News
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Memo commission was selective and made up some charges: HaqqaniBy Our Correspondent
ISLAMABAD: In his reply to the memo commission’s report, former ambassador Husain Haqqani has accused the memo commission of conducting a “roving inquiry” and failing to ascertain facts while casting aspersions on his person.
The reply filed through human rights lawyer and former Supreme Court Bar Association president, Asma Jahangir, says, “The bias and grinding prejudice of the commission is also reflected in several comments they make against the petitioner.”
It cites the commission’s comments about Washington embassy’s special expenditure funds (SSE) as an example. According to the filing before the Supreme Court, the commission had no mandate to go into the issue and it made several factually incorrect comments, such as calling Haqqani’s citing of SSE rules as reference to “non-existent rules.” In reality, secret service expenditures are included in the Government of Pakistan Treasury Rules and appear on pages 72 to 74. These explicitly state that secret funds cannot be delved into by audit or revealed.
According to Haqqani’s lawyers, the commission chose excerpts from Haqqani’s book Pakistan Between Mosque and Military criticising Mehrangate and turned it into “uncalled for remarks” about the former ambassador, implying that he wanted General Aslam Beg’s use of secret funds divulged but himself sought over rules.
In fact, Mehrangate does not relate to SSE funds but to money allegedly obtained from a private bank and misused for rigging or influencing an election. “The Washington embassy, on the other hand, which has ISI and IB officers also posted in it, was not unlawfully raising private funds and was only advancing Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives as determined in Islamabad. Haqqani was not the policy maker in Islamabad,” Haqqani’s lawyers said.
Haqqani’s reply submitted in the Supreme Court accuses the memo commission of distorting his words and of failing to find out facts before making these wrongful assertions. “The commission has distorted the words of the petitioner on a response submitted by the petitioner to indicate the sensitive nature of the use of such funds. In no way did the petitioner make any admission that he had himself indulged in illegal activities under any law whatsoever,” it says.
The reference is to the commission’s suggestion that Haqqani may have been refusing to give details of secret funds expenditure for fear of prosecution in the US, which Haqqani’s lawyers say is preposterous because Haqqani never violated US law with which he is immensely familiar. The commission’s contention that embassies do not have SSE funds or that they did not exist before Haqqani was based on the alleged replies given verbally by two foreign service officers in camera, are also being challenged.
According to one of Haqqani’s lawyers, the former ambassador wants to maintain dignity about not criticising the Foreign Office or practices of secret agencies under the cover of Pakistani embassies but the commission’s inaccurate claims might force him to do just that when his case is next heard. “It may not be in anyone’s interest to open the Pandora’s box of SSE funds used in countries ranging from Afghanistan and Bangladesh to Zimbabwe as well as at the UN Mission for securing support for foreign policy objectives.”
Haqqani’s reply submitted in the Supreme Court also questions the memo commission’s hints that he “probably used these secret funds for personal gains” and points out that this claim was made by the commission “without any probe” because this “suggestion never made by any witness or by any official” appearing before the commission.
According to Haqqani’s response the commission has taken Mansoor Ijaz’s word and listened too much to his lawyer’s unwarranted accusations without adhering to its original task or of providing due process. “The commission concludes that a close relation between the petitioner (Haqqani) and witness Mansoor Ijaz existed. This conclusion is based on exchange of a few emails,” the reply says. “There are several exchanges of emails with a large number of people especially journalists, diplomats and ambassadors. The petitioner (Haqqani) has been in professions where gaining information is important and receives hundreds of emails but does not necessarily either respond to all of them or is in close relationship with email connections,” it points out.
According to the reply filed by Asma Jahangir, “The commission has totally and conveniently glossed over the fact brought out in the cross examination of Mansoor Ijaz where he admits that ‘Haqqani has neither met my present nor former wife nor have I met Haqqani’s wife’. Then the witness admits that he met Haqqani no more than ‘a dozen times’ in the last 10 years, while both lived in the same country, and often were in the same city.”
Haqqani’s reply accuses the commission of bias, selective use of facts and ignoring points that were raised during its proceedings that do not support its pre-conceived notions. According to the reply, Mansoor Ijaz’s admissions about drafting the controversial memo himself, his assertion that Haqqani was more influential in Washington than him and his “fickleness” and “unreliability” as a witness were not taken into account.
“The commission has concluded that Mansoor Ijaz is to be believed and found Ijaz ‘to be a credible witness’. This despite several contradictions in the testimony of Ijaz and his open admission of being involved with several intelligence agencies of the world while being an ordinary citizen of the United States. He admits to his very controversial role in Sudan and Kashmir. The testimony of Yasin Malik was not only ignored by the commission but it has erroneously and without any evidence concluded that securing Malik’s reaction was a plan of the petitioner,” the reply argues.
According to Asma Jahangir’s submission before the Supreme Court, “Amongst several contradictions in the testimony of Mansoor Ijaz one is particularly glaring, when he on the one hand claims that the petitioner has immense influence on the US administration and on the other claims that the petitioner needed a go-between to transmit a memo that Ijaz admits he himself drafted and sent to General James Jones. Ijaz also admits that he has no evidence of petitioner asking him to write the memorandum on telephone except his own hand-written notes, the authenticity of which is dubious. Relevant portions of the cross-examination are reproduced below:
“Q: Can you produce any document, email, SMS or BBM which would show that Haqqani had asked you to write the memorandum?
A: The only document which I can produce is exhibiting W4-1 which was my hand written notes that I took down when Haqqani telephoned me.”
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk