Last month the Commission, set up to probe the authenticity and purpose of creating/drafting of Memo for delivering it to Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen in its report said: “Hussain Haqqani was the originator and architect of the Memorandum.”
In his reply submitted through Advocate on Record Chaudhry Akhtar Ali to Supreme Court, he said: “No evidence has been presented and recorded by the Commission, which establishes his role in authoring or authorising of the memo, which created no tangible threat to Pakistan’s security as claimed at the time of the setting up of the Commission to probe its origin, authenticity and purpose.”
The Supreme Court office objecting to Haqqani’s reply returned his statement saying it does not bear clear signature of the former envoy.
A nine-member bench of the SC headed by Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan would hear the case on July 12th.
The court in the last hearing had directed Hussain Haqqani to appear in person before the court on the next date of hearing in order to answer about the findings, so recorded by the Commission.
Hussain Haqqani, was allowed to leave the country with the commitment vide order 30.1.2012 that whenever the Court requires, he will appear in person within a period of four days, therefore, “we direct his presence on the next date of hearing, which shall be intimated by the office according to the rules.”
Haqqani contended that the conclusion and process adopted by the Commission has only made mockery of fundamental rights that extended to protect the reputation of individuals and to ensure equal protection before the law guaranteeing due process.
Praying to set aside the Commission report, he said: “The report of the Commission be set aside and not be considered so that full justice is done and discrimination including persecution of the petitioner (Haqqani) be rectified”.
He stated that the Commission set by the court has gone beyond the terms of reference and moved into inquiries that are not even remotely connected to the terms of reference and simply used to persecute the petitioner (Haqqani) on the responses which were not probed deeply.
“For example without any evidence or suggestion by any witness, the Commission divulged into the secret funds of the Embassy in Washington and incorrectly concluded that Haqqani has also objected to illicit funding of US$3 million to politicians by ISI but himself received three times that amount. Similarly that Haqqani criticised the Army Chief for not disclosing the utilisation of secret funds, but he made no disclosure.
Haqqani pleaded that he does not make the policy of the government of Pakistan and thus has no hand in allocating funds to various departments including Pakistani Embassies as alleged in the Commission report.
He contended that the Commission has also conveniently glossed over the evidence of Mansoor Ejaz where he categorically admitted that he drafted and sent the memo.
“The dangerous assertions made by the witness Mansoor Ejaz in his testimony about Pakistani leadership and its Armed Forces has also been ignored as they strongly show the rash manner in which this witness makes accusations”, he said.
Haqqani alleged that the bias and grinding prejudice of the Commission is also reflected in several comments, they made against him saying his personal history is misquoted and the Commission questions that he has no property in Pakistan then how could he be appointed as an Ambassador to US.
He maintained that the Commission went beyond its mandate in that it worked as an investigating agency and carried out a roving inquiry without any legal process in Pakistan. “Due process has totally been denied to him”, Haqqani contended.
Haqqani further that the Commission presumed him guilty and expected from him to clear his name against the evidence of one man (Mansoor Ejaz) and on a testimony that has several contradictions.
Criticising the findings of the Commission, he said that it was created as fact finding probe as an inquisitorial body but it conducted proceedings in a adversarial manner.
He said that the Commission has not made serious efforts to find facts in the matter and was content with seeking statement from Mansoor Ejaz and then demanding that Haqqani should appear in person to refute the claims and assertions of Mansoor Ejaz.