REFERENCE / COMPLAINT
NO. IV
Reference dated June 9, 2005
– Khoski Sugar Mill
The Chairman
National Accountability Bureau
Islamabad
Pakistan Peoples Party ………………………………………COMPLAINANT
VS
1. Lt. Gen. (Retd) Syed Mohammad Amjad
Managing Director
Fauji Foundation
2. The Secretary
Ministry of Defense
Government of Pakistan
Islamabad
3. The Chairman
Fauji Foundation
and Others
----------------------------------------------------------- ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS
Subject: COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 5 AND
18 (B) SUB SECTION-II OF THE NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB) ORDINANACE
1999, AGAINST THE HOLDERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PUNISHMENT UNDER SECTION 10 OF
NAB ORDINANCE FOR CAUSING HUGE FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE NATIONAL EXCHEQUER BY
CORRUPTION AND CORRUPT PRACTICES.
1. The
Respondents in this complaint do fall within the ambit of National
Accountability Bureau (NAB) Ordinance 1999 for the purposes of investigation,
trial and punishment.
2. The
Respondents are reportedly guilty of corruption and corrupt practices as defined
in Section 9 of the Ordinance and as such are subject to punishment under
Section 10 of the NAB Ordinance based upon the following facts and grounds:
Facts and Grounds:
1. That
during question hour in the National Assembly on April 21, 2005 in reply to
question asked by a member of the ruling coalition, Ms Shamim Akhter as to why
the Khoski Sugar Mill belonging to the Fauji Foundation had been sold the
Defense Minister stated that the Mills had been “sold on the low price in any
case”. (Annex A)
2. That
in the ensuing discussion the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Mr. Tanveer
Hussain also admitted that the Khoski Sugar Mill had been sold at Rs 300 million
against the highest bid of Rs. 387 million.
3. That
the transaction had taken place during the tenure of the present Managing
Director of Fauji Foundation Lt. Gen. (Retd) Syed Mohammad Amjad, a former
Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau. That the entity to which it was
sold had not even participated in the bidding process. Further, that a high
level inquiry had already been ordered by the defense ministry into the matter.
In this connection, following Press clipping may be seen:
Annex B-i. The Dawn news dated 22-4-2005 captioned
“FF underbidding to be probed, NA told”
Annex B-ii. The Dawn news dated 17-5-2005 captioned
“FF breached parliament’s privilege”
Annex B-iii. The News Article dated 23-5-2005
captioned “When foundations are shaken”
Annex B-iv. The News Article dated 24-5-2005
captioned “Musharraf’s ‘Honest’ General, Rattled by Exposure of His Corruption”
Annex B-v. SAT Article dated 8-6-2005 captioned
“Generals Defy, Degrade Parliament to Protect a Corrupt Colleague”
4. That
the Fauji Foundation management instead of replying to the serious charges
brought by the government on the floor of the House rejected the information
given to the MPs by placing quarter page advertisements in national dallies,
titled “Fauji Foundation Rejects”. (Annex C).
5. That
through these ads the Fauji Foundation not only denied any wrong doings but also
made other claims. It claimed that its income was not covered under the
definition of public funds. This claim was made apparently in a bid to convince
the public that the Foundations’ management can do no wrong on the one hand and
to assert that it could not be questioned by the Parliament because of it being
a private entity.
6. That
under the scheme of Administration of the Fauji Foundation it’s Administration
is in the hands of the Committee whose Chairman is a Secretary, Ministry of
Defence and the members of its Committee of Administration are four Principal
Staff Officers of the General Headquarters and two senior officers from the
Pakistan Navy and Air Force, all paid out of the public fund. Further that it’s
Managing Director is appointed by the Ministry of Defence.
7. That
the Fauji Foundation is an organization dedicated to the welfare of the ex
servicemen. That in the Fauji Foundation Vs. Shamimur Rehman Case (PLD 1983)
page 527, it has been clearly laid down that the Fauji Foundation is an
organization for ‘the public welfare or public interest’. That irregularities,
financial mismanagement and corruption in the organization directly impinges on
the welfare of servicemen which is also likely to have other far reaching
implications.
8. That
the NAB has full authority to probe the affairs of the Foundation. Whether
viewed from the perspective that it is a public interest and public welfare
organization or from the perspective that it is an organization under the
private sector (as is claimed by the Foundation) the jurisdiction of NAB is not
materially affected. After all the NABO provides for investigation of even
private entities as is evident from the fact that it has been probing the
housing societies in the country.
Conclusion:
Based on the above facts and grounds respondents
have shown willful indulgence in corrupt practices under Section 9 of the
Ordinance. Such persons are subject to punishment under Section 10 of the NAB
Ordinance.
As such the Chairman of the NAB is called upon to
initiate investigation in connection with matters set out herein above and
further proceed to file a reference against respondents for violating the
provisions of Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance punishable under Section 10 of the
Ordinance in Competent court of law and proceed against those concerned for
violating Section 9 of the Ordinance.
Complainant:
Pakistan Peoples Party
Through:
Ch. Muhammad Aslam
Advocate High Court
Date : 9th June 2005
Generals
Defy, Degrade Parliament to Protect a Corrupt Colleague
WASHINGTON DC, June 8, 2005 | ISSN: 1684-2057 | www.satribune.com
By M T Butt
ISLAMABAD,
June 8: Deeply engrossed in private businesses, Army Generals have officially
refused to recognize the jurisdiction of Pakistan’s Parliament and a landmark
battle has begun to determine who would have the upper hand.
“Under any
democracy and constitutional rule, this would never be an issue, but Pakistan
Army is bent upon breaking every rule and demolish or disfigure every
institution to protect the Army's personal, political and corporate interests,”
a senior politician said in Islamabad.
One of
Musharraf’s top Generals, accused of corruption in Army’s biggest corporate
entity, the Fauji Foundation, has turned his Rs300 million case of favoritism
into this test case by challenging the authority of the Senate to look into his
affairs.
“This case
would determine whether elected representatives will ever be able to peek into
the back stage money-making secrets of the Army,” an expert said.
The case
involves Lt. General (Retd) Mohammed Amjad, (Top, Left) once the head of
Musharraf's National Accountability Bureau (NAB). As NAB Chief General Amjad,
and his successors, have been continuously using NAB, illegally and
unconstitutionally, to investigate every private sector company or businessman
the Generals want to target for their own personal, political or financial
reasons.
After General
Amjad left NAB he was appointed head of the Fauji Foundation which is, for all
practical purposes, an extension of the Pakistan Army, as many sitting armed
forces high ups are on its Board called the Committee of Administration.
The Committee
of Administration of Fauji Foundation comprises Army's Chief of the General
Staff, Quarter Master-General, Chief of Logistics Staff, Deputy Chief of the
Naval Staff (Training & Personnel) and Deputy Chief of Air Staff
(Administration). According to Fauji Foundation, the Committee handles the
administrative and management affairs of the Foundation.
The case
against Gen. Amjad is that he sold one of the sugar mills of Fauji Foundation to
a favorite for an amount much less than the highest bid and this information was
confirmed by the Defence Ministry in the National Assembly. So it was official.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Tanvir Hussain, admitted in the
Assembly that the “sugar mill had been sold at Rs300 million, against the
highest bid of Rs387 million.”
There was an
immediate uproar both inside and outside the Parliament. The Senate’s Defence
Committee summoned the Fauji Foundation management to appear and explain why
this corruption had been done. A spokesman of Senate said a meeting of the
Defence Committee to discuss the working of the Fauji Foundation and the sale of
Khoski Sugar Mills in particular was requisitioned by three Opposition members
namely Senators Rukhsana Zuberi, Farhatullah Babar and Sardar Mahtab Ahmed Khan.
Initially the
Foundation did not respond but after two weeks rejected the information given to
the MPs through quarter-page advertisements in national dailies. The ads titled
"Fauji
Foundation Rejects"
not only
dismissed allegations but also claimed that the Khoski Sugar Mill was sold "in
the best interest of the Foundation" and in keeping with the "established
corporate norms and business practices." "We have received no government
assistance in cash or kind," the ads announced, and vowed to "jealously guard
its reputation for impeccable conduct."
The MPs took
the Foundation's ads, which rejected the official information placed before them
a few days before, as an affront and breach of their privilege. Even Government
party member and Parliamentary Secretary, Major Tanvir, bemoaned that the
Foundation had breached the privilege of Parliament.
PPP Senator
Farhatullah Babar, an activist on such issues, wrote in a newspaper column: “One
is indeed puzzled by the Foundation's claim that it had not received government
assistance in cash or in kind. Under SRO No 395, issued in March 1972, all the
properties of the Post War Services Reconstruction Funds of the former West
Pakistan were vested in the Federal Government, which in turn transferred these
properties to the Fauji Foundation under the Charitable Endowments Act. With
such a kick start from day one, how can the management today claim that it has
not received from the government "any assistance in cash or in kind"?
Click to read full column
But instead of
coming clean on the issue, General Amjad and the other top Generals sitting in
the GHQ have decided to challenge the jurisdiction of the Parliament to look
into the affairs of Army-run businesses. The Senate Standing Committee on
Defence and Defence Production on June 4 received a communication from the
Defence Ministry stating that the Committee had no jurisdiction to appear for or
against Fauji Foundation at any forum.
A press
release said the office of the Chairman, Standing Committee on Defence, received
a communication from the Defence Minister intimating that after having a
detailed briefing from the ministry's officials it was apparent that "Fauji
Foundation is a private sector organization."
The Committee
Chairman is an ardent Musharraf and Army loyalist. A hand-picked businessman,
former IBM chief and Musharraf’s ex-Information Minister, Nisar Memon is now
heading the Senate’s Defence Committee. Instantly he jumped to the General’s
side and as Committee Chairman accepted, without a word, the Fauji Foundation’s
contention that private businesses were outside the Senate’s purview. Memon
accepted the explanation and declared that the meeting requisitioned by the
Opposition senators will not be held, cutting his own legs and feet.
No one is
allowing him to get away with this serious issue and even political allies of
the Generals, now providing Musharraf and his men the façade of a democracy, are
confused and issuing conflicting statements.
“This is how
Musharraf undermines the constitution and rule of law as he has his own cronies
installed in key places who do not care about any democratic tradition but serve
the interests of their Army masters,” a senior politician commented as a chorus
of credible political voices rejected Nisar Memon’s decision as totally uncalled
for and without authority or legality.
Even the
Parliamentary Affairs Minister in the Shaukat Aziz cabinet, a PPP turncoat and
often a Musharraf loyalist, Dr Sher Afgan Niazi, did not agree with Nisar Memon.
He told
newspaper
Dawn
on June 5 every organization within the limits of Pakistan, whether public or
private, can be summoned before the parliament. "No private organization
operating within the country has an exemption from being summoned before the
parliament. The principle of sovereignty and supremacy of parliament is
applicable in the case.”
Another
leading constitutional expert, Choudhry Aitzaz Ahsan of PPP went a step further.
He said: “The Defence Ministry's refusal to bring the Fauji Foundation under
scrutiny in the committee is a sheer disobedience and disrespect to the
parliament. Any entity that is "controlled" or "owned" by the government can be
summoned by a committee of the parliament, including the Senate and the National
Assembly.”
Ahsan said
Fauji Foundation was like other organizations which operated as private entities
but were "controlled" or "owned" by the government. He said if the PTV managing
director and PIA Chairman could be summoned before a committee, nothing barred
the management of Fauji Foundation from being summoned. He said the presence of
the Defence Secretary and other senior serving officials of the armed forces on
the committee of administration of Fauji Foundation made it subject to appear
before the committee and the parliament.
A former
secretary of the National Assembly, Khan Ahmed Goraya, said the National
Assembly committees had the powers of the civil court and could summon any
person or entity within the precincts of the country. Similar rules were
applicable to the Senate committees, he said.
The
influential Editor of Lahore’s
Daily Times,
Najam Sethi, weighed in with a strong editorial note on the issue titled:
“Fauji
Foundation must explain its conduct to the Senate Standing Committee.”
His editorial
said: “These are important questions, not only in relation to the issue at hand
— namely the dubious sale of the sugar mills — but also vis à vis the larger
questions of the military in business and civil-military relations. It is clear
to us that the Foundation’s Committee of Administration is loath to appear
before a committee of parliamentarians because of military’s traditional
disregard of the parliament. Under the rules it is the Standing Committee’s
prerogative “to take a decision and express an opinion on the new position taken
by the defence ministry”. And as Senator Babar has contended, “The Rules have no
provision for the Chairman of the Committee [in this case, Senator Memon] to
give a personal verdict and cancel a requisitioned meeting.”
”General
Pervez Musharraf continues to talk about a new Pakistan built around respect for
institutions. We expect that the process of institutionalization will subsume
the military and not bestow on it the status of a holy cow. At the end of the
day, Parliament is the highest body in the realm and its members have every
right — within prescribed law — to oversee the functioning of various
departments, including the military,” the newspaper said.
“It is also
important to determine, once and for all, the sex of entities run by, and under,
the military. Are they in the private sector or in the public domain?”
Given all
these arguments, the attempt by the Generals to bulldoze and over-run the
Parliament are blatant, mean and self-serving. They want immunity from
accountability for their misdeeds in all Government-run, funded and controlled
organizations which they have grabbed. The next step would be to demand that all
lands, properties and houses owned by the Generals would be exempt from any law,
tax or regulation. This can go on and on.
Because if the
Generals claim that they are running a private business, which cannot be
questioned by the Parliament, then the question that needs an immediate answer
is why and how are these officers allowed to run a private business as
Government Service rules prohibit any employee to run his own business. And why
is tax-payers money being pumped into their private business.
The Economic
Survey of Pakistan 2004-05, released by the Ministry of Finance on June 4,
reveals that the Government had explicit contingent liability of Rs1.02 billion
on account of Fauji Fertilizer Company Jordan. The government's guarantee of for
FFC increased from Rs0.70 billion in 2002-03 to Rs1.02 billion in 2004-05,
revealed the Survey, an authentic official document released every year before
the budget.
According to
the company profile, FFC Jordan is a Joint Venture of Fauji Foundation and Fauji
Fertilizer Company Limited. The Chairman of Fauji Foundation, Lt Gen (retd) Syed
Muhammad Amjad, is shown as the chairman of the FFC in its recent annual report.
This battle
between the Generals and the Parliament is another manifestation of the
crumbling state of affairs in General Musharraf's Pakistan.
Go back