy with a strong possibility of intersecting further gold mineralisation and increasing the resource base,” the company said in a statement.
At the Yubdo exploration licence, three priority targets have been identified, namely Guji, Gudeya Guji and Dina.
Soil geochemistry, trenching and scout drilling by Minerva at the Guji prospect has indicated a prominent mineralised structure 1 200m in length with a peak trench intersection of 9,6 g/t gold over 68 m and a drill intercept of 3 g/t gold over 17 m. Subject to the interpretation of planned geophysical surveys, the target was considered drill ready.
Located only 3 km from Tulu Kapi, the Guji prospect could potentially represent a satellite mining operation providing feedstock to any future processing plant at Tulu Kapi, Dwyka noted.
Meanwhile, Dwyka stated that its takeover offer for Minerva would remain open for acceptance until July 28.
The company had previously that it had received valid acceptances in respect of 80,9% of the issued shares in Minerva. Should valid acceptances be received for 90% or more of Minerva's shares, Dwyka will be entitled to compulsorily acquire the remaining Minerva shares and thereby become the 100% owner of Minerva.
In the meantime, application has been made for the cancellation of the admission of Minerva's shares trading on Aim with effect from July 23.
Edited by: Mariaan Webb
By: Esmarie Swanepoel
22nd July 2009
ASX-listed gold and nickel explorer Dwyka Resources said on Wednesday that it had replaced the board of Minerva Resources with Dwyka directors.
Dwyka recently gained control of Minerva, after its shareholding increased to 80,9%.
The company also said that it had assumed immediate management control of Minerva’s assets, chief among which were two gold exploration licences and one platinum mining licence, all in Ethiopia.
Dwyka noted in a statement that it would now use its cash reserves to fast-track the development of these assets, while also progressing its existing portfolio asset, the Muremera nickel project, in Burundi.
Dwyka CEO Melissa Sturgess said that the company had significant cash reserves, which would allow it to advance Minerva’s projects.
“We also believe there is potential to expand the existing gold resource meaning that subject to ongoing exploration, there is an opportunity for Dwyka to establish substantial gold, platinum and nickel resources, delivering significant short, medium and long term revenue opportunities."
Dwyka stated that work has now started to define a maiden joint ore reserve committee compliant resource at the Tulu Kapi exploration license, from the data collected during a recently completed 34-drill hole programme.
Preliminary test work undertaken has been completed on representative core samples from the recent drill programme, and Dwyaka noted that these tests indicated that the gold recovery rate would be in excess of 94%.
Trench excavation and sampling has also started at the Tulu Kapi project with a series of excavations planned to extend from the limit of the existing drill grid in an easterly direction with a view to intersecting the expected up dip extensions of gold mineralisation previously intersected in the recent diamond drilling programme.
Dwyka believed that the Tulu Kapi prospect had to date, been underexplored and that potential upside exists to establish a sizeable gold resource. As a result, Dwyka plans to extend the drill programme beyond its current focus. “The company considers that this a low risk exploration strategy with a strong possibility of intersecting further gold mineralisation and increasing the resource base,” the company said in a statement.
At the Yubdo exploration licence, three priority targets have been identified, namely Guji, Gudeya Guji and Dina.
Soil geochemistry, trenching and scout drilling by Minerva at the Guji prospect has indicated a prominent mineralised structure 1 200m in length with a peak trench intersection of 9,6 g/t gold over 68 m and a drill intercept of 3 g/t gold over 17 m. Subject to the interpretation of planned geophysical surveys, the target was considered drill ready.
Located only 3 km from Tulu Kapi, the Guji prospect could potentially represent a satellite mining operation providing feedstock to any future processing plant at Tulu Kapi, Dwyka noted.
Meanwhile, Dwyka stated that its takeover offer for Minerva would remain open for acceptance until July 28.
The company had previously that it had received valid acceptances in respect of 80,9% of the issued shares in Minerva. Should valid acceptances be received for 90% or more of Minerva's shares, Dwyka will be entitled to compulsorily acquire the remaining Minerva shares and thereby become the 100% owner of Minerva.
In the meantime, application has been made for the cancellation of the admission of Minerva's shares trading on Aim with effect from July 23.
Edited by: Mariaan Webb
29 July, 2009
Energy companies urged to refocus on Africa as oil reserves diminish Energy companies urged to refocus on Africa as oil reserves diminish.
Mining Weekly.com
By: Jonathan Faurie
24th July 2009
With the world’s oil reserves diminishing, energy companies around the world will need to focus their attention on countries that can unlock hidden value, including those in Africa, says commodities investment company Beresford Investments CEO Luswazi Vokwana.
“The only sustainable avenue for the industry is to explore emerging oil- and gas-possessing African countries, such as Tanzania, the Demo- cratic Republic of Congo, Kenya and Madagas- car, and properly engage the traditional African oil-supply sources, such as Angola and Nigeria, to revitalise the industry.
“However, the major African suppliers have been roped into the Organisation of the Petro- leum Exporting Countries (Opec) and are bound by its covenants and rulings; however, this will provide the industry with a vast new potential of product supply for the future.”
Vokwana adds that, if the industry follows this avenue, then emphasis should be placed on oil and gas infrastructure development.
To ensure that this is a mutually beneficial relationship, he says, African countries must add value to their primary oil assets, which will create a wider revenue pool to aid sustainable public spending and the servicing of exter- nal debts. “This is Africa’s only choice, and Beresford is currently going through a process of sensitising the relevant policymakers to this reality. African decision-makers understand the situation – the problem is how to effect the required institutional changes and put in place the proper capacity building mechanisms within parastatals.”
In order to achieve this, oil companies have to develop the industry in Africa to deliver a promising midstream and downstream sector, where the value-added benefits to the primary resource can be attributable to African countries’ balance sheets. However, to ensure that these countries benefit materially, the onus is entirely on them to put together structures within energy parastatals to tackle these challenges and be equipped to deal with the private sector.
He notes that a few challenges lie ahead, and that the oil game is all about cash on hand and access to capital to unlock value. African countries have little of the former and are prime targets for multilateral institutions’ structural adjustment plans for the latter; and when they borrow they do not have adequate plans, skills capacity and institutional structures to take advantage of their resources, whether with the private sector or alone.
“The net effect is, merely, that they frequently pawn their greatest assets for low value. When Beresford engages with various Ministers and heads of States in Africa, the various countries’ abject inability to harness value for their countries out of the potential resources is a constant frustration for them,” says Vokwana.
He adds that Beresford is in the process of entering into a private–public partnership (PPP) with two African countries to increase their efficacy in these key areas. The company hopes that its approach will, in the short term, provide the countries with a clear operating framework and, in the medium to long term, with adequate skills capacity to structure deals to benefit and extract maximum sustainable value for them.
Vokwana agrees with the sentiment that there is a reluctance to fund greenfield projects over brownfield projects.
He reports that the commodity pricing cycle trend is well established, the markets will recover and demand for nonrenewable resources will be bolstered within the next three to five years.
“Beresford feels that the industry may experience a super boom, where the pricing level of commodities in the previous boom could be superseded considerably in the next session. Whether this pricing uplift will be maintained is another matter.
“The company’s rationale is centred on the number of projects that have been put on hold, the downscaling of mining and oil production operations, and the transportation and power infrastructure projects being cancelled or put on hold. When one marries these factors with the eventual recovery of the Chinese, Indian and US markets, a shortage of supply will exist and it will take time to create equilibrium in the market,” says Vokwana.
Edited by: Martin Zhuwakinyu
By: Jonathan Faurie
24th July 2009
With the world’s oil reserves diminishing, energy companies around the world will need to focus their attention on countries that can unlock hidden value, including those in Africa, says commodities investment company Beresford Investments CEO Luswazi Vokwana.
“The only sustainable avenue for the industry is to explore emerging oil- and gas-possessing African countries, such as Tanzania, the Demo- cratic Republic of Congo, Kenya and Madagas- car, and properly engage the traditional African oil-supply sources, such as Angola and Nigeria, to revitalise the industry.
“However, the major African suppliers have been roped into the Organisation of the Petro- leum Exporting Countries (Opec) and are bound by its covenants and rulings; however, this will provide the industry with a vast new potential of product supply for the future.”
Vokwana adds that, if the industry follows this avenue, then emphasis should be placed on oil and gas infrastructure development.
To ensure that this is a mutually beneficial relationship, he says, African countries must add value to their primary oil assets, which will create a wider revenue pool to aid sustainable public spending and the servicing of exter- nal debts. “This is Africa’s only choice, and Beresford is currently going through a process of sensitising the relevant policymakers to this reality. African decision-makers understand the situation – the problem is how to effect the required institutional changes and put in place the proper capacity building mechanisms within parastatals.”
In order to achieve this, oil companies have to develop the industry in Africa to deliver a promising midstream and downstream sector, where the value-added benefits to the primary resource can be attributable to African countries’ balance sheets. However, to ensure that these countries benefit materially, the onus is entirely on them to put together structures within energy parastatals to tackle these challenges and be equipped to deal with the private sector.
He notes that a few challenges lie ahead, and that the oil game is all about cash on hand and access to capital to unlock value. African countries have little of the former and are prime targets for multilateral institutions’ structural adjustment plans for the latter; and when they borrow they do not have adequate plans, skills capacity and institutional structures to take advantage of their resources, whether with the private sector or alone.
“The net effect is, merely, that they frequently pawn their greatest assets for low value. When Beresford engages with various Ministers and heads of States in Africa, the various countries’ abject inability to harness value for their countries out of the potential resources is a constant frustration for them,” says Vokwana.
He adds that Beresford is in the process of entering into a private–public partnership (PPP) with two African countries to increase their efficacy in these key areas. The company hopes that its approach will, in the short term, provide the countries with a clear operating framework and, in the medium to long term, with adequate skills capacity to structure deals to benefit and extract maximum sustainable value for them.
Vokwana agrees with the sentiment that there is a reluctance to fund greenfield projects over brownfield projects.
He reports that the commodity pricing cycle trend is well established, the markets will recover and demand for nonrenewable resources will be bolstered within the next three to five years.
“Beresford feels that the industry may experience a super boom, where the pricing level of commodities in the previous boom could be superseded considerably in the next session. Whether this pricing uplift will be maintained is another matter.
“The company’s rationale is centred on the number of projects that have been put on hold, the downscaling of mining and oil production operations, and the transportation and power infrastructure projects being cancelled or put on hold. When one marries these factors with the eventual recovery of the Chinese, Indian and US markets, a shortage of supply will exist and it will take time to create equilibrium in the market,” says Vokwana.
Edited by: Martin Zhuwakinyu
Prosecutorial Policies in the ICTR: Ensuring Impunity for the Victors.
by Professor Filip Reyntjens
Institute of Development Policy and Management
University of Antwerp
UNSC Resolution 955 (1994) of 8 November 1994 establishing the ICTR states in its preamble that “the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law would enable (the aim of ending impunity) to be achieved and would contribute to the process of national reconciliation and to the restoration and maintenance of peace”. Although it was clear that the RPF had committed crimes that fell squarely within the mandate of the ICTR[1], the risk of impunity for the victors was apparent from the early days of the tribunal’s operation. During a conversation with the first Prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, in July 1996, I asked him whether he intended to prosecute RPF suspects. Irritated, he replied he saw no reason for doing so. When I told him that there was compelling prima facie evidence of these crimes, he got even more irritated and stated emphatically that there was no such prima facie evidence. That was the end of our brief conversation. Clearly, the OTP was not starting its operation with an open mind, and this mindset has handicapped it ever since.
In April 2003, towards the end of Carla Del Ponte’s term as Prosecutor, I was in Arusha together with Alison Des Forges to run a seminar for OTP staff. We were brought in contact with the so-called “special investigations” team, put in place to work on the “second mandate”, the one related to crimes committed by the RPF. The team wanted to discuss evidence and strategy. We were quite impressed by their work: they had assembled extensive data on between 15 and 20 massacres by the RPF. As it was unlikely that all these could be prosecuted, we exchanged on selecting files that could as a priority be formulated as indictments; and we agreed on four cases: Butare (in particular the killings at the agro-veterinary school and in the arboretum) upon the arrival of the RPF in July; the regional stadium of Byumba in April; Giti, an atypical municipality as no Tutsi were killed there, also in April; and Gakurazo, where the RPF killed bishops, other clergy and civilians in June. For all these cases, there is a great deal of evidence and the suspects are known. At the end of our meetings, we felt confident that indictments could soon be issued. More than six years later, nothing has happened.
What we did not realise then was that the US, under the stewardship of Pierre-Richard Prosper, the former member of the OTP turned American Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, were busy burying the special investigations. The deal was that RPF suspects were not to be tried by the ICTR, but that Rwanda would take care of them. This never materialised. During the same period, Carla Del Ponte was replaced by the current Prosecutor in circumstances that I do not need to recall.
When I returned to Arusha in September 2004 to testify in the Bagosora case, I had the opportunity to talk to Prosecutor Jallow. I referred to the work done by the special investigations team, and asked him whether he intended to prosecute RPF suspects. A year after his appointment, he told me textually: “I am reviewing the evidence, and I’ll make a determination when the time has come”. He was to sing this refrain in the years to come, up to the present day, including when asked this question by the press. For instance, a year after our meeting, he stated to the Hirondelle News Agency that he was still reviewing the evidence before proceeding any further[2]. In February 2007, Jallow stated that he “will decide by the middle of the year whether or not charges will be brought against members of the RPF”[3]. In the middle of 2007, nothing was however heard of him, except a new delaying exercise before the Security Council, where he stated: “Investigations of the allegations against members of the RPF, which we had hoped to conclude by now, need to be continued…”. That was almost three years after my conversation with him, and during his presentation to the Security Council on 4 June this year, he seemed finally to admit that he had given up: “[M]y office does not have an indictment that is ready in respect of these allegations (against the RPF) at this particular stage”[4]. I shall return later to the “strategy of rotting” practised by the Prosecutor since he assumed office.
As I was worried about the perspective that nothing would happen, and having in mind the Tribunal’s completion strategy[5], I contacted Jallow again in December 2004 to inquire about his intentions, but I again received an evasive answer. On 11 January 2005, I sent him a letter announcing that I suspended my co-operation with his office “unless and until the first RPF suspect is indicted”. I told him that “[u]nder these circumstances, the ICTR risks becoming part of the problem rather than of the solution. While I remain committed to the cause which is at the heart of the mandate of the ICTR, on ethical grounds I cannot any longer be involved in this process”. During the following years, my concern was obviously reinforced by the Prosecutor’s delaying tactics.
He embarked on the same strategy again from mid-2008. Pushed by allegations that the ICTR was practising victors’ justice, and at the same time refusing to prosecute RPF suspects himself, Jallow announced that “[i]t has been established that in June 1994, RPF soldiers had killed 13 clergymen and two other civilians”, and that the Rwandan Prosecutor General “had said that he would shortly indict the implicated soldiers”[6]. While he pointed out that the suspects would be prosecuted for war crimes (that fall within the ICTR mandate), they were tried for murder and complicity to murder only. Although this was to be expected, as the Rwandan regime systematically denies that its soldiers have committed violations of international humanitarian law[7], this in itself would have justified recalling this case. Jallow did not do such thing, despite his pledge to reporters that “[i]f the trial is badly conducted, we have the competence to take the case to the Tribunal”[8].
Hardly two weeks after Jallow’s initial announcement, four men faced trial before a military court in Kigali. Two captains pleaded guilty to murder, a major and a brigadier general pleaded not guilty to complicity to murder. The two captains were sentenced to 8 years in prison, a sentence reduced to 5 years on appeal, while the senior officers were acquitted, a decision confirmed on appeal. Clearly the captains were sacrificial lambs and the trial was a sham; in a letter to Jallow dated 26 May 2009, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch wrote that it was “a political whitewash and a miscarriage of justice, betraying the rights of victims’ families to obtain justice for their loved ones”. On 1 June 2009, an open letter by dozens of academics stated much the same thing, arguing that “[t]his domestic trial was a completely inappropriate substitute for ICTR prosecution”. However, despite the Prosecutor’s pledge to assess the Rwandan proceedings and to recall the case to the ICTR if the trial did not meet international standards, he remained silent over the issue, thus resuming his “strategy of rotting”. There was no response to my repeated demands to the Prosecutor and to William Egbe, the member of the OTP in charge of the file, and the last email I received from Egbe on 14 April 2009 read: “I have forwarded your request to Prosecutor Jallow for his further information and attention”. I haven’t heard from the OTP since. In the meantime, despite all evidence to the contrary, Jallow seems content with the Rwandan procedure. On 4 June 2009, he indeed told the Security Council that the trial “was an open and public trial (…). The report of my monitors indicates that the standards of fair trial were observed”[9].
Of course, the Prosecutor has a very large degree of discretion in deciding to prosecute or not to prosecute. The way in which the current Prosecutor has analysed this discretion in a journal article[10] defines prosecutorial discretion as almost tantamount to prosecutorial arbitrariness. He is right in the sense that there is no legal redress in case a Prosecutor makes an abusive use of this discretion. But his argument and his prosecutorial practice also places the responsibility for the emergence of victors’ justice squarely in his office. With the exception of Carla Del Ponte, who paid a high price for it, none of the successive Prosecutors have had the courage to fully assume their mandate, and –as Jallow rightly pointed out in his article– no one else could do it in their place or force them to do it.
The grave consequences of this failure appear when measured against the aims the ICTR was supposed to achieve, which I have recalled at the beginning of this presentation. First, ending impunity. It is precisely because the regime in Kigali was given a sense of impunity that, during the years following 1994, it has committed massive internationally recognised crimes in both Rwanda and the DRC, where the RPA massacred tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians. Next, contributing the national reconciliation. When, in a deeply divided society like Rwanda, the suffering of the victims on one side is recognised, but not that of the victims on the other side, and when perpetrators on one side are tried, but not those on the other side, then the side whose perpetrators are tried and whose victims are not recognised accumulates frustration, resentment and even hatred, all the more so since the domestic judicial system shows a similar bias. These feelings are exactly the opposite of what national reconciliation needs. Finally, the restoration and maintenance of peace. The feelings just described among many Hutu result in major structural violence that will eventually lead to renewed acute violence. In addition, the sense of impunity has led the Rwandan army to twice invade Zaire/Congo, and to engage in widespread human rights abuse and looting of resources. So the way in which justice has been miscarried in the ICTR has not contributed to peace in Rwanda and in the region. Maybe it is not too late. The Prosecutor can still seek indictments for these serious crimes. In the words of the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch in his letter of 26 May 2009: “Failure to do so will undoubtedly taint perceptions of the Tribunal’s impartiality and undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of future generations”.
[1] This was already unequivocally stated in the May 1994 report of special rapporteur René Degni-Segui.
[2] “Le TPIR a bouclé ses enquêtes pour le génocide des Tutsis”, Arusha, Fondation Hirondelle, 30 September 2005.
[3] “RPF alleged crimes: Prosecutor to decide mid 2007”, Arusha, Hirondelle News Agency, 8 February 2007.
[4] United Nations, Security Council, 6134th meeting, S/PV.6134, 4 June 2009, p. 33.
[5] The ICTR was to conclude first instance trials by the end of 2008, hardly four years after I met with Jallow.
[6] “UN Prosecutor admits of RPF atrocities during 1994 genocide”, Arusha, Hirondelle News Agency, 6 June 2008.
[7] Not a single of the 32 RPA elements prosecuted in Rwanda for acts committed in 1994 have been charged with war crimes or crimes against humanity (See Human Rights Watch, Law and Reality. Progress in Judicial Reform in Rwanda, 25 July 2008, Annex 2).
[8] “ICTR can retract a trial, says top prosecutor”, Arusha, Hirondelle News Agency, 12 June 2008.
[9] United Nations, Security Council, 6134th meeting, 4 June 2009, S/PV.6134, p. 33. According to the 26 May letter of Human Rights Watch to the Prosecutor, he “sent an observer for only two preliminary detention hearings, one trial day, closing arguments, and the verdict. That cursory presence did not constitute diligent monitoring”.
[10] H.B. Jallow, “Prosecutorial Discretion and International Criminal Justice”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005, pp. 145-161.
Institute of Development Policy and Management
University of Antwerp
UNSC Resolution 955 (1994) of 8 November 1994 establishing the ICTR states in its preamble that “the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law would enable (the aim of ending impunity) to be achieved and would contribute to the process of national reconciliation and to the restoration and maintenance of peace”. Although it was clear that the RPF had committed crimes that fell squarely within the mandate of the ICTR[1], the risk of impunity for the victors was apparent from the early days of the tribunal’s operation. During a conversation with the first Prosecutor, Richard Goldstone, in July 1996, I asked him whether he intended to prosecute RPF suspects. Irritated, he replied he saw no reason for doing so. When I told him that there was compelling prima facie evidence of these crimes, he got even more irritated and stated emphatically that there was no such prima facie evidence. That was the end of our brief conversation. Clearly, the OTP was not starting its operation with an open mind, and this mindset has handicapped it ever since.
In April 2003, towards the end of Carla Del Ponte’s term as Prosecutor, I was in Arusha together with Alison Des Forges to run a seminar for OTP staff. We were brought in contact with the so-called “special investigations” team, put in place to work on the “second mandate”, the one related to crimes committed by the RPF. The team wanted to discuss evidence and strategy. We were quite impressed by their work: they had assembled extensive data on between 15 and 20 massacres by the RPF. As it was unlikely that all these could be prosecuted, we exchanged on selecting files that could as a priority be formulated as indictments; and we agreed on four cases: Butare (in particular the killings at the agro-veterinary school and in the arboretum) upon the arrival of the RPF in July; the regional stadium of Byumba in April; Giti, an atypical municipality as no Tutsi were killed there, also in April; and Gakurazo, where the RPF killed bishops, other clergy and civilians in June. For all these cases, there is a great deal of evidence and the suspects are known. At the end of our meetings, we felt confident that indictments could soon be issued. More than six years later, nothing has happened.
What we did not realise then was that the US, under the stewardship of Pierre-Richard Prosper, the former member of the OTP turned American Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, were busy burying the special investigations. The deal was that RPF suspects were not to be tried by the ICTR, but that Rwanda would take care of them. This never materialised. During the same period, Carla Del Ponte was replaced by the current Prosecutor in circumstances that I do not need to recall.
When I returned to Arusha in September 2004 to testify in the Bagosora case, I had the opportunity to talk to Prosecutor Jallow. I referred to the work done by the special investigations team, and asked him whether he intended to prosecute RPF suspects. A year after his appointment, he told me textually: “I am reviewing the evidence, and I’ll make a determination when the time has come”. He was to sing this refrain in the years to come, up to the present day, including when asked this question by the press. For instance, a year after our meeting, he stated to the Hirondelle News Agency that he was still reviewing the evidence before proceeding any further[2]. In February 2007, Jallow stated that he “will decide by the middle of the year whether or not charges will be brought against members of the RPF”[3]. In the middle of 2007, nothing was however heard of him, except a new delaying exercise before the Security Council, where he stated: “Investigations of the allegations against members of the RPF, which we had hoped to conclude by now, need to be continued…”. That was almost three years after my conversation with him, and during his presentation to the Security Council on 4 June this year, he seemed finally to admit that he had given up: “[M]y office does not have an indictment that is ready in respect of these allegations (against the RPF) at this particular stage”[4]. I shall return later to the “strategy of rotting” practised by the Prosecutor since he assumed office.
As I was worried about the perspective that nothing would happen, and having in mind the Tribunal’s completion strategy[5], I contacted Jallow again in December 2004 to inquire about his intentions, but I again received an evasive answer. On 11 January 2005, I sent him a letter announcing that I suspended my co-operation with his office “unless and until the first RPF suspect is indicted”. I told him that “[u]nder these circumstances, the ICTR risks becoming part of the problem rather than of the solution. While I remain committed to the cause which is at the heart of the mandate of the ICTR, on ethical grounds I cannot any longer be involved in this process”. During the following years, my concern was obviously reinforced by the Prosecutor’s delaying tactics.
He embarked on the same strategy again from mid-2008. Pushed by allegations that the ICTR was practising victors’ justice, and at the same time refusing to prosecute RPF suspects himself, Jallow announced that “[i]t has been established that in June 1994, RPF soldiers had killed 13 clergymen and two other civilians”, and that the Rwandan Prosecutor General “had said that he would shortly indict the implicated soldiers”[6]. While he pointed out that the suspects would be prosecuted for war crimes (that fall within the ICTR mandate), they were tried for murder and complicity to murder only. Although this was to be expected, as the Rwandan regime systematically denies that its soldiers have committed violations of international humanitarian law[7], this in itself would have justified recalling this case. Jallow did not do such thing, despite his pledge to reporters that “[i]f the trial is badly conducted, we have the competence to take the case to the Tribunal”[8].
Hardly two weeks after Jallow’s initial announcement, four men faced trial before a military court in Kigali. Two captains pleaded guilty to murder, a major and a brigadier general pleaded not guilty to complicity to murder. The two captains were sentenced to 8 years in prison, a sentence reduced to 5 years on appeal, while the senior officers were acquitted, a decision confirmed on appeal. Clearly the captains were sacrificial lambs and the trial was a sham; in a letter to Jallow dated 26 May 2009, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch wrote that it was “a political whitewash and a miscarriage of justice, betraying the rights of victims’ families to obtain justice for their loved ones”. On 1 June 2009, an open letter by dozens of academics stated much the same thing, arguing that “[t]his domestic trial was a completely inappropriate substitute for ICTR prosecution”. However, despite the Prosecutor’s pledge to assess the Rwandan proceedings and to recall the case to the ICTR if the trial did not meet international standards, he remained silent over the issue, thus resuming his “strategy of rotting”. There was no response to my repeated demands to the Prosecutor and to William Egbe, the member of the OTP in charge of the file, and the last email I received from Egbe on 14 April 2009 read: “I have forwarded your request to Prosecutor Jallow for his further information and attention”. I haven’t heard from the OTP since. In the meantime, despite all evidence to the contrary, Jallow seems content with the Rwandan procedure. On 4 June 2009, he indeed told the Security Council that the trial “was an open and public trial (…). The report of my monitors indicates that the standards of fair trial were observed”[9].
Of course, the Prosecutor has a very large degree of discretion in deciding to prosecute or not to prosecute. The way in which the current Prosecutor has analysed this discretion in a journal article[10] defines prosecutorial discretion as almost tantamount to prosecutorial arbitrariness. He is right in the sense that there is no legal redress in case a Prosecutor makes an abusive use of this discretion. But his argument and his prosecutorial practice also places the responsibility for the emergence of victors’ justice squarely in his office. With the exception of Carla Del Ponte, who paid a high price for it, none of the successive Prosecutors have had the courage to fully assume their mandate, and –as Jallow rightly pointed out in his article– no one else could do it in their place or force them to do it.
The grave consequences of this failure appear when measured against the aims the ICTR was supposed to achieve, which I have recalled at the beginning of this presentation. First, ending impunity. It is precisely because the regime in Kigali was given a sense of impunity that, during the years following 1994, it has committed massive internationally recognised crimes in both Rwanda and the DRC, where the RPA massacred tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians. Next, contributing the national reconciliation. When, in a deeply divided society like Rwanda, the suffering of the victims on one side is recognised, but not that of the victims on the other side, and when perpetrators on one side are tried, but not those on the other side, then the side whose perpetrators are tried and whose victims are not recognised accumulates frustration, resentment and even hatred, all the more so since the domestic judicial system shows a similar bias. These feelings are exactly the opposite of what national reconciliation needs. Finally, the restoration and maintenance of peace. The feelings just described among many Hutu result in major structural violence that will eventually lead to renewed acute violence. In addition, the sense of impunity has led the Rwandan army to twice invade Zaire/Congo, and to engage in widespread human rights abuse and looting of resources. So the way in which justice has been miscarried in the ICTR has not contributed to peace in Rwanda and in the region. Maybe it is not too late. The Prosecutor can still seek indictments for these serious crimes. In the words of the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch in his letter of 26 May 2009: “Failure to do so will undoubtedly taint perceptions of the Tribunal’s impartiality and undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of future generations”.
[1] This was already unequivocally stated in the May 1994 report of special rapporteur René Degni-Segui.
[2] “Le TPIR a bouclé ses enquêtes pour le génocide des Tutsis”, Arusha, Fondation Hirondelle, 30 September 2005.
[3] “RPF alleged crimes: Prosecutor to decide mid 2007”, Arusha, Hirondelle News Agency, 8 February 2007.
[4] United Nations, Security Council, 6134th meeting, S/PV.6134, 4 June 2009, p. 33.
[5] The ICTR was to conclude first instance trials by the end of 2008, hardly four years after I met with Jallow.
[6] “UN Prosecutor admits of RPF atrocities during 1994 genocide”, Arusha, Hirondelle News Agency, 6 June 2008.
[7] Not a single of the 32 RPA elements prosecuted in Rwanda for acts committed in 1994 have been charged with war crimes or crimes against humanity (See Human Rights Watch, Law and Reality. Progress in Judicial Reform in Rwanda, 25 July 2008, Annex 2).
[8] “ICTR can retract a trial, says top prosecutor”, Arusha, Hirondelle News Agency, 12 June 2008.
[9] United Nations, Security Council, 6134th meeting, 4 June 2009, S/PV.6134, p. 33. According to the 26 May letter of Human Rights Watch to the Prosecutor, he “sent an observer for only two preliminary detention hearings, one trial day, closing arguments, and the verdict. That cursory presence did not constitute diligent monitoring”.
[10] H.B. Jallow, “Prosecutorial Discretion and International Criminal Justice”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2005, pp. 145-161.
US Blackwater-Xe mercenaries spread fear in Pakistani town.
DPA
By Nadeem Sarwar and Aqeel Yousafzai
Jul 27, 2009, 6:22 GMT
Fear is spreading across University Town, an upmarket residential area in Pakistan's north-western city of Peshawar, due to the overt presence of the controversial US private security contractor Blackwater.
Sporting customary dark glasses and carrying assault rifles, the mercenaries zoom around the neighbourhood in their black-coloured armoured Chevy Suburbans, and shout at motorists when occasionally stranded in a traffic jam.
The residents are mainly concerned about Blackwater's reputation as a ruthless, unbridled private army whose employees face multiple charges of murder, child prostitution and weapons smuggling in Iraq.
'Sometimes, these guys stand in the streets and behave rudely with the passers-by, sometimes they point guns at people without provocation' said Imtiaz Gul, an engineer, whose home is a few hundred metres from the US contractor's base on Chanar Road in University Town.
'Who rules our streets, the Pakistani government or the Americans? They have created a state within the state,' he added.
Repeated complaints to the authorities have been to no avail since, according to residents.
Blackwater provides security to the employees of Creative Associates International Inc (CAII), an American company carrying out multi-million-dollar development projects in the country's Islamic militancy-plagued Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
Founded in 1997 by Mr. Erik Prince, a former US Navy SEAL officer and a major financial contributor to Republican Party candidates, Blackwater has hired thousands of former military personnel from Western countries as well as other mercenaries from the Third World.
It emerged as the largest of the US Department of State's private security companies, winning multi-million-dollar contracts globally, but attracted a lot of media attention in September 2007 when its personnel killed 17 civilians in an unprovoked shooting while escorting a convoy of US State Department vehicles to a meeting in Baghdad.
The firm is now facing a civil lawsuit filed in the US state of Virginia by those who were injured and who lost family members in the massacre.
The company faces charges of human rights violations, child prostitution and allegedly suppling weapons to the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an Iraqi group designated by United Nations, European Union and NATO as a terrorist organization. It has been declared persona non grata in Iraq.
To conceal its bad reputation, the shadowy company renamed itself Xe Worldwide in February 2009 and Prince resigned as its chief executive officer the following month.
In Pakistan, the Interior Ministry asked the regional governments of all four provinces to keep an eye on the activities of Blackwater in early 2008, immediately after it was believed to have been hired by CAII, according to a media report.
CAII works locally under the name of FATA Development Programme Government to Community (FDPGC).
Lou Fintor, a spokesman for the US embassy in Islamabad, said that Blackwater-Xe was not in any way associated with its missions in Pakistan. But the denial does not include the possibility that the security firm was working for a private US company.
Blackwater has recruited dozens of retired commandos from Pakistan's army and elite police force through its local sub-contractors, said an intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some Pakistani security officials suggested that besides providing security to the aid workers, Blackwater was carrying out covert operations.
Among these were buying the loyalties of influential tribal elders and tracking the money flowing to al-Qaeda and Taliban through the national and international banks, something which perhaps goes far beyond the mandate of a private security firm.
Militants who use the tribal regions to attack civilian and government targets inside Pakistan and NATO-led international forces in Afghanistan are also watching Blackwater's moves.
On June 9, suicide bombers drove an explosive-laden vehicle into Peshawar's sole five-star hotel, the Pearl Continental, after shooting the security guards, and detonated it at the side of the building where some Blackwater guards were staying.
Sixteen people died including four of the security firm's personnel - two Westerners and the same number of locals. Four more guards were injured.
The dead bodies and injured were moved quietly. Neither the Pakistani government nor any foreign official admitted these deaths, apparently at the request of US officials.
'Absolutely no comments,' Qazi Jamil, the senior superintendent of police in Peshawar said abruptly when German Press Agency dpa asked him about the Blackwater deaths.
But a minister in the North-West Frontier Province government, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he knew that some US private guards died but did not know how many and which firm they were from.
'The provincial government was not directly dealing with the issue. It's the federal intelligence agencies that handled it,' said the minister.
The possibility that militants might be plotting more attacks on the contractors is also a source of concern for many residents in University Town.
'In the first week of July we requested the interior minister in a letter that targets like Blackwater should be kept away from the residential areas,' said Ihsan Toro, a trader and member of council of citizens in University Town.
'Al-Qaeda and the Taliban must be after them,' added Toro.
By Nadeem Sarwar and Aqeel Yousafzai
Jul 27, 2009, 6:22 GMT
Fear is spreading across University Town, an upmarket residential area in Pakistan's north-western city of Peshawar, due to the overt presence of the controversial US private security contractor Blackwater.
Sporting customary dark glasses and carrying assault rifles, the mercenaries zoom around the neighbourhood in their black-coloured armoured Chevy Suburbans, and shout at motorists when occasionally stranded in a traffic jam.
The residents are mainly concerned about Blackwater's reputation as a ruthless, unbridled private army whose employees face multiple charges of murder, child prostitution and weapons smuggling in Iraq.
'Sometimes, these guys stand in the streets and behave rudely with the passers-by, sometimes they point guns at people without provocation' said Imtiaz Gul, an engineer, whose home is a few hundred metres from the US contractor's base on Chanar Road in University Town.
'Who rules our streets, the Pakistani government or the Americans? They have created a state within the state,' he added.
Repeated complaints to the authorities have been to no avail since, according to residents.
Blackwater provides security to the employees of Creative Associates International Inc (CAII), an American company carrying out multi-million-dollar development projects in the country's Islamic militancy-plagued Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
Founded in 1997 by Mr. Erik Prince, a former US Navy SEAL officer and a major financial contributor to Republican Party candidates, Blackwater has hired thousands of former military personnel from Western countries as well as other mercenaries from the Third World.
It emerged as the largest of the US Department of State's private security companies, winning multi-million-dollar contracts globally, but attracted a lot of media attention in September 2007 when its personnel killed 17 civilians in an unprovoked shooting while escorting a convoy of US State Department vehicles to a meeting in Baghdad.
The firm is now facing a civil lawsuit filed in the US state of Virginia by those who were injured and who lost family members in the massacre.
The company faces charges of human rights violations, child prostitution and allegedly suppling weapons to the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an Iraqi group designated by United Nations, European Union and NATO as a terrorist organization. It has been declared persona non grata in Iraq.
To conceal its bad reputation, the shadowy company renamed itself Xe Worldwide in February 2009 and Prince resigned as its chief executive officer the following month.
In Pakistan, the Interior Ministry asked the regional governments of all four provinces to keep an eye on the activities of Blackwater in early 2008, immediately after it was believed to have been hired by CAII, according to a media report.
CAII works locally under the name of FATA Development Programme Government to Community (FDPGC).
Lou Fintor, a spokesman for the US embassy in Islamabad, said that Blackwater-Xe was not in any way associated with its missions in Pakistan. But the denial does not include the possibility that the security firm was working for a private US company.
Blackwater has recruited dozens of retired commandos from Pakistan's army and elite police force through its local sub-contractors, said an intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some Pakistani security officials suggested that besides providing security to the aid workers, Blackwater was carrying out covert operations.
Among these were buying the loyalties of influential tribal elders and tracking the money flowing to al-Qaeda and Taliban through the national and international banks, something which perhaps goes far beyond the mandate of a private security firm.
Militants who use the tribal regions to attack civilian and government targets inside Pakistan and NATO-led international forces in Afghanistan are also watching Blackwater's moves.
On June 9, suicide bombers drove an explosive-laden vehicle into Peshawar's sole five-star hotel, the Pearl Continental, after shooting the security guards, and detonated it at the side of the building where some Blackwater guards were staying.
Sixteen people died including four of the security firm's personnel - two Westerners and the same number of locals. Four more guards were injured.
The dead bodies and injured were moved quietly. Neither the Pakistani government nor any foreign official admitted these deaths, apparently at the request of US officials.
'Absolutely no comments,' Qazi Jamil, the senior superintendent of police in Peshawar said abruptly when German Press Agency dpa asked him about the Blackwater deaths.
But a minister in the North-West Frontier Province government, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he knew that some US private guards died but did not know how many and which firm they were from.
'The provincial government was not directly dealing with the issue. It's the federal intelligence agencies that handled it,' said the minister.
The possibility that militants might be plotting more attacks on the contractors is also a source of concern for many residents in University Town.
'In the first week of July we requested the interior minister in a letter that targets like Blackwater should be kept away from the residential areas,' said Ihsan Toro, a trader and member of council of citizens in University Town.
'Al-Qaeda and the Taliban must be after them,' added Toro.
UK Government to be Sued For Involvement in CIA Rendition Program.
ABC News
By STEPHEN GREY
July 28, 2009
The British government is being sued for the first time over its complicity in the operation of the CIA rendition program.
A former detainee at Guantanamo Bay, now living back in Pakistan, claims the CIA plane that took him to be interrogated in Egypt stopped to refuel on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has an air base.
Mohamed Saad Iqbal Madni is filing a lawsuit in the High Court in London that alleges the stopover makes the British complicit in the torture he received at the hands of the Egyptians and Americans and, moreover, the British government now has a duty to help him win justice.
Madni says he was first beaten up, tied in chains, and then packed on a Gulfstream jet in a wooden box when he was picked up in Jan. 2002 in Jakarta, Indonesia. He says he was still bleeding from his nose, mouth and ears when the plane touched down to refuel six or seven hours into the flight.
After the stopover, flight records show the plane went on to Cairo, where Madni says he was badly tortured. He told the BBC World Service, "When I arrived in Egypt I was blindfolded and left in a room... they interrogated me three times. Each was for 17 hours and they electrocuted me in my knees. And they asked if I knew Osama Bin Laden or went to Afghanistan or if I met Richard Reid or knew anything about a shoe bomb or future attacks."
Madni was accused of being an Al Qaeda operative and of plotting attacks on U.S. officials. He was released last year from Guantanamo, where he had attempted suicide, and returned to his native Pakistan, where he now lives. His lawsuit is being filed on his behalf by a British legal charity, Reprieve, that has represented many inmates at Guantanamo Bay. Reprieve claims to have worked out that it was Madni who landed on the island by analysing statements made by the British government.
Ever since 2002, news reports have alleged the CIA was using Diego Garcia as a secret site to hold terror suspects, either in a prison or to transport them.
The British Government was always pretty strong and sharp in denying all that. But they based their firm denials on what the Americans told them, until the U.S. changed its position.
Last February, British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was forced to make what was quite an embarrassing statement that two planes, rendition flights- did in fact stop there, each with one prisoner.
From its database of the records of prisoners held at Guantanamo and comparing them to the details released by Miliband, Reprieve claimed it worked out that Madni was one of the two prisoners involved. It will deploy the legal argument that since torture is a crime, the British government needs to do everything in its power to help its victims seek justice from the perpetrators. Reprieve successfully deployed the same legal argument last year to force the British government to release its files on a British resident, Binyam Mohamed, then held at Guantanamo, and to secure his release.
Speaking of the Madni case, Clive Stafford Smith, legal director, of Reprieve told the BBC program, " I would defy the British government to deny that we are right." He said, "The issue for Britain is that Diego Garcia is a British territory, we're responsible for it and what happens on it... the Americans are meant to tell us what they are doing and we, as supervisor of Diego Garcia, have a responsibility to make sure that crimes do not happen on it."
The British Foreign Office said it could not comment in detail because of the pending legal action. But, in a statement, they said that while the movement of prisoners through UK territory without permission was "concerning&.it did not mean that the UK has been complicit in torture."
By STEPHEN GREY
July 28, 2009
The British government is being sued for the first time over its complicity in the operation of the CIA rendition program.
A former detainee at Guantanamo Bay, now living back in Pakistan, claims the CIA plane that took him to be interrogated in Egypt stopped to refuel on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has an air base.
Mohamed Saad Iqbal Madni is filing a lawsuit in the High Court in London that alleges the stopover makes the British complicit in the torture he received at the hands of the Egyptians and Americans and, moreover, the British government now has a duty to help him win justice.
Madni says he was first beaten up, tied in chains, and then packed on a Gulfstream jet in a wooden box when he was picked up in Jan. 2002 in Jakarta, Indonesia. He says he was still bleeding from his nose, mouth and ears when the plane touched down to refuel six or seven hours into the flight.
After the stopover, flight records show the plane went on to Cairo, where Madni says he was badly tortured. He told the BBC World Service, "When I arrived in Egypt I was blindfolded and left in a room... they interrogated me three times. Each was for 17 hours and they electrocuted me in my knees. And they asked if I knew Osama Bin Laden or went to Afghanistan or if I met Richard Reid or knew anything about a shoe bomb or future attacks."
Madni was accused of being an Al Qaeda operative and of plotting attacks on U.S. officials. He was released last year from Guantanamo, where he had attempted suicide, and returned to his native Pakistan, where he now lives. His lawsuit is being filed on his behalf by a British legal charity, Reprieve, that has represented many inmates at Guantanamo Bay. Reprieve claims to have worked out that it was Madni who landed on the island by analysing statements made by the British government.
Ever since 2002, news reports have alleged the CIA was using Diego Garcia as a secret site to hold terror suspects, either in a prison or to transport them.
The British Government was always pretty strong and sharp in denying all that. But they based their firm denials on what the Americans told them, until the U.S. changed its position.
Last February, British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, was forced to make what was quite an embarrassing statement that two planes, rendition flights- did in fact stop there, each with one prisoner.
From its database of the records of prisoners held at Guantanamo and comparing them to the details released by Miliband, Reprieve claimed it worked out that Madni was one of the two prisoners involved. It will deploy the legal argument that since torture is a crime, the British government needs to do everything in its power to help its victims seek justice from the perpetrators. Reprieve successfully deployed the same legal argument last year to force the British government to release its files on a British resident, Binyam Mohamed, then held at Guantanamo, and to secure his release.
Speaking of the Madni case, Clive Stafford Smith, legal director, of Reprieve told the BBC program, " I would defy the British government to deny that we are right." He said, "The issue for Britain is that Diego Garcia is a British territory, we're responsible for it and what happens on it... the Americans are meant to tell us what they are doing and we, as supervisor of Diego Garcia, have a responsibility to make sure that crimes do not happen on it."
The British Foreign Office said it could not comment in detail because of the pending legal action. But, in a statement, they said that while the movement of prisoners through UK territory without permission was "concerning&.it did not mean that the UK has been complicit in torture."
28 July, 2009
Saipem Gets Angola Contracts.
Saipem 7/28/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=78654
Saipem has been awarded two offshore contracts in Angola and in Italy for a total value of approximately US $650 million.
Angola
Saipem has been awarded the contract for work to be conducted for the Kizomba Satellites Project offshore Angola.
ESSO Exploration Angola (Block 15) Limited has awarded Saipem the lump sum turnkey contracts for the tieback work for the Kizomba Satellites development in Angola Block 15, approximately 145 km west of Soyo at water depths ranging from 1,000 to 1,200 meters.
Saipem will be responsible for the engineering, construction, transport and installation of pipelines, umbilicals, risers and subsea systems connecting the Mavacola and Clochas Fields to the existing FPSO units at Kizomba A and B (developments that Saipem completed similar work in the mid 2000s). Offshore operations will be carried out in 2011 by the vessels FDS and Saipem 3000. A portion of the subsea equipment will be fabricated in Angola at Saipem's Ambriz and Soyo yards.
Italy
Eni has awarded Saipem the lumpsum turnkey contract for offshore works in the Mediterranean sea.
Saipem's vessel Castoro 7 (formerly Acergy Piper), acquired at the beginning of 2009, will carry out the works, scheduled to be completed in the third quarter of 2009.
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=78654
Saipem has been awarded two offshore contracts in Angola and in Italy for a total value of approximately US $650 million.
Angola
Saipem has been awarded the contract for work to be conducted for the Kizomba Satellites Project offshore Angola.
ESSO Exploration Angola (Block 15) Limited has awarded Saipem the lump sum turnkey contracts for the tieback work for the Kizomba Satellites development in Angola Block 15, approximately 145 km west of Soyo at water depths ranging from 1,000 to 1,200 meters.
Saipem will be responsible for the engineering, construction, transport and installation of pipelines, umbilicals, risers and subsea systems connecting the Mavacola and Clochas Fields to the existing FPSO units at Kizomba A and B (developments that Saipem completed similar work in the mid 2000s). Offshore operations will be carried out in 2011 by the vessels FDS and Saipem 3000. A portion of the subsea equipment will be fabricated in Angola at Saipem's Ambriz and Soyo yards.
Italy
Eni has awarded Saipem the lumpsum turnkey contract for offshore works in the Mediterranean sea.
Saipem's vessel Castoro 7 (formerly Acergy Piper), acquired at the beginning of 2009, will carry out the works, scheduled to be completed in the third quarter of 2009.
Ghana, Oil Companies Ink Production Pact for Jubilee field.
by Will Connors
Dow Jones Newswires
7/28/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=78657
Ghana, riding high from President Barack Obama's visit this month, quietly signed a long-awaited development plan for one of the biggest oil discoveries in West Africa in the past decade.
The agreement -- reached July 15 with a group of international oil companies after months of negotiations -- brings Ghana much closer to its stated goal of producing oil by the second half of 2010.
Celebrated for its democratic rule and stability on a continent more often associated with coups d'etat and violence, Ghana is trying to figure out how to handle the oil discovery responsibly and avoid the problems that have beset other oil-rich African nations.
In 2007, a joint venture backed partly by two American oil companies discovered significant oil deposits off the coast of southwestern Ghana. The Jubilee Field, the most promising find, is estimated to hold at least 650 million barrels of recoverable oil, with estimates going as high as two billion barrels of oil.
The field is controlled by a partnership between London-based Tullow Oil PLC; Dallas-based Kosmos Energy, which is backed by U.S. private-equity firms Blackstone and Warburg Pincus; Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; as well as the Ghanaian government. The operators expect Jubilee to produce about 120,000 barrels a day by the second half of next year.
While this isn't close to the amount being produced in the larger oil players in Africa -- namely Nigeria and Angola -- oil production could bring Ghana $1 billion a year in revenue by the end of next year, the International Monetary Fund estimates.
Ghanaian officials are aware of the burden that oil and natural-gas riches have brought to countries like Nigeria, and are carefully negotiating their position with the oil companies.
Nigeria has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenue over the past four decades due largely to corrupt government officials. It also faces a violent militant campaign that has led to hundreds of foreigners and locals being kidnapped and pipeline attacks that regularly shut down the flow of oil.
That Ghana has held five consecutive democratic elections -- the most recent one in December -- and is mostly peaceful has inspired confidence among many analysts that the country will better handle its oil and gas resources than Nigeria or Angola and Equatorial Guinea.
Ghana has a more diverse revenue stream than Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea: It is the world's second-largest cocoa producer after neighboring Ivory Coast and Africa's second-largest gold producer after South Africa.
But per capita income is still among the lowest in the world, and inflation increased to 20% earlier this year after food and fuel prices jumped. A $600 million financing program from the IMF was approved July 16, and is meant to help Ghana bolster its economy, which is expected to grow by 4.5% this year, before oil production begins.
The development agreement between Ghana and the oil companies paves the way for concrete steps to be taken on the production of the Jubilee Field. The next expected move will be the sale of Kosmos's stake in the field, expected to sell for anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion, according to industry officials.
Dow Jones Newswires
7/28/2009
URL: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=78657
Ghana, riding high from President Barack Obama's visit this month, quietly signed a long-awaited development plan for one of the biggest oil discoveries in West Africa in the past decade.
The agreement -- reached July 15 with a group of international oil companies after months of negotiations -- brings Ghana much closer to its stated goal of producing oil by the second half of 2010.
Celebrated for its democratic rule and stability on a continent more often associated with coups d'etat and violence, Ghana is trying to figure out how to handle the oil discovery responsibly and avoid the problems that have beset other oil-rich African nations.
In 2007, a joint venture backed partly by two American oil companies discovered significant oil deposits off the coast of southwestern Ghana. The Jubilee Field, the most promising find, is estimated to hold at least 650 million barrels of recoverable oil, with estimates going as high as two billion barrels of oil.
The field is controlled by a partnership between London-based Tullow Oil PLC; Dallas-based Kosmos Energy, which is backed by U.S. private-equity firms Blackstone and Warburg Pincus; Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp.; as well as the Ghanaian government. The operators expect Jubilee to produce about 120,000 barrels a day by the second half of next year.
While this isn't close to the amount being produced in the larger oil players in Africa -- namely Nigeria and Angola -- oil production could bring Ghana $1 billion a year in revenue by the end of next year, the International Monetary Fund estimates.
Ghanaian officials are aware of the burden that oil and natural-gas riches have brought to countries like Nigeria, and are carefully negotiating their position with the oil companies.
Nigeria has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenue over the past four decades due largely to corrupt government officials. It also faces a violent militant campaign that has led to hundreds of foreigners and locals being kidnapped and pipeline attacks that regularly shut down the flow of oil.
That Ghana has held five consecutive democratic elections -- the most recent one in December -- and is mostly peaceful has inspired confidence among many analysts that the country will better handle its oil and gas resources than Nigeria or Angola and Equatorial Guinea.
Ghana has a more diverse revenue stream than Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea: It is the world's second-largest cocoa producer after neighboring Ivory Coast and Africa's second-largest gold producer after South Africa.
But per capita income is still among the lowest in the world, and inflation increased to 20% earlier this year after food and fuel prices jumped. A $600 million financing program from the IMF was approved July 16, and is meant to help Ghana bolster its economy, which is expected to grow by 4.5% this year, before oil production begins.
The development agreement between Ghana and the oil companies paves the way for concrete steps to be taken on the production of the Jubilee Field. The next expected move will be the sale of Kosmos's stake in the field, expected to sell for anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion, according to industry officials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
