Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for April, 2017

PM should step down until JIT completes probe, says Imran

Thief PM Nawaz Must Go Behind Bars For Life

PM should step down until JIT completes probe, says Imran

ISLAMABAD: Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan on Thursday has said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should step down until the JIT completes its investigation. 

Speaking to reporters following the Supreme Court verdict in the Panama Leaks case, Khan said Sharif no longer had any moral authority to continue as prime minister of the country.

“What respect will he have when a government officer calls the prime minister for a criminal inquiry,” he said.

Terming the verdict “a historic judgment in Pakistan’s history”, he said that all five members of the bench have rejected PM Sharif’s explanation of the money trail that led to his children’s offshore holdings.

“I demand Nawaz Sharif to resign today. Sharif should resign because he will not allow an impartial investigation,” he said.

“If Sharif is cleared in 60 days after the joint investigation team’s report, he can continue to serve as the prime minister, but at the moment he has no ethical right to serve on this position,” said the chairman of the PTI.

Imran said that only two of the institutions whose members will be part of the JIT fall under the Chief of Army Staff, while the rest come under the prime minister.

“Hence, he must resign immediately in order for an impartial investigation to be conducted,” said the PTI chairman.

, , ,

1 Comment

Confessional statement of Indian RAW agent Kulbushan Jadhav

ISLAMABAD: The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) released on Tuesday a confessional video statement of Indian spy agent Kulbushan Jadhav admitting to foment terrorism in Balochistan and Karachi.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was arrested red-handed by law-enforcement agencies in the first week of the current month while infiltrating into Pakistan from the Saravan border area of Balochistan with Iran.

Following is the full text of his voluntary confession shown at a press conference jointly addressed by Minister for Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage Senator Pervaiz Rashid and ISPR Director General Lieutenant General Asim Saleem Bajwa at the Press Information Department.

 

 

 

 

“My name is Commander Kulbushan Jadhav and I am the serving officer of Indian Navy. I am from the cadre of the engineering department of Indian Navy and my cover name was Hussein Mubarak Patel, which I had taken for doing some intelligence gathering for Indian agencies.”

“I joined the National Defence Academy in 1987 and subsequently joined Indian Navy in Jan 1991 and subsequently served in the Indian Navy till around December 2001 when the Parliament attack occurred and that is when I started contributing my services towards gathering of information and intelligence within India.”

“I live in the city of Mumbai in India. I am still the serving officer in the Indian Navy and will be due for retirement by 2022 as a commissioned officer in Indian Navy after having completed 14 years of service by 2002.”

“I commenced intelligence operation in 2003 and established a small business in Chabahar in Iran as I was able to achieve undetected existence and visits to Karachi in 2003 and 2004 and having done some basic assignments within India for RAW.”

“I was picked up by RAW in 2013 end. Ever since I have been directing various activities in Balochistan and Karachi at the behest of RAW and deteriorating law and order situation in Karachi, I was basically the man for Mr Ani Kumar Gupta who is the joint secretary of RAW and his contacts in Pakistan especially in Balochistan Student Organisation.”

“My purpose was to hold meetings with Baloch insurgents and carry out activities with their collaboration.”

“These activities have been of criminal nature, leading to the killing of or maiming of Pakistani citizens.”

“I realize during this process that RAW is involved in some activities related to the Baloch liberation movement within Pakistan and the region around it.”

“There are finances which are fed into the Baloch movement through various contacts or various ways and means into the Baloch liberation (movement) and various activities of the Baloch liberation and RAW handlers go towards activities which are criminal, which are anti-national, which can lead to maiming or killing of people within Pakistan and mostly these activities were centred around of what I have knowledge is of ports of Gwadar, Pasni Jewani and various other installations, which are around the coast damaging various other installations, which are in Balochistan.

“So the activity seems to be evolving and trying to create a criminal sort of mindset within the Baloch liberation which leads to instability within Pakistan. In my pursuit towards achieving the set targets by my handlers in RAW, I was trying to cross over into Pakistan from the Saravan border in Iran on March 3, 2016, and was apprehended by Pakistani authorities while on the Pakistani side and the main aim of this crossing over into Pakistan was to hold (a) meeting with Baloch separatists in Balochistan for carrying out various activities, which they were supposed to undertake and carrying backwards the messages which had to deliver to Indian agencies.”

“The main issues regarding this were that they were planning to conduct some operations within the next immediate (near) future so that was to be discussed mainly and that was the main aim of trying to coming into Pakistan.”

“So that moment I realised that my intelligence operations have been compromised on my being detained in Pakistan, I revealed that I am an Indian naval officer, and it is on mentioning that I am Indian naval officer, the total perception of the establishment of the Pakistani side changed and they treated me very honourably and they did utmost respect and due regards and have handled me subsequently on a more professional and proper courteous way and they have handled me in a way that befits that of an officer and once I realised that I have been compromised in my process of intelligence operations, I decided to just end the mess I have landed myself in and just wanted to subsequently move on and cooperate with the authorities in removing complications which I have landed myself and my family members into, and whatever I am stating just now, it is the truth and it is not under any duress or pressure. I am doing it totally out of my own desire to mention and come clean out of this entire process which I have gone through last 14 years.”

No Comments

13 damning remarks made by Justice Khosa on Panamagate………Khosa’s judgement says “Nawaz was not truthful”

Justice Khosa’s judgement says “Nawaz was not truthful”.
 

Below are excerpts from the dissenting notes of the Supreme Court’s Panamagate case, written by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.

Justice Khosa headed the five member bench which was split 2:3 in its verdict.

1. Justice Khosa opened with a quote from The Godfather

“The popular 1969 novel ‘The Godfather’ by Mario Puzo recounted the violent tale of a Mafia family and the epigraph selected by the author was fascinating: Behind every great fortune there is a crime. — Balzac”

The judgement continues: “The novel was a popular sensation which was made into an acclaimed film. It is believed that this epigraph was inspired by a sentence that was written by Honoré de Balzac… as follows:

(The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed)

It is ironical and a sheer coincidence that the present case revolves around that very sentence attributed to Balzac…”

Justice Khosa later added:

“I may, therefore, be justified in raising an adverse inference in the matter. The fortune amassed by respondent No. 1 is indeed huge and no plausible or satisfactory explanation has been advanced in that regard. Honoré de Balzac may after all be right when he had said that behind every great fortune for which one is at a loss to account there is a crime.”

“In the above mentioned sorry and unfortunate state of affairs a conclusion has appeared to me to be unavoidable and inescapable that in the matter of explaining the wealth and assets respondent No. 1 has not been honest to the nation, to the nation’s representatives in the National Assembly and even to this Court.”

2. He said other institutions failed or refused to probe Nawaz

“These petitions had been entertained by this Court in the backdrop of an unfortunate refusal/failure on the part of all the relevant institutions in the country like the National Accountability Bureau, the Federal Investigation Agency, the State Bank of Pakistan, the Federal Board of Revenue, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and the Speaker of the National Assembly to inquire into or investigate the matter or to refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan against respondent No. 1 [Nawaz Sharif].”

3. He said the court took up the case so a PM could not have a ‘field day’

“If this Court stops short of attending to the issue merely because it involves some disputed or intricate questions of fact then the message being sent would be that if a powerful and experienced Prime Minister of the country appoints his loyalists as heads of all the relevant institutions in the country which can inquire into or investigate the allegations of corruption, then a brazen blocking of such inquiry or investigation by such loyalists would practically render the Prime Minister immune from touchability or accountability and that surely would be nothing short of a disaster.”

“It is said that how highsoever you may be the law is above you. It is in such spirit of democracy, accountability and rule of law that this Court would not give a Prime Minister/Chief Executive of the Federation a field day merely because no other remedy is available or practicable to inquire into the allegations of corruption, etc. leveled against him or where such inquiry involves ascertainment of some facts.”

4. Khosa said Nawaz was not truthful

“It had not been disclosed as to how and through which resources the respondent’s father had established 6 new factories within 18 months of nationalization of Ittefaq Foundries, especially when statedly the entire savings of the respondent’s elders stood obliterated and wiped out.”

“It is also strikingly noticeable that in that speech there was no mention whatsoever of setting up of any factory in Dubai which was sold in 1980. That speech also failed to disclose any detail of the funds available or procured for setting up of the factory near Makkah.”

“It was maintained in that speech that the funds generated through sale of the factory near Makkah were utilized by respondent No. 1’s sons namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif for setting up their business. It had been maintained by respondent No. 1 that through that speech he had made the entire background of his family’s business clear to his countrymen and that he had informed them about all the important stages of the family’s journey in business.”

“He had proclaimed that what he had disclosed were the “true” facts. I have, however, found that that was not the case and unfortunately respondent No. 1 had economized with the truth on that occasion.”

“Even a layman can appreciate, and one does not have to be a lawman to conclude, that what had been told to the nation, the National Assembly or even this Court about how the relevant properties in London had been acquired was not the truth. A pedestrian in Pakistan Chowk, Dera Ghazi Khan (a counterpart of Lord Denning’s man on the Clapham omnibus) may not have any difficulty in reaching that conclusion.”

5. How were London properties acquired?

“There was absolutely no explanation offered in that speech as to how the relevant four properties in London had been acquired and respondent No. 1 had never stated on that occasion that he had no concern with the ownership of those properties or that no money belonging to him had been utilized for their acquisition.”

“On April 22, 2016 respondent No. 1 addressed the nation again on the subject on radio and television but that speech did not contain any specific information about the resources or assets of the respondent and his family. Again, no explanation whatsoever was offered in that speech as to how the properties in London had been acquired.”

6. Dubai factory was not mentioned in PM’s first or second address

“On May 16, 2016 respondent No. 1 read out a written speech in the National Assembly which was broadcast and telecast live on radio and television and this is what he said on that occasion: [4:19] A careful reading of that speech made by respondent No. 1 shows that it was for the first time that any mention had been made therein by the respondent to setting up and sale of a factory in Dubai as no mention of the same had been made by the respondent in his first or second address to the nation on the issue.”

“It had been stated in the latest speech that in the year 1999 the entire record of the family’s business had been taken away by the authorities and the same had not been returned despite repeated requests but later on in the same speech respondent No. 1 had categorically stated that the entire record and documents pertaining to the Dubai and Jeddah factories was available and that such record could be produced before any committee or forum!”

7. Factory in Makkah or Jeddah, Khosa asked

“The first address to the nation mentioned setting up of a steel factory near Makkah but the speech made in the National Assembly referred to a steel factory in Jeddah. In the first address to the nation respondent No. 1 had claimed that the proceeds of sale of the steel factory near Makkah had been utilized by his two sons for setting up their business but in the speech made in the National Assembly he had changed his earlier stance and had maintained that the generated resources had been utilized for “purchase” of the flats in London.”

“Even in that speech respondent No. 1 had never stated that he had no concern with the ownership of those properties or that no money belonging to him had been utilized for their acquisition.”

8. PM said the record was available, his lawyer said it wasn’t

“The story about “purchase” of the relevant properties in London had taken yet another turn at a subsequent stage. 78. Although it had specifically and repeatedly been said by respondent No. 1 on the floor of the National Assembly in the above mentioned speech that the entire record relevant to the setting up and sale of the factories in Dubai and Jeddah was available and would be produced whenever required yet when this Court required Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Sr. ASC, the then learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on December 07, 2016 to produce or show the said record he simply stated that no such record existed or was available and that the statement made by respondent No. 1 in the National Assembly in that respect was merely a “political statement”!”

“It may be pertinent to mention here that in the evening preceding the said stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 before this Court an interview was telecast on Geo News television wherein Mr. Haroon Pasha, the chief financial advisor of respondent No. 1 and his family, had stated before the host namely Mr. Shahzeb Khanzada that the entire record about Dubai and Jeddah factories was available and that the said record had been handed over to respondent No. 1’s lawyers and now it was for those lawyers to present it before the Court.”

9. Khosa ‘shocked’ by attempt to suppress facts

“In one of his interviews with Mr. Javed Chaudhry on Express News television on March 07, 2016 Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif, respondent No. 7, had also categorically maintained that the entire record pertaining to acquisition of the four properties in London was available with the family and the same would be produced before any court looking into the matter. Such state of affairs has been found by me to be nothing but shocking as it tends to be an attempt to suppress the relevant facts and the truth and to mislead the Court. Mr. Haroon Pasha and Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif have never denied or contradicted the contents of the above mentioned interviews.”

“There may be many definitions of the word ‘honest’ but deliberate withholding or suppression of truth is not one of them and the same is in fact an antithesis of honesty. I am, therefore, constrained to declare that respondent No. 1 has not been honest to the nation, to the representatives of the nation in the National Assembly and to this Court in the matter of explaining possession and acquisition of the relevant four properties in London.”

10. Story about Qatar business was an afterthought

“Even the story about investment in real estate business in Qatar and the subsequent settlement of that business was also, thus, nothing but an afterthought. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in his three speeches mentioned above and also in his concise statements submitted before this Court respondent No. 1 had never said a word about any investment by his father in any real estate business in Qatar and funds generated through a settlement of that investment being utilized for acquisition of the properties in London whereas through their concise statements submitted before this Court by his children that was the only source of funds through which the said properties had been acquired in the name of respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif.”

11. Hassan Nawaz was rolling in money: Khosa

“All those businesses of respondent No. 8 (Hassan Nawaz) were going on and the said respondent was rolling in money in England for many years before June 2005 when, according to respondent No. 1 (Nawaz Sharif), the sale proceeds of the factory in Jeddah had been given to his sons for setting up their business. Nothing has been produced by respondent No. 1 before this Court to rebut the above mentioned documents based upon the British public record.”

12. Story about Al-Thani family lost credibility

“That story about investment in the real estate business of Al-Thani family in Qatar has taken many turns in this case and has, thus, lost its credibility. In their first concise statement jointly filed by respondent No. 1’s children they had never mentioned that story.”

“In their subsequent concise statements they adopted that story as their only story. However, in their last Joint and Further Concise Statement (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2017 filed on January 23, 2017) the sons of respondent No. 1 gave the story another twist. The previous story was about an “investment” made by late Mian Muhammad Sharif in the real estate business of Al-Thani family in Qatar but through their last story advanced through the above mentioned concise statement it was maintained by respondent No. 1’s sons that the proceeds of sale of the factory in Dubai (12 million Dirhams) had been “placed” with Sheikh Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani who “retained” the amount with an assurance of just and equitable return.”

“According to the latest story there was no investment involved in the matter and the services of a member of Al-Thani family of Qatar had been utilized only for parking of the relevant amount with him, probably as a bank!”

“It appears that close friendship between Al-Thani family of Qatar and respondent No. 1 and his family has stood the test of time. It is proverbial that a friend in need is a friend indeed. Being a foreign dignitary Mr. Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani is held by me in high esteem yet the information about him available on the Internet is unfortunately quite uncharitable.”

13. Nawaz and his family have been nothing but evasive: Khosa

“On the basis of the discussion made in the earlier part of this judgment the explanations advanced by respondent No. 1 in respect of the four properties in London and even in respect of his and his family’s businesses and resources have been found by me to be nothing but evasive and the statements made by him in that regard have appeared to me to be contradictory to each other. The explanations advanced by him have also been found by me to have remained utterly unproved through any independent evidence or material and, hence, the same were quite likely to be untrue. Even the children of respondent No. 1 have not been able to bring anything on the record to show that the explanations advanced by respondent No. 1 were or could be true and correct.”

No Comments

Despite $100m investment offer, why was KASB Bank sold for Rs1,000? The Express Tribune, Pakistan

Despite $100m investment offer, why was KASB Bank sold for Rs1,000?

PHOTO:FILE

PHOTO:FILE

ISLAMABAD: Senior officials of the State Bank of Pakistan took harsh action and “misused their authority” in amalgamating KASB Bank into BankIslami for just Rs1,000, reveals an inquiry report of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

The report further disclosed that BankIslami was not capable of handling the now-defunct KASB Bank without the central bank’s financial support. Moreover, the central bank’s decision to award KASB Bank’s due-diligence contract to AF Ferguson, a chartered accountancy firm, was an “illegal act”.

“Officers of the SBP and others misused their authority to refuse foreign investment of $100 million in KASB Bank and favoured BankIslami Limited by amalgamating it at a token price of Rs1,000 only,” according to inquiry findings.

The Cybernaut Investment Group of China had offered up to $100 million investment to bridge the capital shortfall faced by KASB Bank, but the SBP rejected the offer.

The assets of the defunct KASB Bank were not valued at market rate, according to the inquiry. At Rs1,000, BankIslami got billions of rupees in assets, it added. Not only that, BankIslami also got Rs5.8 billion as deferred tax that benefitted its balance sheet.

Investigators have now recommended the NAB headquarters to order an investigation. The inquiry report had been submitted in December last year.

NAB spokesman Nawazish Ali Asim did not respond to questions regarding the next step in the case. The SBP spokesman’s response was also awaited, although in the past the central bank has defended its action of amalgamating the bank, saying it had the legal mandate.

On May 7, 2015, the SBP merged KASB Bank into BankIslami after the former could not meet the statutory paid-up capital requirement of Rs10 billion. The now-defunct bank was facing capital shortage since 2009, although it had a sound deposit base, which the NAB inquiry also confirmed.

There was no point in merging KASB with BankIslami, as other remedies were also available with the SBP, according to the inquiry report. It added the amalgamation was a harsh step on part of the SBP, which nullified billions of rupees investments of KASB shareholders.

The NAB inquiry further noted that the Rs20 billion as financial assistance could also have been provided to KASB Bank by appointing administrator and changing the board.

“The SBP has committed offence of misuse of authority as envisaged in Section 9(a) (iv) of NAO Ordinance, and investigation may be authorised against the accused persons,” the NAB investigators recommended to the headquarters.

“A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices – if he by corrupt dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse and/or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage,” reads the relevant section of NAO.

Insider trading

The inquiry report observed that the decision to amalgamate the bank with BankIslami had taken a year before the amalgamation took place. Investigators said that the Al Karam Group, Ismail Industries, owned by Miftah Ismail family, and Ali Hussain, chairman of BankIslami, started increasing their shareholding in BankIslami from April 2014. They investigators said that this is “evident from the CDC record”.

Role of AF Ferguson

The NAB also launched an inquiry against a partner of AF Ferguson and one of its directors in the same case. The chartered accountancy firm had been accused of giving a favourable report.

“The selection of AF Ferguson and signing of tripartite agreement was an illegal act of the SBP,” according to the inquiry.

A minority shareholder of the KASB Bank, Shaheena Wajid Mirzan, had alleged that by paying Rs20.5 million as consultancy fees to AF Ferguson, the SBP got a totally fraudulent valuation report from the chartered accountancy firm. She further alleged that the Rs1,000 valuation wiped out 1.95 billion shares, held by 9,000 shareholders.

Nasir Bukhari, who had 43% stake in the defunct KASB Bank, at the time also highlighted the issue of conflict of interest, saying AF Ferguson was also the auditor of SBP and BankIslami, therefore, its Rs1,000 valuation report could not be considered impartial.

The then KASB president, Bilal Mustafa, gave a statement to NAB that the SBP summoned him and forced to sign a tripartite agreement at 12 midnight with AF Ferguson and SBP for conducting KASB’s due diligence at a hefty fee of Rs20.5 million. He told NAB that the market fee of this task was hardly Rs5 million

Mustafa further told NAB that selection of AF Ferguson at exorbitant fee that too without any tender was “not understandable”.

The inquiry report revealed that the SBP also forced the KASB Board Secretary Hameedullah to change the minutes of a meeting in which directors raised concerns about paying high fee to AF Ferguson.

  

Other players

While citing a statement given by the KASB Director, Muzzafar Bukhari, the NAB report noted that the KASB authorities were in sell-off negotiations with SAMBA Bank, which backed out and the SBP official asked it to stay away from entering into any deal, revealed the report.

SBP reply to NAB

At the inquiry stage, the SBP took the position that “interest of shareholders is not the mandate and responsibility of the SBP and they are only concerned about the interest of the depositors”, revealed the report. The SBP further stated that its actions were in line with powers available to it under the Banking Companies Ordinance.

However, NAB did not accept its response, saying the KASB Bank faced no liquidity issues and was, in fact, the most liquid bank in Pakistan due to Rs20 billion of Iranian deposits.

Reply contradiction

The SBP’s reply to NAB was contrary to what it wrote in its scheme of amalgamation. “In the case of amalgamation of banking companies, the rights of shareholders are fully protected by the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 and the Companies Ordinance 1984”, according to the documents.

,

No Comments

Panamagate: Not A Historic Decision For Sure BY Asfandyar Khan Tareen from Courting the Law

Panamagate: Not A Historic Decision For Sure

Panama Papers

Panamagate: Not A Historic Decision For Sure

Sorry to say but the short order announced in the Panama case today (on 20 April 2017) by the Supreme Court of Pakistan does not seem like a historic decision at all, I find it to be a less than average decision which shall not serve as a useful and leading precedent in the years to come. I have no interest in reading some 500 pages of academic debate and sophisticated legal discussion when the end result (i.e. the Prime Minister not being liable to be disqualified) is zero – absolutely flawed.

It is quite disappointing to see the apex court employing judicial restraint while judicially reviewing the alleged concealment of properties, evasion of tax, benami transactions, money laundering by the Prime Minister and most importantly his eligibility to sit in Parliament. This matter could have become a landmark decision, if at all, if it involved accountability of the powerful leader who did not consider himself to be a servant of the public but a badshah salamat and ameer-ul-momineen. I am only interested in reading the minority view of the honourable Justices Asif Saeed Khan Khosa J and Gulzar Ahmed J which held otherwise.

There is a famous proverb in Urdu “kya achar dalna hai?” said in the context of unnecessary, unimportant and petty things. I would like to use it in the factual syntax of the constitution of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. What are we going to do with this JIT when the accused is still sitting as the Prime Minister of Pakistan? What good is this JIT to the general public of Pakistan that had all eyes fixated on the Supreme Court to finally uphold the maxim “no one is above the rule of law” by making PM accountable for his actions?

There is a “real apprehension of bias” against this so-called JIT in the absence of PM’s resignation. No matter how bright the members of this JIT are, it is beyond reasonable doubt that this JIT cannot perform its functions impartially, fearlessly, properly or independently. Who has the courage to find anything against the head of state? The influence of the mighty mafia will dominate. The members of the JIT are either employees of the federal government or fall under its jurisdiction in some way or the other. The real apprehension of JIT being institutionally biased has been created by the Supreme Court of Pakistan itself when it could have safeguarded the independence of judiciary in order to maintain the confidence of general public in the judiciary and the rule of law.

It seems that the backward people of this backward country will have to wait some more for its backward judiciary to finally hold that nobody is above the law, that the powerful and the weak are equal in the eyes of law, that the representatives of people are answerable to the general public, and finally that even the Prime Minister is accountable. The majority view has made Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution redundant by failing to disqualify the Prime Minister when there were overwhelming and clear pieces of evidence proving that the Prime Minister lied in the Assembly and adopted inconsistent stances to escape the liability, which does not make him sadiq and ameen. It is well-settled that redundancy cannot be attributed to any provision of the Constitution but frankly, the majority view has made qualifications and disqualification provided in the Constitution redundant. Thus the ruling goes not only against the country but also against the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

The founding fathers of the country and our ancestors did not struggle for an independent country to promote slavery, dishonesty, nepotism, bigotry and corruption. We are an independent nation, we are all equal and our leaders are not above the law. Maybe only the minority view understood this clearly.

 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of CourtingTheLaw.com or any organization with which he might be associated.

Asfandyar Khan Tareen

The writer is a Barrister from Lincoln’s Inn and heads Tareen Barristers Chambers in Lahore. He can be contacted at ayk@tareen.com.pk

 

, ,

No Comments