**So Pakistan Army is actually functioning under officers who took oath under modified Indian Army Act of 1911. The mockery and breakup of the country is no doubt obvious by these military officers who never took oath to serve the country by not involving in the politics. The government should dismiss such officers asap if still serving, unless they take oath under 1973 constitution. It is a shame that how these people really ruined the country thinking as the country ‘in ke baap ki jaagir hay oar awam un kay ghulam hain’.
A tsunami type operation is required to re-organize Pakistan Army giving equal share to all provinces. Its head quarter should be shifted to Mastung Baluchistan. Naval port is at Karachi, but head quarter is in Islamabad. Why, it should be brought back to Karachi at once. All dry ports should be closed in Punjab and brought back to Karachi where actual port exist.
**
Asghar Khan petition hearing: Beg: I did not take oath on
SLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was surprised on Thursday when a former army chief disclosed that like many other senior officers he never took oath under the 1973 Constitution because he had joined the military service prior to its adoption.
Advocate Akram Sheikh, the counsel for former army chief Gen (retd) Mirza Aslam Beg, stirred a fresh controversy when he said his client had joined the Pakistan Army in 1952 and as such he took oath prescribed in the Indian Army Act of 1911 which was later modified.
Gen Beg is at the centre of a controversy for his alleged role in dishing out Rs140 million among politicians in the 1990s to form the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) and block Benazir Bhutto’s PPP from coming to power.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain had taken up a petition filed by Tehrik-i-Istiqlal chief Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan who had accused the ISI of financing the politicians in the 1990s. The petition is based on an affidavit of former ISI director general and ambassador Lt-Gen (retd) Asad Durrani.
Akram Sheikh requested the court to issue a directive requiring senior officers of the armed forces to take fresh oath under the 1973 Constitution within a week.
A senior counsel said, on condition of anonymity and without naming any person, that a number of serving army generals who had not taken oath under the 1973 Constitution still held senior posts.
Legal experts are of the opinion that the arguments meant to suggest that the bar under the oath prescribed by the 1973 Constitution not to get involved in political affairs was not their in the earlier oath.
Senior counsel Nadeem Ahmed explained that unlike the 1952 and 1956 constitutions, the 1973 Constitution had been adopted after the painful event of 1971 when the country was dismembered.
The event, he said, had led to the appointment of the Hamoodur Rehman Commission and it was against that historical background that for the first time two unique provisions – Article 244 and Article 6 – which were not their in other constitutions of the world, were inserted into the 1973 Constitution.
The Article 244 requires all members of the armed forces to take oath as prescribed in the Constitution and undertake that they would not get involved in politics. The Article 6 asks for punishment under high treason for subverting the Constitution.
“If what Gen Beg says is correct then I think the leadership of our armed forces is treating, in good faith, the 1973 Constitution as applicable to the post-73 inductees only,” Advocate Nadeem said, adding that if that was the case then it was time that the leadership of the armed forces rectified this bona fide, but serious error, without waiting for court’s directives. “This will help members of the armed forces to be bound by a single oath.”
Akram Sheikh suggested that reforms should be introduced in the armed forces and the ISI be brought under the control of the army to ensure transparency. He said the court should declare void the government notification putting the intelligence agency under the control of the executive.
Former Sindh chief of the Military Intelligence (MI) Brig (retd) Hamid Saeed appeared before the court and submitted a written statement saying that he had details of all accounts of the 1990 era.
He has been accused by Gen Asad Durrani of having a role in the IJI saga.
“Are you making the statement with full responsibility and whether you would like to claim privilege,” the court asked Brig Saeed.
The court also provided Brig Saeed an opportunity to take back the statement and submit a fresh one after deleting unnecessary things.
Brig Saeed said he would not like to take back the statement but requested the court to keep the first eight paragraphs classified.
None of the paragraphs was divulged either by the court or by Brig Saeed.
He said he had prepared the statement from his personal diary and did not have any official document because he knew he could be hanged for keeping official documents.
Brig Saeed conceded that one of the paragraphs of his statement amounted to defamation of the army which was an offence under the Constitution.
The director legal of the defence ministry, Commander Shahbaz, submitted a report and claimed that it was a classified document. Attorney General Irfan Qadir also said that the document should not be made public.
But the court said it was not the requisite information it had asked for and that the document was already available on the record of the court.
Commander Shahbaz sought more time to consult Defence Secretary Lt-Gen (retd) Asif Yasin Malik for the purpose.
But the court said the defence secretary should have appeared before it because the case was of special significance.
Military Secretary to the President Brig Mohammad Amir informed the court that despite thorough search no evidence could be found to establish that a political cell was operating in the President House. No record could be found prior to 1990, he added.
The case will be taken up on Friday when the attorney general is likely to address the court.