By Baqir Sajjad Syed
ISLAMABAD, Jan 11: The Scotland Yard team assisting local investigators in the probe into the assassination of PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto is mandated to determine the precise cause of her death, according to the terms of reference for the team released by the British High Commission on Friday.
The high commission said that the local authorities remained the principal investigators.
It made the terms of reference public after UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s commitment in the House of Commons regarding publication of the terms of reference. According to the text of the agreement between the Pakistani authorities and the British Metropolitan Police Service, “the principal purpose of the deployment is to assist the local authorities in providing clarity regarding the precise cause of Ms Bhutto’s death”.
The five-member Scotland Yard team comprising experts in crime investigation, forensics and evidence analysis had arrived last week Friday following a request by President Musharraf to assist in the investigation of the cause of the PPP leader’s death. The team was augmented by three more experts a week later.
The cause of Ms Bhutto’s death has become suspicious after doctors at the Rawalpindi General Hospital issued an inconclusive medical report and her husband Asif Ali Zardari refused to allow her autopsy. Some forensic evidences were also lost in the post-incident handling by civic agencies.
The task remains challenging in the absence of a comprehensive medical report and autopsy.
Explaining the mode of working of the team as per the agreement with the Pakistani authorities, the British High Commission said: “The team will provide forensic expertise and other investigative assistance as appears appropriate to senior officer detective superintendent Mr MacBrayne, who will lead the Metropolitan Police Service team. The
MPS officers will assist and report to the Pakistani investigators.”
The statement said that the primacy and responsibility for the investigations remained with the Pakistani authorities.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Benazir’s ‘will’ be made part of probe: Pervaiz
By Our Correspondent
OKARA, Jan 10: Former chief minister Pervaiz Elahi has said that the ‘will’ allegedly dictated by Benazir Bhutto be made the part of investigations conducted by the Scotland Yard team keeping in view the main beneficiary of her murder.
The PML-Q Punjab chief said this while addressing a workers’ convention at the farmhouse of PML-Q’s NA-146 candidate Rao Muhammad Ajmal Khan in Deepalpur on Thursday. Candidates Syed Afzal Ali Shah (NA-147), Syed Raza Ali Gillani (PP-187) and Malik Nazar Farid Khokhar (PP-192) were also among participants.
Mr Elahi said that the signature of the late Benazir Bhutto should be got verified because she had declared some three years back that her husband had nothing to do with the PPP.
He said the late PPP chairperson had therefore not awarded the party ticket to Asif Ali Zardari.
“I am sure that the major beneficiary of Ms Bhutto’s murder is Mr Zardari who wants to take hold of the PPP”, he said.
The former chief minister said now Nawaz Sharif should adopt the name of `Nawaz Bhutto Zardari Sharif’ for being the Punjab franchiser of the Zardari company.
Although the Shah Muqeem group chief Syed Afzal Ali Shah and his son Syed Raza Ali Gillani, the former provincial minister, in their addresses severely criticized their opponent and former chief minister Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, Pervaiz Elahi did not even gestures towards him.
The local administration had taken strict security measures as no one was allowed entry without undergoing a thorough search following the suicide blast in Lahore. Sniffer dogs were also assisting the security personnel.
DPO Mirza Faran Baig, DCO Aslam Kamboh and EDO (Revenue) Ghulam Nabi Krori were present there along with a heavy police contingent.
OKARA, Jan 10: Former chief minister Pervaiz Elahi has said that the ‘will’ allegedly dictated by Benazir Bhutto be made the part of investigations conducted by the Scotland Yard team keeping in view the main beneficiary of her murder.
The PML-Q Punjab chief said this while addressing a workers’ convention at the farmhouse of PML-Q’s NA-146 candidate Rao Muhammad Ajmal Khan in Deepalpur on Thursday. Candidates Syed Afzal Ali Shah (NA-147), Syed Raza Ali Gillani (PP-187) and Malik Nazar Farid Khokhar (PP-192) were also among participants.
Mr Elahi said that the signature of the late Benazir Bhutto should be got verified because she had declared some three years back that her husband had nothing to do with the PPP.
He said the late PPP chairperson had therefore not awarded the party ticket to Asif Ali Zardari.
“I am sure that the major beneficiary of Ms Bhutto’s murder is Mr Zardari who wants to take hold of the PPP”, he said.
The former chief minister said now Nawaz Sharif should adopt the name of `Nawaz Bhutto Zardari Sharif’ for being the Punjab franchiser of the Zardari company.
Although the Shah Muqeem group chief Syed Afzal Ali Shah and his son Syed Raza Ali Gillani, the former provincial minister, in their addresses severely criticized their opponent and former chief minister Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, Pervaiz Elahi did not even gestures towards him.
The local administration had taken strict security measures as no one was allowed entry without undergoing a thorough search following the suicide blast in Lahore. Sniffer dogs were also assisting the security personnel.
DPO Mirza Faran Baig, DCO Aslam Kamboh and EDO (Revenue) Ghulam Nabi Krori were present there along with a heavy police contingent.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
US Electoral System
Powers:
The United States is a republic, which means that the people hold the power and they elect representatives to decide what to do with it.
It is also a federal country, meaning that powers are divided between central government and those in the individual states.
Although these powers have changed over time, the US constitution originally only gave certain powers to the federal government. Many government services are still the responsibility of state governments.
Each state elects a governor and politicians to sit in the Senate and House of Representatives - the two chambers of the legislature.
Federal power is divided into three separate branches of government - the president and his cabinet (the Executive), the two chambers of the US Congress (the Legislature) and the courts (Judiciary).
(click here to return)
Elections:
The United States holds elections every two years. Once every four years there is a presidential election, with congressional elections held at the same time.
Mid-term elections take place in-between presidential elections, in the middle of the presidential term.
Elections for the House of Representatives are held every two years. Senators have six-year terms, with one-third elected every two years.
State governors serve four-year terms with about half up for election every two years.
Primaries:
Voters also get to choose their party's candidate in the main election. Voters register which party they support, and can then participate in primary elections.
Before he became the Republican candidate for president in 2000, George W Bush had to beat Republican Senator John McCain in primary elections.
Primaries are sometimes quite close to the general election, and once they are over, candidates must turn quickly to the general election.
(click here to return)
Constitution:
America declared its independence from Britain in 1776.
The Declaration of Independence read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Eleven years later, the separate states joined together to form the United States. At Philadelphia in 1787, a convention attended by the most important men of the day produced a constitution.
Unlike the UK, the US has a written constitution. It has four important principles: republicanism, federalism, the 'separation of powers', and 'checks and balances'.
(click here to return)
President:
The president's main function is to enforce the law, by running the federal government. He also proposes laws and the annual budget to Congress, is commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, and is broadly responsible for foreign policy.
He can also veto bills passed in the Congress, although that veto can be overridden if two-thirds of the Congress vote against it.
The president is elected every four years, but cannot serve more than two terms.
His cabinet members are not elected and are not normally members of Congress. They have to leave Congress to join the cabinet.
(click here to return)
Congress:
The Congress is responsible for passing laws and the budget. It has two chambers - the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The two chambers share the power to declare war, while the Senate must approve treaties agreed to by the president. Senators must also approve the appointment of judges and many government officials.
Every state has two senators, but the number of members of the House depends on the population.
For example, a state like Wyoming with a small population has two senators and just one member of the House, while a state like California with a huge population still has two senators, but 43 members of the House.
In total there are 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives.
(click here to return)
Judiciary:
The third part of government is the courts system - known as the Judiciary. The Supreme Court has nine judges who decide whether laws passed are in line with the constitution.
The judges are nominated by the president, and have to be approved by the Senate. They are extremely powerful positions. The judges are appointed for life, so a vacancy can only arise through the death, resignation, retirement, or impeachment of a sitting judge.
(click here to return)
Two-party system:
The US has a two-party system, which makes it very hard for anyone who is not a Democrat or a Republican to be elected. Almost everyone in Congress is a Democrat or Republican.
Ballot candidates
Voters are required to vote on a ballot where they select the candidate of their choice. The presidential ballot is actually voting "for the electors of a candidate" meaning that the voter is not actually voting for the candidate, but endorsing members of the Electoral College who will, in turn, directly elect the President.
Many voting ballots allow a voter to "blanket vote" for all candidates in a particular political party or to select individual candidates on a line by line voting system. Which candidates appear on the voting ticket is determined through a legal process known as ballot access. Usually, the size of the candidate's political party and the results of the major nomination conventions determine who is pre-listed on the presidential ballot. Thus, the presidential election ticket will not list every single candidate running for President, but only those who have secured a major party nomination or whose size of their political party warrants having been formally listed. Laws are in effect to have other candidates pre-listed on a ticket, provided that a sufficient number of voters have endorsed the candidate, usually through a signature list. Never, however, in U.S. history has a 3rd party candidate for president secured a place on the election ticket in this fashion.[citation needed]
The final way to be elected for president is to have one's name written in at the time of election as a write-in candidate. This is used for candidates who did not fulfill the legal requirements to be pre-listed on the voting ticket. It is also used by voters to express a distaste for the listed candidates, by writing in a ridiculous candidate for president such as Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader. In any event, a write-in candidate has never won an election for President of the United States.
What is the Electoral College?
Voters in each state choose among slates of electors pledged to one candidate or another. These electors - collectively called the Electoral College - in turn cast their votes to pick the president.
Each state receives the number of electoral votes equal to the number of its members of the House of Representatives, which depends on the state's population, and the number of its senators, which is always two.
So, for example, Florida has 25 electoral votes, because it has 23 members of the House and two senators. California has the most electoral votes, with 54. No state gets any fewer than three electoral votes. The District of Columbia also has three electoral votes.
In 48 states, and in the District of Columbia, it is a winner-take-all system: The winner of the popular vote in a given state receives all of that state's electoral votes.
Let's take, for example, the state of Texas (with 32 electoral votes). This election, Bush won 66% of the total vote, Gore won 33% of the total vote. Because of this winner-take-all system, the "score" is not 66 to 33 (Bush over Gore) but 32 to 0 - Bush takes all. In essence, votes for Gore go uncounted.
In New York (33 electoral votes), Gore won 60% of the vote, Bush 35%. Likewise here, the score is not 60 to 35, but 33 to 0 - Gore takes all. In this case, Bush's votes go uncounted.
The United States is a republic, which means that the people hold the power and they elect representatives to decide what to do with it.
It is also a federal country, meaning that powers are divided between central government and those in the individual states.
Although these powers have changed over time, the US constitution originally only gave certain powers to the federal government. Many government services are still the responsibility of state governments.
Each state elects a governor and politicians to sit in the Senate and House of Representatives - the two chambers of the legislature.
Federal power is divided into three separate branches of government - the president and his cabinet (the Executive), the two chambers of the US Congress (the Legislature) and the courts (Judiciary).
(click here to return)
Elections:
The United States holds elections every two years. Once every four years there is a presidential election, with congressional elections held at the same time.
Mid-term elections take place in-between presidential elections, in the middle of the presidential term.
Elections for the House of Representatives are held every two years. Senators have six-year terms, with one-third elected every two years.
State governors serve four-year terms with about half up for election every two years.
Primaries:
Voters also get to choose their party's candidate in the main election. Voters register which party they support, and can then participate in primary elections.
Before he became the Republican candidate for president in 2000, George W Bush had to beat Republican Senator John McCain in primary elections.
Primaries are sometimes quite close to the general election, and once they are over, candidates must turn quickly to the general election.
(click here to return)
Constitution:
America declared its independence from Britain in 1776.
The Declaration of Independence read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Eleven years later, the separate states joined together to form the United States. At Philadelphia in 1787, a convention attended by the most important men of the day produced a constitution.
Unlike the UK, the US has a written constitution. It has four important principles: republicanism, federalism, the 'separation of powers', and 'checks and balances'.
(click here to return)
President:
The president's main function is to enforce the law, by running the federal government. He also proposes laws and the annual budget to Congress, is commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, and is broadly responsible for foreign policy.
He can also veto bills passed in the Congress, although that veto can be overridden if two-thirds of the Congress vote against it.
The president is elected every four years, but cannot serve more than two terms.
His cabinet members are not elected and are not normally members of Congress. They have to leave Congress to join the cabinet.
(click here to return)
Congress:
The Congress is responsible for passing laws and the budget. It has two chambers - the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The two chambers share the power to declare war, while the Senate must approve treaties agreed to by the president. Senators must also approve the appointment of judges and many government officials.
Every state has two senators, but the number of members of the House depends on the population.
For example, a state like Wyoming with a small population has two senators and just one member of the House, while a state like California with a huge population still has two senators, but 43 members of the House.
In total there are 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives.
(click here to return)
Judiciary:
The third part of government is the courts system - known as the Judiciary. The Supreme Court has nine judges who decide whether laws passed are in line with the constitution.
The judges are nominated by the president, and have to be approved by the Senate. They are extremely powerful positions. The judges are appointed for life, so a vacancy can only arise through the death, resignation, retirement, or impeachment of a sitting judge.
(click here to return)
Two-party system:
The US has a two-party system, which makes it very hard for anyone who is not a Democrat or a Republican to be elected. Almost everyone in Congress is a Democrat or Republican.
Ballot candidates
Voters are required to vote on a ballot where they select the candidate of their choice. The presidential ballot is actually voting "for the electors of a candidate" meaning that the voter is not actually voting for the candidate, but endorsing members of the Electoral College who will, in turn, directly elect the President.
Many voting ballots allow a voter to "blanket vote" for all candidates in a particular political party or to select individual candidates on a line by line voting system. Which candidates appear on the voting ticket is determined through a legal process known as ballot access. Usually, the size of the candidate's political party and the results of the major nomination conventions determine who is pre-listed on the presidential ballot. Thus, the presidential election ticket will not list every single candidate running for President, but only those who have secured a major party nomination or whose size of their political party warrants having been formally listed. Laws are in effect to have other candidates pre-listed on a ticket, provided that a sufficient number of voters have endorsed the candidate, usually through a signature list. Never, however, in U.S. history has a 3rd party candidate for president secured a place on the election ticket in this fashion.[citation needed]
The final way to be elected for president is to have one's name written in at the time of election as a write-in candidate. This is used for candidates who did not fulfill the legal requirements to be pre-listed on the voting ticket. It is also used by voters to express a distaste for the listed candidates, by writing in a ridiculous candidate for president such as Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader. In any event, a write-in candidate has never won an election for President of the United States.
What is the Electoral College?
Voters in each state choose among slates of electors pledged to one candidate or another. These electors - collectively called the Electoral College - in turn cast their votes to pick the president.
Each state receives the number of electoral votes equal to the number of its members of the House of Representatives, which depends on the state's population, and the number of its senators, which is always two.
So, for example, Florida has 25 electoral votes, because it has 23 members of the House and two senators. California has the most electoral votes, with 54. No state gets any fewer than three electoral votes. The District of Columbia also has three electoral votes.
In 48 states, and in the District of Columbia, it is a winner-take-all system: The winner of the popular vote in a given state receives all of that state's electoral votes.
Let's take, for example, the state of Texas (with 32 electoral votes). This election, Bush won 66% of the total vote, Gore won 33% of the total vote. Because of this winner-take-all system, the "score" is not 66 to 33 (Bush over Gore) but 32 to 0 - Bush takes all. In essence, votes for Gore go uncounted.
In New York (33 electoral votes), Gore won 60% of the vote, Bush 35%. Likewise here, the score is not 60 to 35, but 33 to 0 - Gore takes all. In this case, Bush's votes go uncounted.
Kerry to endorse Obama
Posted: 09:49 AM ET
Kerry will endorse Obama's presidential bid, sources tell CNN
(CNN) – Former 2004 presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry will endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, two sources told CNN Thursday.
The announcement will come at 2 p.m. in Charleston, S.C., the sources said.
"(Kerry) remains one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and (has) an e-mail list with millions of addresses," an Obama source said.
Kerry ran in 2004 on the Democratic ticket with former Sen. John Edwards, who is running this year for party's presidential nomination.
An Obama source suggested Kerry's endorsement is a big boost because "he (Kerry) remains one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and (has) an e-mail list with millions of addresses."
Kerry will endorse Obama's presidential bid, sources tell CNN
(CNN) – Former 2004 presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry will endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, two sources told CNN Thursday.
The announcement will come at 2 p.m. in Charleston, S.C., the sources said.
"(Kerry) remains one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and (has) an e-mail list with millions of addresses," an Obama source said.
Kerry ran in 2004 on the Democratic ticket with former Sen. John Edwards, who is running this year for party's presidential nomination.
An Obama source suggested Kerry's endorsement is a big boost because "he (Kerry) remains one of the most popular figures in the Democratic Party and (has) an e-mail list with millions of addresses."
Three more British detectives arrive
By Mohammad Asghar and Faisal Ali
RAWALPINDI/LAHORE, Jan 9: Another three British detectives arrived here from London on Wednesday. One of them is said to be an expert on the type of explosives used in the gun and bomb attack on PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto on Dec 27.
Five British forensic experts are already helping Pakistan in investigating the Rawalpindi carnage.
The team has collected forensic evidence, reconstructed the crime scene, and recorded statements from witnesses and the medical team that tried to revive Ms Bhutto after the attack.
“There is no breakthrough yet. We are examining the evidence closely with all technical help and expertise from Scotland Yard,” a senior Pakistani investigator said.
On Wednesday, members of the team arrived in Lahore and were received at the airport by government officials. The purpose of the team’s visit to Lahore is to visit the Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, to examine the weapons used in the attack.
The British team will be briefed by local forensic experts on their findings.
Members of the team will also meet ballistic specialists for their opinion about weapons and empty bullet shells.
The weapons and empty bullet shells used in the attack on Ms Bhutto were sent by the Rawalpindi police to the forensic laboratory in Lahore. The lab is the only one in the country fully equipped to examine weapons and explosives.
The team met Punjab Inspector-General of Police Ahmad Nasim and discussed with him matters relating to the investigation.
They will return to Rawalpindi on Thursday where they will be briefed by officials of the Punjab government about the incident. Additional IGP of Punjab, along with four officials, would brief the team on behalf of the provincial government, sources said.
Meanwhile, the British investigators have established an office at the police guest-house situated on the Police Lines in Rawalpindi.
RAWALPINDI/LAHORE, Jan 9: Another three British detectives arrived here from London on Wednesday. One of them is said to be an expert on the type of explosives used in the gun and bomb attack on PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto on Dec 27.
Five British forensic experts are already helping Pakistan in investigating the Rawalpindi carnage.
The team has collected forensic evidence, reconstructed the crime scene, and recorded statements from witnesses and the medical team that tried to revive Ms Bhutto after the attack.
“There is no breakthrough yet. We are examining the evidence closely with all technical help and expertise from Scotland Yard,” a senior Pakistani investigator said.
On Wednesday, members of the team arrived in Lahore and were received at the airport by government officials. The purpose of the team’s visit to Lahore is to visit the Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, to examine the weapons used in the attack.
The British team will be briefed by local forensic experts on their findings.
Members of the team will also meet ballistic specialists for their opinion about weapons and empty bullet shells.
The weapons and empty bullet shells used in the attack on Ms Bhutto were sent by the Rawalpindi police to the forensic laboratory in Lahore. The lab is the only one in the country fully equipped to examine weapons and explosives.
The team met Punjab Inspector-General of Police Ahmad Nasim and discussed with him matters relating to the investigation.
They will return to Rawalpindi on Thursday where they will be briefed by officials of the Punjab government about the incident. Additional IGP of Punjab, along with four officials, would brief the team on behalf of the provincial government, sources said.
Meanwhile, the British investigators have established an office at the police guest-house situated on the Police Lines in Rawalpindi.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
KARACHI: Bridge collapse report ready
KARACHI: Bridge collapse report ready
KARACHI, Jan 8: Federal (caretaker) Minister for Communication Barrister Habibur Rehman has said that the inquiry report pertaining to the collapse of the Shershah bridge, a part of the Northern Bypass, is ready and will be made public within 10 days.
Talking to journalists at the National Highway Authority (NHA) office here on Tuesday, he said that interrogation with all those concerned had been completed and the report was now ready. He, however, declined to share contents of the report with the journalists.
The bridge had collapsed in mid-2007 just one month after its inauguration by President Pervez Musharraf.
Mr Rehman, addressing a press conference, also expressed his views on the losses caused to public and private properties during the spate of violence that followed the Dec 27 assassination of former prime minister Ms Benazir Bhutto. He said that the next elected government would face a huge economic challenge due to the colossal damage incurred on account of the rioting.
“The fruits of the eight-year economic development have been damaged,” he remarked. The burden will ultimately trickle down to the taxpayers,” he added.—PPI
KARACHI, Jan 8: Federal (caretaker) Minister for Communication Barrister Habibur Rehman has said that the inquiry report pertaining to the collapse of the Shershah bridge, a part of the Northern Bypass, is ready and will be made public within 10 days.
Talking to journalists at the National Highway Authority (NHA) office here on Tuesday, he said that interrogation with all those concerned had been completed and the report was now ready. He, however, declined to share contents of the report with the journalists.
The bridge had collapsed in mid-2007 just one month after its inauguration by President Pervez Musharraf.
Mr Rehman, addressing a press conference, also expressed his views on the losses caused to public and private properties during the spate of violence that followed the Dec 27 assassination of former prime minister Ms Benazir Bhutto. He said that the next elected government would face a huge economic challenge due to the colossal damage incurred on account of the rioting.
“The fruits of the eight-year economic development have been damaged,” he remarked. The burden will ultimately trickle down to the taxpayers,” he added.—PPI
KARACHI: PPP leaders, security officer summoned: Oct 18 inquiry tribunal
By Azfar-ul-Ashfaque
KARACHI, Jan 8: An inquiry tribunal investigating the Oct 18 Karsaz blasts issued notices on Tuesday to two leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s chief security officer for Jan 21.
The tribunal, headed by Justice (retd) Dr Ghaus Mohammad, instructed its liaison officer SSP Niaz Khoso to serve notices on Dr Zulfiqar Mirza, Maj-Gen (retd) Ahsan Ahmed and Major (retd) Imtiaz, the chief security officer nominated by the federal government for the former prime minister, so that they could appear before the tribunal to record their statements.
The notices have been issued despite the fact that the PPP distanced itself from the tribunal at the time of its establishment by the government of then chief minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim.
The three persons summoned by the tribunal have been named by almost all the witnesses as those responsible for security arrangements on Oct 18 from the PPP side.
The tribunal was also informed on Tuesday that the security plan put in place for the Oct 18 homecoming procession of Ms Bhutto did not have provisions for alternative security arrangements in the event of a “mishap”.
“There was no provision in the security plan that in case there was any mishap and injuries on either side [of the float carrying Ms Bhutto and other PPP leaders] the security should not be left and it should be covered by other mobiles,” DSP Jam Saifullah Dharejo, who was deputed on the left side of the float, said in his testimony before the tribunal.
DSP Dharejo said that the distance between his police mobile and Ms Bhutto’s bullet-proof float ranged between eight to ten feet. He recalled that around 300 PPP volunteers had surrounded the float under the instructions of leaders Dr Zulfiqar Mirza, Agha Siraj Durrani and others. He said he had no idea whether the volunteers had been searched for weapons.
The DSP said the first blast occurred on the left side at about 12 midnight or 12.05am which caused an injury to his head and left him stunned. The doors of his vehicle had become jammed due to the blast. He jumped out of the window and saw the injured and the dead lying on the ground.
“I went towards the front side of the float and no sooner had I reached there than I heard another blast on the left side. I sustained more injuries. I remember that somebody took me to a nearby ambulance and when I later came to I was at Aga Khan Hospital.”
Answering a question, he said that the blast had occurred at a distance of 15 to 20 feet from his vehicle at Karsaz and at that time the streetlights were on. He said that SSP Security Dr Amin Yousufzai held a meeting with the police officers who had been detailed for duty under the security plan and that he had also attended the meeting.
“What was your duty in case of any mishap? You were commanding one side of the main vehicle and, keeping in view that miscreants could take advantage of disorder, what measures had you taken after the blast?” asked the tribunal. The DSP replied that he had been seriously injured.
“Despite injuries, a police officer should have the nerve to let his subordinate take over so that the primary responsibility of security could be fulfilled. Even if your subordinate was injured, did you ensure that any other subordinate take over?” inquired the tribunal upon which the DSP conceded that he did not ask his subordinate to take over the command.
In response to a question, the police officer conceded that after he left his vehicle due to his injuries, the left side of the float became vacant and there was no security cover. However, he said that on the float’s rear side, SP Pir Farid Jan Sarhandi was present and it was his duty to evacuate Ms Bhutto in case of any emergency.
“Did you inform the SSP Security that after the first blast the left side had become uncovered and there was no security even when Ms Bhutto was present inside the float? Did you inform him that it was a serious lapse to which there was no provision in the security plan?” Justice (retd) Dr Ghaus asked the DSP who said the meeting was neither informed nor did it discuss the failure of security on the left side.
He said no departmental action was taken against any policemen. “The SSP Security appreciated our efforts and observed that we had performed our duties very well,” he added.
“Did the police department recommend your names for appreciation certificates or medals?” inquired the tribunal. The DSP said that the SSP Security informed the police officials that their names would be recommended for appreciation certificates.
VIP status
Earlier, SSP Security (Special Branch) Shahab Mazhar Bhalli informed the tribunal that according to the Blue Book the status of a VVIP was granted only to the president, the prime minister and a foreign dignitary who is a head of state.
“Under our current standard operating procedures, the status of a former prime minister is that of a VIP and accordingly Ms Bhutto was accorded the status of a VIP.”
The SSP, however, said that the inspector-general of police had the authority to enhance a person’s security personnel cover in case of a threat perception.
“The threat perception figured in many intelligence reports, so much so that it was also said that the level of the threat was same as that to the president of Pakistan. The reports indicated that Jihadhi elements, with special reference to the situation obtaining in South Waziristan and Bajaur Agency as well as the Lal Masjid incident, posed a real threat.”
SSP Bhalli claimed that no device or detector had so far been invented which could indicate the presence of a bomb or an explosive device concealed by a person unless he passed through checking points.
He said he heard the news of the blasts at his residence on television channels. He phoned one of the contacts present on the spot who informed him that people were furious against the police as it was suspected that the explosion took place in a stationary vehicle.
He deposed that Inspector Iqbal of the bomb disposal squad informed him that the blast took place somewhere between the vehicle and no crater on the ground could be seen.
Answering a question, he said that the Additional IG Special Branch, two DIGs and he had not visited the route from the airport to Bilawal House but on Oct 17, 2007 the IGP Sindh along with the Additional IG Special Branch and the CCPO visited Terminal 1 and he was also present.
He said that he was not aware if there was light at the time of the incident.
Later, the tribunal adjourned its proceedings for Jan 10.
KARACHI, Jan 8: An inquiry tribunal investigating the Oct 18 Karsaz blasts issued notices on Tuesday to two leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s chief security officer for Jan 21.
The tribunal, headed by Justice (retd) Dr Ghaus Mohammad, instructed its liaison officer SSP Niaz Khoso to serve notices on Dr Zulfiqar Mirza, Maj-Gen (retd) Ahsan Ahmed and Major (retd) Imtiaz, the chief security officer nominated by the federal government for the former prime minister, so that they could appear before the tribunal to record their statements.
The notices have been issued despite the fact that the PPP distanced itself from the tribunal at the time of its establishment by the government of then chief minister Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim.
The three persons summoned by the tribunal have been named by almost all the witnesses as those responsible for security arrangements on Oct 18 from the PPP side.
The tribunal was also informed on Tuesday that the security plan put in place for the Oct 18 homecoming procession of Ms Bhutto did not have provisions for alternative security arrangements in the event of a “mishap”.
“There was no provision in the security plan that in case there was any mishap and injuries on either side [of the float carrying Ms Bhutto and other PPP leaders] the security should not be left and it should be covered by other mobiles,” DSP Jam Saifullah Dharejo, who was deputed on the left side of the float, said in his testimony before the tribunal.
DSP Dharejo said that the distance between his police mobile and Ms Bhutto’s bullet-proof float ranged between eight to ten feet. He recalled that around 300 PPP volunteers had surrounded the float under the instructions of leaders Dr Zulfiqar Mirza, Agha Siraj Durrani and others. He said he had no idea whether the volunteers had been searched for weapons.
The DSP said the first blast occurred on the left side at about 12 midnight or 12.05am which caused an injury to his head and left him stunned. The doors of his vehicle had become jammed due to the blast. He jumped out of the window and saw the injured and the dead lying on the ground.
“I went towards the front side of the float and no sooner had I reached there than I heard another blast on the left side. I sustained more injuries. I remember that somebody took me to a nearby ambulance and when I later came to I was at Aga Khan Hospital.”
Answering a question, he said that the blast had occurred at a distance of 15 to 20 feet from his vehicle at Karsaz and at that time the streetlights were on. He said that SSP Security Dr Amin Yousufzai held a meeting with the police officers who had been detailed for duty under the security plan and that he had also attended the meeting.
“What was your duty in case of any mishap? You were commanding one side of the main vehicle and, keeping in view that miscreants could take advantage of disorder, what measures had you taken after the blast?” asked the tribunal. The DSP replied that he had been seriously injured.
“Despite injuries, a police officer should have the nerve to let his subordinate take over so that the primary responsibility of security could be fulfilled. Even if your subordinate was injured, did you ensure that any other subordinate take over?” inquired the tribunal upon which the DSP conceded that he did not ask his subordinate to take over the command.
In response to a question, the police officer conceded that after he left his vehicle due to his injuries, the left side of the float became vacant and there was no security cover. However, he said that on the float’s rear side, SP Pir Farid Jan Sarhandi was present and it was his duty to evacuate Ms Bhutto in case of any emergency.
“Did you inform the SSP Security that after the first blast the left side had become uncovered and there was no security even when Ms Bhutto was present inside the float? Did you inform him that it was a serious lapse to which there was no provision in the security plan?” Justice (retd) Dr Ghaus asked the DSP who said the meeting was neither informed nor did it discuss the failure of security on the left side.
He said no departmental action was taken against any policemen. “The SSP Security appreciated our efforts and observed that we had performed our duties very well,” he added.
“Did the police department recommend your names for appreciation certificates or medals?” inquired the tribunal. The DSP said that the SSP Security informed the police officials that their names would be recommended for appreciation certificates.
VIP status
Earlier, SSP Security (Special Branch) Shahab Mazhar Bhalli informed the tribunal that according to the Blue Book the status of a VVIP was granted only to the president, the prime minister and a foreign dignitary who is a head of state.
“Under our current standard operating procedures, the status of a former prime minister is that of a VIP and accordingly Ms Bhutto was accorded the status of a VIP.”
The SSP, however, said that the inspector-general of police had the authority to enhance a person’s security personnel cover in case of a threat perception.
“The threat perception figured in many intelligence reports, so much so that it was also said that the level of the threat was same as that to the president of Pakistan. The reports indicated that Jihadhi elements, with special reference to the situation obtaining in South Waziristan and Bajaur Agency as well as the Lal Masjid incident, posed a real threat.”
SSP Bhalli claimed that no device or detector had so far been invented which could indicate the presence of a bomb or an explosive device concealed by a person unless he passed through checking points.
He said he heard the news of the blasts at his residence on television channels. He phoned one of the contacts present on the spot who informed him that people were furious against the police as it was suspected that the explosion took place in a stationary vehicle.
He deposed that Inspector Iqbal of the bomb disposal squad informed him that the blast took place somewhere between the vehicle and no crater on the ground could be seen.
Answering a question, he said that the Additional IG Special Branch, two DIGs and he had not visited the route from the airport to Bilawal House but on Oct 17, 2007 the IGP Sindh along with the Additional IG Special Branch and the CCPO visited Terminal 1 and he was also present.
He said that he was not aware if there was light at the time of the incident.
Later, the tribunal adjourned its proceedings for Jan 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)