http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/w...-from-us.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&smid=tw-share
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s chief justice has wielded his court as a whip against the status quo, the country’s rich and powerful, calling top government officials and military spymasters to account and asserting himself as a political force in his own right. But on Tuesday he found himself at the center of a new political firestorm when a well-connected property baron stood up in court and accused his family of corrupt dealing, detailing $3.7 million in kickbacks and cash payments.
The allegations were a serious blow for the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who until now has been virtually venerated by many Pakistanis for his flamboyant court crusades against powerful figures. In his testimony on Tuesday, the businessman, Malik Riaz Hussain, laid out a seemingly self-incriminating campaign of corruption, implying that he had bankrolled luxury vacations in London, gambling in Monte Carlo and substantial cash kickbacks to Chief Justice Chaudhry’s 32-year-old son and his wife over the past two years.
Mr. Hussain said that Chief Justice Chaudhry’s son, Arsalan Iftikhar, had extracted the payments in return for favorable treatment in a slew of court cases related to his property empire. “I was victimized and blackmailed by him,” he said.
Mr. Hussain did not directly accuse Chief Justice Chaudhry of wrongdoing, but alluded to secret meetings “in the dead of night” between the two men.
“I will make more disclosures,” he told reporters, holding a copy of the Koran in one hand. “I will tell people what is happening in Pakistan.”
The lurid accusations and dark innuendo represented a once-unthinkable challenge to Chief Justice Chaudhry, who has steered the court into new and often controversial legal waters in recent years yet never faced such public questioning about his personal ethical standards.
Chief Justice Chaudhry had recused himself from Tuesday’s proceedings, yet only hours earlier he presided over another high-drama case in a different corner of the gleaming Supreme Court complex that offered a striking example of the broad powers his court has accrued. There, a panel of judges reported its findings that the country’s former ambassador to the United States had secretly approached the Obama administration last year requesting help to stave off a possible military takeover.
The findings, in what has become known here as the “Memogate” scandal, opened the door to possible treason charges against the envoy, Husain Haqqani, a close ally of President Asif Ali Zardari. Chief Justice Chaudhry ordered Mr. Haqqani to return from the United States, where he is now teaching, within two weeks — something few believe is likely.
But such was the atmosphere on Tuesday that the ruling was treated almost as a sideshow to the accusations surrounding the chief justice’s family.
The drama was led by Mr. Hussain, the businessman, who flew into Islamabad from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on his private jet and proceeded to the courthouse. It was a most uncharacteristic move.
Until now Mr. Hussain, who made a fortune on the back of property development deals with the military, had a reputation as a well-connected but discreet power broker who shunned media attention. But in court his lawyers furnished extensive details of payments that they said were linked to the chief justice’s close family.
Producing copies of air tickets, hotel bills, wire transfers and car hire documents, Mr. Hussain offered an financial account of three European vacations taken by Arsalan Iftikhar in 2010 and 2011. The detail suggested a high-roller more akin to the son of an Arab prince rather than of a Pakistani judge.
During one trip to London in 2010, for example, Mr. Iftikhar spent more than $8,000 to hire a Range Rover for transportation. Later, in Monte Carlo, he spent around $10,000 on four nights at the Htel de Paris and worked up more than $12,000 in gambling debts. A year later, he rented an apartment on London’s Park Lane, and stayed with his mother and siblings at the nearby Marriott Hotel.
Mr. Hussain said the tab for the three trips, which cost $168,000, was picked up by his son-in-law, Salman Ahmed Khan, who is based in London. Although he never said it directly, Mr. Hussain gave the impression that he ultimately footed the bill. He also listed four cash payments totaling $3.6 million “made to Arsalan.” Documents lodged in court did not specify where the funds came from, and there was no further confirmation that money had changed hands.
Despite this largess, Mr. Hussain said, his property disputes in court did not progress satisfactorily. “Contrary to promises and assurances, I did not get any relief,” he told the court.
Mr. Hussain said he then warned Chief Justice Chaudhry, through an intermediary, about this son’s demands for money. “There are several other businessman, like me, who are being blackmailed,” he said.
But instead of taking action against the chief justice’s son, the courts charged Mr. Hussain with murder. “Instead of providing me with justice, they tried to screw me more,” he said at a news conference later in the day, holding up copy of the Koran as proof of his honesty.
What was least clear, and most speculated about in the Pakistani public in recent days, was what had motivated Mr. Hussain to come forward. “No one has prompted me,” he insisted.
Chief Justice Chaudhry did not respond directly, but his assistant, the Supreme Court registrar, told reporters that the judge had only met Mr. Hussain before his reinstatement in March 2009.
“This is unprecedented,” said Cyril Almeida, an analyst with the English-language newspaper Dawn. “An institution like the Supreme Court is not designed to withstand this kind of ignominy. It cuts too close to the bone.”
While Chief Justice Chaudhry has been criticized this year for pursuing what was seen as a personal grudge against President Asif Ali Zardari in the courts, he has also been praised for taking on the country’s top generals, including those of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, for their part in suspected human rights abuses in the northwest and Baluchistan Province.
Some have speculated that those military cases may have prompted Mr. Hussain’s aggressive actions, which he flatly denied. Still, it appeared clear that the businessman wants to see Chief Justice Chaudhry ousted from office — something that is not easy to achieve.
Under Pakistan’s Constitution, the chief justice can only be fired by the Supreme Judicial Council, which is composed of fellow judges. The last time Chief Justice Chaudhry faced such a council was in spring 2007, when the country’s military ruler at the time, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, tried to have him fired.
That effort ended badly for General Musharraf when the streets filled with huge protests in support of Chief Justice Chaudhry.
Nevertheless, there is little doubt that Chief Justice Chaudhry’s position is suddenly weaker than it has been in years.
Late Tuesday night, local media reported that he had summoned a meeting of the entire Supreme Court bench for June 15 — a move widely interpreted as an attempt to rally his fellow judges behind him.
Mr. Almeida, the columnist, predicated this latest scandal would continue to widen, saying, “In the days ahead we’re going to see more tawdry allegations coming out, skeletons tumbling out of closet.”
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s chief justice has wielded his court as a whip against the status quo, the country’s rich and powerful, calling top government officials and military spymasters to account and asserting himself as a political force in his own right. But on Tuesday he found himself at the center of a new political firestorm when a well-connected property baron stood up in court and accused his family of corrupt dealing, detailing $3.7 million in kickbacks and cash payments.
The allegations were a serious blow for the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who until now has been virtually venerated by many Pakistanis for his flamboyant court crusades against powerful figures. In his testimony on Tuesday, the businessman, Malik Riaz Hussain, laid out a seemingly self-incriminating campaign of corruption, implying that he had bankrolled luxury vacations in London, gambling in Monte Carlo and substantial cash kickbacks to Chief Justice Chaudhry’s 32-year-old son and his wife over the past two years.
Mr. Hussain said that Chief Justice Chaudhry’s son, Arsalan Iftikhar, had extracted the payments in return for favorable treatment in a slew of court cases related to his property empire. “I was victimized and blackmailed by him,” he said.
Mr. Hussain did not directly accuse Chief Justice Chaudhry of wrongdoing, but alluded to secret meetings “in the dead of night” between the two men.
“I will make more disclosures,” he told reporters, holding a copy of the Koran in one hand. “I will tell people what is happening in Pakistan.”
The lurid accusations and dark innuendo represented a once-unthinkable challenge to Chief Justice Chaudhry, who has steered the court into new and often controversial legal waters in recent years yet never faced such public questioning about his personal ethical standards.
Chief Justice Chaudhry had recused himself from Tuesday’s proceedings, yet only hours earlier he presided over another high-drama case in a different corner of the gleaming Supreme Court complex that offered a striking example of the broad powers his court has accrued. There, a panel of judges reported its findings that the country’s former ambassador to the United States had secretly approached the Obama administration last year requesting help to stave off a possible military takeover.
The findings, in what has become known here as the “Memogate” scandal, opened the door to possible treason charges against the envoy, Husain Haqqani, a close ally of President Asif Ali Zardari. Chief Justice Chaudhry ordered Mr. Haqqani to return from the United States, where he is now teaching, within two weeks — something few believe is likely.
But such was the atmosphere on Tuesday that the ruling was treated almost as a sideshow to the accusations surrounding the chief justice’s family.
The drama was led by Mr. Hussain, the businessman, who flew into Islamabad from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on his private jet and proceeded to the courthouse. It was a most uncharacteristic move.
Until now Mr. Hussain, who made a fortune on the back of property development deals with the military, had a reputation as a well-connected but discreet power broker who shunned media attention. But in court his lawyers furnished extensive details of payments that they said were linked to the chief justice’s close family.
Producing copies of air tickets, hotel bills, wire transfers and car hire documents, Mr. Hussain offered an financial account of three European vacations taken by Arsalan Iftikhar in 2010 and 2011. The detail suggested a high-roller more akin to the son of an Arab prince rather than of a Pakistani judge.
During one trip to London in 2010, for example, Mr. Iftikhar spent more than $8,000 to hire a Range Rover for transportation. Later, in Monte Carlo, he spent around $10,000 on four nights at the Htel de Paris and worked up more than $12,000 in gambling debts. A year later, he rented an apartment on London’s Park Lane, and stayed with his mother and siblings at the nearby Marriott Hotel.
Mr. Hussain said the tab for the three trips, which cost $168,000, was picked up by his son-in-law, Salman Ahmed Khan, who is based in London. Although he never said it directly, Mr. Hussain gave the impression that he ultimately footed the bill. He also listed four cash payments totaling $3.6 million “made to Arsalan.” Documents lodged in court did not specify where the funds came from, and there was no further confirmation that money had changed hands.
Despite this largess, Mr. Hussain said, his property disputes in court did not progress satisfactorily. “Contrary to promises and assurances, I did not get any relief,” he told the court.
Mr. Hussain said he then warned Chief Justice Chaudhry, through an intermediary, about this son’s demands for money. “There are several other businessman, like me, who are being blackmailed,” he said.
But instead of taking action against the chief justice’s son, the courts charged Mr. Hussain with murder. “Instead of providing me with justice, they tried to screw me more,” he said at a news conference later in the day, holding up copy of the Koran as proof of his honesty.
What was least clear, and most speculated about in the Pakistani public in recent days, was what had motivated Mr. Hussain to come forward. “No one has prompted me,” he insisted.
Chief Justice Chaudhry did not respond directly, but his assistant, the Supreme Court registrar, told reporters that the judge had only met Mr. Hussain before his reinstatement in March 2009.
“This is unprecedented,” said Cyril Almeida, an analyst with the English-language newspaper Dawn. “An institution like the Supreme Court is not designed to withstand this kind of ignominy. It cuts too close to the bone.”
While Chief Justice Chaudhry has been criticized this year for pursuing what was seen as a personal grudge against President Asif Ali Zardari in the courts, he has also been praised for taking on the country’s top generals, including those of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, for their part in suspected human rights abuses in the northwest and Baluchistan Province.
Some have speculated that those military cases may have prompted Mr. Hussain’s aggressive actions, which he flatly denied. Still, it appeared clear that the businessman wants to see Chief Justice Chaudhry ousted from office — something that is not easy to achieve.
Under Pakistan’s Constitution, the chief justice can only be fired by the Supreme Judicial Council, which is composed of fellow judges. The last time Chief Justice Chaudhry faced such a council was in spring 2007, when the country’s military ruler at the time, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, tried to have him fired.
That effort ended badly for General Musharraf when the streets filled with huge protests in support of Chief Justice Chaudhry.
Nevertheless, there is little doubt that Chief Justice Chaudhry’s position is suddenly weaker than it has been in years.
Late Tuesday night, local media reported that he had summoned a meeting of the entire Supreme Court bench for June 15 — a move widely interpreted as an attempt to rally his fellow judges behind him.
Mr. Almeida, the columnist, predicated this latest scandal would continue to widen, saying, “In the days ahead we’re going to see more tawdry allegations coming out, skeletons tumbling out of closet.”
Last edited by a moderator:
