ISLAMABAD: Politicians, mediapersons and civil society activists on Tuesday said there was a lack of political will to ensure security for mediapersons.

They were speaking at a consultation arranged by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) to finalise a report on ‘Enhancing security for mediapersons’.

The speakers said targeted killing of mediapersons cannot be stopped unless security agencies were made answerable to parliament. As many as 118 journalists have been killed in different incidents in the country since 2000.

Former senator Afrasiab Khattak said militarisation had increased in society due to which media owners and anchorpersons talked like warlords.

“I have seen a report on Omer Cheema, which is with the human rights committee of the Senate. There are circumstantial evidences about the involvement of security agencies (in his torture),” he said.

Senior journalist M. Ziauddin said he did not think the government would do anything to ensure security for journalists.

“Moreover, it is the responsibility of the media house owners to ensure security of journalists. There should be some conditions for issuing licences to the media houses to ensure safety standards.”

He said the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) remained divided and there was also tension among media houses. “Rivalry among media houses is good but it should not become an enmity,” he added.

Journalist Hamid Mir said even big media houses were being dictated and 70 to 80 per cent of their contents were compromised.

“Some journalists have left their jobs because they could not bear the pressure. As many as 11 journalists from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) have shifted to Islamabad but no one is ready to take up their issue,” he claimed.

“The inquiry report on Omer Cheema could not be made public. On the other hand, both the government and the establishment want to suppress the media,” Mr Mir said, adding legislation should be done to make security agencies answerable to the parliament.

Rights activist Fatima Atif said in talk shows, genuine people were not invited and the programmes were conducted under some special agendas.

“Some journalists also try to exaggerate the threats for publicity,” she alleged.

PFUJ president Afzal Butt said civil society showed solidarity with journalists when media houses received threats or were attacked but it never expressed solidarity when journalists demanded their rights from media house owners.

“In a majority of media houses, even basic human rights are not implemented. A media house sacked a woman journalist after she sought maternity leave,” he said.

HRCP joint director Najamuddin said the concerns of journalists and media owners were different.

Zafarullah Khan, who wrote the report, said laws were made but never implemented. He said funds allocated for Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) should be spent on the welfare of journalists.

“There should also be a check on media houses as there is a big mismatch between expenses and taxes they pay. I prepared a report on the differences between the taxes and the expenses of media houses but no one published it. Some parts of the report regarding the BOL group were, however, published,” he said.

Mr Zafarullah told Dawn that the report on the security of mediapersons was about the last five years.

“The recommendations will be incorporated in the report within a week after which it will be distributed among parliamentarians,” he said.

Some recommendations asked the government to work in collaboration with organisations that were dedicated to the cause of security of journalists and media houses.

It added that the National Commission for Human Rights should play a proactive role for the rights of journalists. The judicial commission set up to investigate the attack on Hamid Mir should make its findings public. The Supreme Court was urged to ensure that the findings of various judicial commissions were implemented.

Political parties should train their workers and activists to respect the role and value of a free and independent media.

“Pemra charges exuberant licence, annual renewal fees and 5-7 per cent of annual gross advertisement revenues from satellite televisions and FM radios. It should establish an institute to train media professionals on issues of safety and security besides contributing towards the journalist safety fund,” it was suggested.

Dawn

KARACHI: Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has said that in Pakistan last year’s conviction of six suspects for the assassination of Geo Television reporter Wali Khan Babar would herald a new dawn for journalists have dwindled in the face of fresh violence and the leadership’s failure to implement a series of commitments to CPJ to address impunity.

According to the latest “CPJ’s 2015 Global Impunity Index Report, three journalists have been slain since the last index period, bringing Pakistan’s total to 22 for the most recent decade. They include Shan Dahar who was gunned down while investigating illegal sales of aid medicine at a local hospital.

With the exception of Babar’s case, impunity remains the norm in these murders and in a slew of recent, non-fatal attacks, such as the shooting that gravely injured popular news anchor Hamid Mir. Threats to journalists stream from military and intelligence agencies, political parties, criminal groups and militants, and corrupt local leaders.

Pakistan is a focus country for the UN Plan of Action for the Safety of Journalists and issue of Impunity, an initiative that has improved dialogue and coordination among civil society, media, and the government but not yet led to any significant reduction in impunity. Impunity Index Rating Pakistan 0.119 unsolved journalist murders per million inhabitants, Last year Ranked 9th with a rating of 0.123.

The News

Islamabad: The most famous television journalist in Pakistan lives like a fugitive. Hamid Mir tells no one where he is going, how he will get there or where he will spend the night.

At Mir’s office, his curtains are always drawn. He uses at least two cellphones and, until recently, he rotated among three residences to obscure his precise location, even from friends.

Even with all these precautions, Mir is anxious and jittery, most of all when he gets into the back seat of his bulletproof car to drive to the television studios for his show, “Capital Talk.”

“Most nerve-racking part of the day,” says the 49-year-old father of two, clenching the grab bar above him on a recent morning as the driver careens through the city taking last-minute instructions on which roads to take. Mir ignores incoming calls from unknown numbers and swivels from side to side, watching traffic to see whether any vehicle stays too close for too long.

Mir is not just trying to avoid recognition; he also is desperately trying to avoid a repeat of what happened to him a little over a year ago as he was being driven from the airport to the Karachi offices of Geo Television, the network that employs him.

That day, a man standing along the road opened fire on his car.

When the first bullet shattered the rear passenger window and tore through his right shoulder, he actually felt relieved, he said. He was still alive.

But then he realized that four men on two motorcycles were chasing his car through the city streets, guns out.

Bullets pierced his body, including his right thigh, stomach and bladder. By the sixth impact, he began losing consciousness, and his mother, father, wife and children appeared.

“Their faces went around in my head,” he recalled.

The attack on Mir and the continuing death threats against him are emblematic of a broad backlash against transparency and independent journalism in many parts of the world.

Six out of seven citizens have little or no access to insightful reporting about their governments even though the Internet has made other types of information ubiquitous, according to organizations that monitor reporting internationally.

Worldwide, the last three years have been particularly hard on those who gather the news: An average of more than one journalist a week has been killed for reasons connected to his or her work, or about 205 journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit organization that investigates attacks on the media.

This year, at least 38 more have been killed. The dead include eight Charlie Hebdo journalists in Paris, a Brazilian radio broadcaster tortured and shot, an Indian reporter burned to death for investigating local corruption and a Japanese freelance photographer who was beheaded by the Islamic State in Syria.

Pakistan, with its volatile mix of shadowy security forces, internecine political battles, terrorist groups and criminal networks, is one of the most dangerous countries for local journalists outside of war zones, according to the United Nations and press freedom groups. Since 2001, 52 journalists have been killed here because of their reporting. Criminal charges have led to convictions in only two cases.

Who nearly killed Hamid Mir on April 19, 2014, remains a mystery.

A magnet for hatred

To be a crusading journalist in Pakistan is to have many enemies.

In Mir’s case, some elements in the country’s most-feared intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, despise him for his exposés of their double-dealings and secret influence on politics, he says. The Pakistani Taliban and local terrorist networks hate him for his outspoken criticism of their tactics and ideology and for his support of girls’ education. Various political parties revile him for finding corruption in their ranks and for his more tolerant view of India, which they would rather blame for Pakistan’s many ills.

The sunny view of press freedom in Pakistan is that it’s still evolving, moving forward, not backward.

Until 2002, when the government deregulated the media industry, there was only one state-run television station and a handful of heavily regulated radio outlets. Today, many of the licenses for the nearly 90 TV stations, 150 radio outlets and hundreds of newspapers are independently owned.

But media standards vary widely. Bribing reporters for favorable coverage is well-known, as are headlines based on rumors. Most large media outlets are funded by owners who don’t hide their strong political allegiances.

The media wing of Pakistan’s main intelligence service, the ISI, often exerts pressure on news outlets, according to former U.S. diplomatic and intelligence officials. It monitors the news, plants stories and intimidates reporters and editors.

The media wing’s larger goal is to keep the military’s influence on society obscured, its operations secret, and to promote its strategic interests, according to officials. This includes distancing itself publicly from the United States, even though its military has received billions in U.S. taxpayer money, records show.

Reports by Mir and other Pakistani journalists on the military’s secret support for the Afghan Taliban and the ISI’s involvement in CIA covert armed drone strikes deeply embarrassed the military establishment.

For a military that has directly controlled the levers of power three times in Pakistan’s history, these accountability stories only deepened its conviction to curb such journalism. International human rights investigations and U.S. State Department reports are filled with allegations of how hard it has tried since 2001.

In the Wild West province of Baluchistan, for example, security forces have been blamed by human rights advocates for the deaths and disappearances of many of the thousands of missing civilians. In that province, 13 journalists have been killed since 2008.

Mir produced more than 38 shows on the topic in the two years leading up to the attack on his life.

In 2012, a senior government official warned Mir to stop reporting on it: “Your life is under threat; you should stop raising your voice,” Mir quoted the man as saying.

Mir’s response: Another report on his show about Baluchistan’s missing.

Click following to read full story

The Washington Post

ISLAMABAD: The representatives of mainstream political parties on Thursday vowed that draft of the bill would be prepared and get passed in the Parliament to provide complete security and protection to the journalists and their family members.

Addressing the meeting of executive council of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) held at National Press Club, they said the journalists associations should provide their suggestions and proposals that would help prepare comprehensive draft for the legislation.

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Senator Aitzaz Ahsan said the journalists can themselves rightly point out dangers because they work in the field and directly face all those segments posing threats to their lives.

“The state has the responsibility to provide protection to every citizen and the journalists who work day and night and face threats and dangers be provided proper security. Now we feel that new legislation is necessary to extend full security to journalists and their family members and we would put in our best efforts in this respect,” he said.

Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) chief Sirajul Haq said his party has already tabled a bill in National Assembly to provide security to the journalists and if other political parties also take initiatives then they would extend their full cooperation in this respect.

He said: “Our Constitution envisages the right to freedom of expression and the media is serving the country in a befitting manner so it is necessary to provide protection to those people who face threats to bring out truth before the people.”

Minister for Commerce Engr Khurram Dastgir Khan said the government realises and acknowledges the sacrifices of the media persons and would fully support the legislation for their security and protection.

He said democracy and independent media always go together and if there is any threat to media then it is responsibility of the state to thwart them and provide a congenial working environment to the media persons.

Leading anchorperson Hamid Mir said Threats are hurled on the journalists especially on those working in Khyber Pakhtunkhawa, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Balochistan so international laws should be applied in these areas to ensure their protection in the face of these threats.

He said, “Hayatullah Khan was killed but the commission constituted to probe this tragic incident has so far not presented its report. So the journalist associations should speed up their efforts to win their rights amid highly uncongenial environment.

PFUJ President Afzal Butt said the journalist community has always rendered sacrifices but never ever made any compromise over freedom of expression but unfortunately the previous governments most of the time made only lip service and did nothing for their protection.

“The journalists face dangers and even sacrifice their lives but there is no one to arrest those elements who pose threats and kill them. We hope that the political parties would come up with an effective legislation and ensure protection of the journalists working anywhere in the country”, he said.

Others who also spoke on the occasion included anchorpersons Saleem Safi, Asma Sherazi, Javed Chaudhry, Matiullah Jan and representatives of the journalist associations who demanded of the government to carry out legislation for protection of the journalists.

The News

But he was messaging for another reason. He says he is concerned because he received a new round of threats and denunciations related to his plans to attend an upcoming conference in Bangladesh of journalists, hosted by the Bangladeshi newspaper Prothom Alo. Under discussion will be the incidents of 1971, when Bangladesh began its break away from Pakistan, leading to a vicious and bloody secessionist war.

Mir angered his own government when, on November 5 in the Urdu-language Daily Jang newspaper he encouraged Pakistan to issue an official apology to Bangladesh over atrocities of 1971. That re-opened a wound from last year when, while in Bangladesh, he identified the “main culprits,” as he put it, of the bloodbath as a group of Pakistani army officers. “I never spoke against the Pakistan Army, I only mentioned the names of some books written by Pakistan Army officers who confessed atrocities,” Mir said in this weekend’s email message.

“A few hours after my visit to the Bangladesh High Commission some mysterious people dropped CDs containing hate material against me in offices of different newspapers. Many people started tweeting against me and saying ‘Hamid Mir is enemy of Pakistan and agent of Bangladesh,’” he wrote. The CDs contained archival footage of past programs in which he was critical of the government and the military’s policies in Bangladesh.

His concerns for his safety are not overwrought. Remember, this is a man who was targeted for death eight months ago because of his outspoken views. While Mir was still hospitalized, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif established a three-member judicial commission which was supposed to release its report on the murder attempt within three weeks. Six months have passed since that deadline, and there is no report.

The motive for the April shooting remains unclear, but it seems likely to have been linked to Mir’s criticism of Pakistani policy in Baluchistan province, the region bordering Iran and Afghanistan in the west. At the time, he had been critical of the disappearances of Baloch political activists, hitting the issue frequently on his TV programs. A battle between insurgents and counter-insurgents has been waging in Baluchistan for years, and it is playing out in ugly incidents perpetrated by many sides to the conflict.

The result of the April murder attempt: The very outspoken Mir admits to dialing back his on-air rhetorical tone: “I am very careful these days in TV shows, but even then I am getting threatening messages and facing another hate campaign.” For Mir, and his associates, there seems little recourse but to publicize this recent round of accusations in the hope that the publicity will head off another serious attack.

Committee to protect journalists

But the biggest dilemma of the leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has been that he heavily depends on ‘ill- informed’ media advisers and never applied his own mind before giving such statements.

In the last 34 days at the D-Chowk or Dharna Chowk, he has made so many blunders while accusing people that it often caused an embarrassment to his own party. He made similar kind of mistakes in his interviews before and after the May 2013 elections.

During his Dharna, his best part time hobby is to attack on Geo and Jang Group and the best part-time hobby of his ‘Tiger Force’ is to beat or harass journalists, including female staffers, pelt stones on Geo building, etc.

On the other hand, the police, instead of providing protection, picked their own targets and attacked journalists, mostly belonging to different private TV channels, which is most deplorable.

If the allegations come from a national leader like Imran Khan, it is serious, even if it has no basis or the leader does not have any evidence. But, if he has, I would request him to make it public and then file a petition in the Supreme Court and take legal action against them.

Similar kind of allegations were leveled in June 2012 when a list of 19 journalists was circulated with unnamed source and they were accused of getting plots from the Bahria Town.

Hamid Mir and Absar Alam did the right thing by filing a petition in the Supreme Court and offered themselves for “accountability.” Later, some other journalists named in the list also joined the petition, including myself and Asma Sherazi.

We also took a position that let the Ministry of Information’s “Secret Fund” be abolished and whoever was paid from this fund, his or her name should be made public.

The two-member SC bench not only took up the matter but as a result, appointed a two-member commission headed by Justice (retd) Nasir Aslam Zahid and former information minister Javed Jabbar to look into this matter and come up with recommendations.

The commission’s comprehensive report is also a part of the court record and also available in “book form,” if Imran wants to read it. All those who really want to make this profession clean from all kinds of dirt must also read this report.

The court also sought the details of the secret fund from the minister of information, and one such list may still be available on the SC website and is part of the court record in the petition Hamid Mir-Absar Alam vs. Federation of Pakistan.

As a result of this petition, the information ministry’s “Secret Fund” was abolished. I would be more than happy if the Ministry of Information was abolished like in many democratic countries.

This is the maximum a journalist can do and I must congratulate Hamid Mir and Absar Alam on taking such a bold stance.But, now once again, Imran, a national leader, believes whoever is critical of him and his politics and Dharna are “paid” by the government or intelligence agencies. So, now he should provide solid evidence like a true leader. He also claimed that government advertisements worth 100,000 crore were released since the Dharna to pro-government print and electronic media.

Imran should also assess the credentials of the people who had provided him such “information,” may be in order to save their own neck.Allegations of corruption against journalists are nothing new. It started from the days of the first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Successive governments used the Ministry of Information’s “Secret Funds.” Intelligence agencies also have used their secret funds to seek information or spread disinformation. At times, the agencies used such funds even against the government. But, accusations without any evidence can put leaders like Imran Khan’s credibility at stake and may raise the question of “Sadiq and Amin” under Article 62 and 63.

It was on August 8th, 1990, a few days after the late Benazir Bhutto’s government was sacked by former president Ghulam Ishaq Khan when she called an urgent press conference at the Bilawal House and besides blaming the premier intelligence agency for the dismissal of her government, accused some journalists of being on the payroll of agencies.

Three years later, when she again came to power, I reminded her that as the prime minister, she could ask for the list of journalists working on the payroll and also demanded that she should abolish the Ministry of Information and the Secret Fund. She failed in getting the list and abolishing the ministry or the Secret Fund.

Thus, every mainstream political party whenever criticised leveled such allegations against the media. But, when they come into power, they never release the list of such journalists whom they accuse are on payroll.

Whether Imran’s allegations are based on “facts or fiction,” it has certainly posed a serious challenge to the independent media and professional journalists.In the famous Asghar Khan case, some journalists, including editors, were named in the list submitted by the former ISI chief, Lt Gen (retd) General Asad Durrani.

So, let Imran Khan come out with the facts and evidence against the journalists whom he believes are writing or speaking against him because they are “paid”. Earlier, Imran had also claimed that journalists were paid some Rs250 crores and even in some of the TV talk shows, such allegations were made but still without evidence like the one made a few years back.

Imran should see and read his own speeches before accusing anchors and columnists of not giving a correct figure about the crowd assembled at the Dharna Chowk everyday.It would be interesting to see how many journalists in this country really believe that over a million or half a million or over 100,000 people attend the PTI Dharna. I still believe that it was an impressive show in the first three or four days but later it lost its impact. As compared to the PTI, the show of Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) was more impressive and consistent.

I wish Imran Khan’s “media team” should have provided him the facts about “professional and non-professional journalists,” and also about the “paratroopers” who have entered this profession after 2002, with the growth of private television industry.

Such allegations of Imran on journalists, who are critical of him in the last 34 days, also showed that he does not like criticism. Perhaps, he likes people who always praise him. Sincere political workers and leaders are the ones who show “dissent”.

Journalists’ bodies like the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) have rightly demanded the government to constitute a high-powered judicial commission to probe these allegations.

I also request Imran to have an internal probe into the position he has taken against the media, including allegations of corruption. Let the PTI commission be constituted, headed by Justice (retd) Wahjiuddin Ahmad. He should be authorised to get the services of any senior lawyer or retired judge. Let him also probe the government advertisements of rupees one billion which have allegedly been given to the pro-government media.

As I said, the allegations of corruption against journalists are nothing new in this country. But, when it comes from the champion of “Naya Pakistan,” it should also be substantiated.The recommendations of the Media Commission provide the best guideline to avoid such allegations but accusations coming from someone like Imran Khan, has disappointed the journalistic community and a serious question has emerged about his political outlook, as the national leaders are not supposed to level such serious allegations against senior journalists, anchors and columnists without any evidence. It should be remembered that journalists have already created history by offering themselves for accountability.

The News

There were other reporters in the crew, too. From the hotels to the lunches, mostly everything was paid for: our job, as defined by the fellowship, was to cover the hundreds of delegates from across the world of anti-corruption and understand their ‘fight the good fight’ narratives. It was all very charming, really.

Naturally curious, I asked the Pakistan question. The Pakistani delegation was missing from the conference, but I started running into people who knew of Transparency International Pakistan (TIP), and its powerful leader, Adil Gilani, the twice-elected chairperson of the outfit. Noticeable was the nervous twitch, the curt tone, the glib ‘yeah, we’ve heard about the Pakistan TI chapter’s work’ utterances; but, frankly, I couldn’t find a story. Gilani wasn’t around (it would soon emerge that he was being probed by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency around that time) and nobody gave up too much information.

Much like the Pakistani military, which I also cover, there was a sense of fraternity amongst the TI brass that was essentially aimed at protecting their own: At TI, messaging and perception for reputation management was a key strategy, less sharing facts.

Four years later, it’s becoming clear why an anti-corruption watchdog like Transparency International is so particularly good at keeping the lid on its own transparency. Months of investigations published in series in this newspaper since last fall have highlighted in detail the conflicts of interest and irregularities that plague Transparency International Pakistan, particularly its senior leadership, all under the neglectful or complicit gaze of TI’s global bosses in Berlin, but not much has happened in terms of the accountability.

(Note: Immediately after my initial reports [“Who’s Watching the Watchdog”, published here last October, there was no response, rejoinder or clarification from TI and/or TIP about my findings. After some prodding, the current TIP leadership accused me of being “young”, and, worse, humiliated me in official correspondence, but there was no significant response to counter or acknowledge my claims.)

TI donor interest in my findings, probably for their own due diligence, as well as continued reminders to TI’s Berlin-based Secretariat (TIS) seeking a response about their Pakistan chapter’s discrepancies eventually paved the way for an internal investigation against TIP to be launched earlier this summer.

Considering this was happening at a time when TIP’s accreditation was up for renewal, and TI’s Berlin Secretariat was in the midst of securing major international donations, here was a conveniently timely development. What was disheartening, though, was the process: TIP was investigating TIP itself.

A “misogynistic old boys club, who scratch each others’ backs”, as a former TIP Trustee, the institutional graft expert and scholar Ayesha Siddiqa told me, was going to set upon the path of righteous self-correction. It was a tall order, and not very transparent either.

Also unfortunate was that this in-house “ethics hearing” was happening under the complicit watch of the TI bosses in Berlin, who have made their reputation telling the world about how internally-led investigations are a terrible idea. Such double standards were compounded by delay tactics – like TIP insisting I attend their meetings and bring my proofs to Karachi, despite of logistical and financial constraints – which ended up blocking any real progress into the investigation of the discrepancies at TIP. If there were any findings about TIP’s ethical standards, or lack of, none of them were shared with either the free press or myself.

Today, Adil Gilani has returned to the forefront of TIP activities. Despite being an advisor – he’s served out the permitted two consecutive chair terms, and is waiting out the rules to make a comeback for a third – Gilani’s essentially ‘pulling a Putin’ as he continues to be the de facto operational boss and public face of the organisation. Most of the notification letters (over 90 percent) the watchdog has made a business of sending to public and private institutions carry his name; he grants interviews and claims access to boardrooms in the name of TIP, even though he’s not an executive, staffer or Trustee of the organisation. And he negotiates with different parties in the name of TIP for purposes clear (like following requisite procurement and tender rules) and unclear (like positioning TIP and its affiliates on procurement boards). Thus, it’s crucial to understand what this very powerful, if unofficial, leader of TIP has been up to since bearing the standard of this country’s premier anti-corruption watchdog.

First, conflicts of interest: From the late 2000s, Gilani served as a shareholder and director of the AKD REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) Management Company, a property development arm of stock-market heavyweight Aqeel Karim Dhedi’s empire. In recent years, he went on to represent AKD’s real estate interests legally, operationally and institutionally, while under his stewardship and around the same time period, the watchdog TIP went to war: notifying, warning and sue the competition – other real estate developers like Emaar and Meinhardt – that AKD was up against in Karachi’s mega real estate schemes race. Details of these and other irregularities of the Gilani-AKD combine were documented in this newspaper last October; none of them were challenged by TI, TIP and/or AKD.

Also, neither has Gilani publicly registered his conflict of interest statements stating these discrepancies, a direct contravention of at least three clauses of TIP’s own Governance Manual. Needless to say, neither Gilani, nor TIP, respond to my queries, either.

But those are dreary, technical findings, all previously reported. To be fair, TIP was unjustly lambasted during the Asif Ali Zardari regime by Rehman Malik’s Interior Ministry and accused of being a “private detective agency”. But TIP has also been slammed, not prejudicially, of political misconduct, too.

The journalist and intellectual-at-large, Raza Rumi, was not the only one to question TIP’s more-loyal-than-the-king, and very out of ambit, politicking during the early days of Geo’s closure last April, when it issued a gratuitous statement supporting the Jang/Geo network’s shutdown in the wake of the Hamid Mir issue.

The politicking would go further back, to last summer, when Adil Gilani would use TIP’s official platform to “run a proper online election campaign, promoting IK & PTI [Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf]”, according to the former TIP trustee, Ayesha Siddiqa. And then, of course, was the heady year of 2010, when Gilani would fight tooth and nail against everything the other Gilani – Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani – pitched, even the controversial and inter-institutional turf war between legislature and judiciary that was the Contempt of Court bill, which would be oddball and not dispassionate politics for a transparency watchdog.

That same year, ace investigative reporter Rauf Klasra would a do a whole series on the multibillion-rupee NICL [National Insurance Corporation Limited] scam: guess who would feature prominently in the murky scandal? Adil Gilani, the same man whose letters had unfurled the shady scheme in the first place, was eventually investigated by the FIA for staying in contact with an absconder, Qasim Dada, and, more seriously, for offering a bailout-indemnity scheme via a Memorandum of Understanding to the troubled NICL board (basically, a ‘follow-TI’s-procurement-recommendations-for-a-clean-chit-from-TI’ deal), which was corroborated directly or indirectly by at least four board members.

Also, the same year, the recently expired Majid Nizami would edit a remarkable story for his The Nation along, as would competitor Arif Nizami for Pakistan Today, further establishing how TIP/Gilani’s modus operandi would go into play for access to boardrooms and secretariats: In the case of PNSC [Pakistan National Shipping Corporation], Gilani would exploit discrepancies by implementing a brilliantly simple stratagem: first, he would discover an irregularity (a conflict of interest, one allegedly involving Secretary Ports and Shipping, Saleem Khan, and his wife); next, he would shoot off letters to the institution, grabbing its attention and creating panic; then, he would threaten to disclose the irregularities to the media; eventually, the resultant leverage would help him install a TIP affiliate, in this case his own son, Sohrab, on the PNSC board. When the arrangement became untenable, Sohrab would eventually resign and move on, but the marvelous template of maneuvering would remain: Pick an institution; spot a problem; threaten to publicise the problem; land a favour (like a procurement, governance or advisory board position), and then sit back and relax till the weather changed.

Gilani’s discrepancies are not news now, nor were they back in late 2010, just around the time I was serving my TI fellowship in Thailand, exactly when the FIA was investigating Pakistan’s watchdog-in-chief and asking him some pertinent and disturbing questions, the responses to which have yet to be officially disclosed by him or his colleagues, despite of TIP’s Governance Manual protocols that call for full disclosure to battle real and even perceived conflicts of interest.

To cite Rauf Klasra’s investigation of the FIA investigation: How did Gilani’s job history qualify him as Pakistan’s watchdog-in-chief; why was he terminated from his job at Karachi Port Trust; did he sign an NICL-type MoU with Pakistan State Oil as well, which was terminated later (more on Gilani’s PSO dealings is coming up); whether Gilani had been getting financial benefits from his “clients” (or patrons like AKD) with whom he used to sign such MoUs; what about his “private consultancies”; did he sign an agreement with Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) to perform the role of a watchdog or he was acting on his own without any formal understanding; what methodology was he was following to verify facts about any official irregularity taking place in any particular government department; and what were the strengths and qualifications of the staff he was using to dig out those irregularities, embezzlements and frauds in government departments?

Years later, I would string some of those answers together: former NAB [National Accountability Bureau] official, TIP Trustee and insider Ayesha Siddiqa would help, claiming that “Gilani’s old boys network didn’t have the forensic or financial expertise to make the claims they made”; that their own internal spending – which is not easily calculable as their internal audits and statements are not publicly itemised for discretionary and events spending – was “inappropriate and excessive, especially for entertainment and events”; and that TIP would apply pressure tactics on its associates – in one instance in 2012, recalls Siddiqa, Gilani personally demanded that Siddiqa, then an advisor to former chairman of NAB, Admiral Fasih Bokhari, should “treat with care a couple of friends” who were under a corruption investigation.

These were FBR officials – allegedly involved in a scam of 40 billion rupees in unpaid taxes by cellular phone companies – who were “buddies of Adil Gilani and enough of a reason for him to interfere in and influence” an ongoing federal investigation, according to Siddiqa.

Some of the other questions can perhaps be answered by a closer look at Gilani’s 2012 tax returns: Two houses in DHA Karachi, valued at the modest sum of eight and nine million, which would make them the best buys on North Street and Zulfiqar Street, if not all of Karachi. Also, two plots in Phase VIII of DHA Karachi, declared worth seven and three million each, which makes them the best value for money for whoever purchases them from Gilani, or, if you know your Karachi property rates, raises the question of him wrongly declaring their actual value. Of course, the property question is compounded by Rs65 million in saving certificates and bank accounts for a man who’s a former government servant turned NGO-wallah and, in 2012, a mysterious 50 million rupees “Supply of Goods” payment for which he’s only paid 3.5 percent in taxes, makes one wonder how lucrative the watchdog business really is.

But let’s not forget that on tax returns filed from 2009-11, Pakistan’s premier watchdog’s chairman was citing his email address as “Mohammad.saqib@akdcapital.com”, which belonged to the Chief Accountant and Company Secretary of AKD Capital Limited. See, young Saqib, a talented accountant, was filing taxes on behalf of Gilani while “providing administrative support to AKD management”; this made sense, for Gilani was using AKD’s executive offices to plan and execute much of TIP’s operations, according to two sources inside AKD’s company who asked to remain anonymous.

Not long before he was assassinated, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, always an avid social media user and not one to hold back, tweeted about TIP: “Transparency International is run by a local, Adil Gilani, who was fired from KPT [Karachi’s port authority] for fraud. Neither transparent nor international.”

Next, Gilani would file a defamation lawsuit against Taseer for $5.8 million; but soon after, Taseer would be assassinated, shot multiple times by his own bodyguard for defending the truth about the poor of this wretched land; with him would go his details about the TIP overlord’s transgressions.

There is a joke at Harvard Business School: that some of the answers lie with the accountants, but all of the answers rest with the dead. In the case of TIP and Taseer, Harvard’s bad joke stands redeemed.

Continued

The News

This interview has been edited for clarity.

CPJ: Hamid, the three-member judicial commission looking into the attempt to kill you on April 19th 2014 was supposed to come up with its findings within three weeks. I know you appeared in front of the panel in Karachi and Islamabad several times, and submitted two affidavits. It’s been almost three months now, when will the commission release its report? Is there dissension within the panel? Have their conclusions been repressed?

Hamid Mir: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was kind enough to visit me in the hospital after the assassination attempt on my life. He told me that the judicial commission comprised of three Supreme Court judges will come up with its findings in three weeks. When I appeared in front of this commission first time in Karachi on a wheelchair, my wounds were still bleeding. I was holding urine and blood bags in my hands. It was the first time in the history of Pakistan that [a living] victim directly accused the head of the most powerful intelligence agency with a lot of evidence in front of three Supreme Court judges. I also produced the reports of CPJ and Amnesty International about attacks on media to the commission. They called me again and I answered their questions for hours despite the fact that I was not able to move and I was also suffering from pain in my bullet wounds. I told judges that I appeared in front of the commission which investigated the murder of the journalist Saleem Shahzad. I told them that I also appeared in front of the commission which investigated the abduction and torture of journalist Umar Cheema but nothing happened. I told them that many judicial commissions in the past had failed to identify attackers and they were inconclusive. I told them that despite bad experiences about these commissions in the past I was appearing in front of a commission which was investigating the attack on my life because first time three Supreme Court judges were sitting there. I completed my appearances within three weeks. It was also the first time that top management of a media house also appeared in front of the commission and confirmed that they were facing pressures from military and intelligence officials to sack me or stop me from highlighting the issues of enforced disappearances, criticism on security agencies for their involvement in violating the human rights and treason trial of former dictator General Pervez Musharraf. Many other journalists, human rights activists, and one retired Army official appeared in front of the commission as a witness and they confirmed my stance about the involvement of powerful intelligence officials in terrorizing and attacking media. During my appearances to the commission one judge asked me a question– why do you people report to CPJ about threats to your life? I told him we contact CPJ because our government and judiciary have failed to provide us security and justice. That judge was more interested about the alleged foreign funding to Pakistani media rather than to investigate the attack on my life. The attitude of other two judges was different. Now more than three months have passed and the judicial commission has failed to come up with its findings. According to my information, Karachi police and security agencies are not cooperating with the commission. They are hiding facts and trying to misguide the commission members. I have seen one report of the Karachi police presented to the commission. It is confusing.

CPJ: I’ve always argued against those sorts of commissions. They are inconclusive, they lack authority to initiate real change, and seem more a way of placating the angry media after an assault takes place. Isn’t there an option to resorting to them, to somehow force the courts to address the incident as a crime and investigate it and prosecute it? It happened in the Wali Khan Babar case to some extent, why can’t it be forced through in other cases? I know the prime suspects are linked to the government in many of these cases, but there still must be some sort of mechanism to pursue the case in court, even if it comes to a stalling point?

HM: You are right. These kind of commissions lack authority. I told the three judges that they must come up with something which can provide safety to media. We need legislation. We need accountability of powerful intelligence agencies. These agencies should be answerable to the elected parliament but in my case it was proved that one intelligence agency was more powerful than the whole government. Banned outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba were demonstrating in support of the [Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)] openly, they were raising slogans against me and my TV channel. … Many federal ministers advised Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif not to support Geo TV. They also asked him that government must take action against Geo TV for naming the head of ISI in the attack on my life. Government was forced to take action against Geo TV for its own survival. Instead of providing justice to me and my TV channel we were implicated in a blasphemy case, we were fined, and transmission of Geo TV was suspended for 15 days.

CPJ: You’re facing a legal onslaught, including two arrest warrants issued by courts in Quetta and Lahore for your reporting. And Geo and its management are under the same sort of attacks from the courts, PEMRA, cable operators, the whole spectrum. Is it just Geo’s coverage on the day you were shot that has angered the establishment, or is there more to it?

HM: My arrest warrant issued from a Lahore court is very interesting. I wrote a column against attack on the editor of Daily Jang in Multan city and I was accused of defaming the Pakistan Army on the basis of that column. I have said it many times that I am not against the Army. I have written columns in praise of those brave soldiers who sacrificed their lives in fighting Taliban, but how can I tolerate the involvement of some intelligence officials in attacks against media? These powerful people wanted to dictate to me. They wanted to use me. When I refused they attacked me. Now they are using their unlimited resources including some black sheep in media not only against me but also against Geo TV. Unfortunately some extremist groups were used to exploit blasphemy allegations against Geo TV. We apologized on that issue but even then we were not pardoned because our actual crime was to raise voice against the brutalities of powerful people. Yes, they want to punish Geo TV for airing the name of ISI head as a suspect in my case, but there is more than that. They want to control the whole Pakistani media and parliament. They terrorized not only me but many colleagues of mine. They threatened our families. They forced my colleagues to leave Geo TV. They also threatened journalists [at] different newspapers and TV channels not to speak in support [of me]. They used cable operators against us. They forced advertising agencies not to give any ads to Geo TV. Geo TV is suffering huge losses. It is becoming difficult for the management to pay salaries [on] time. We are under attack from all directions. The most powerful people failed to eliminate us physically, now they want to eliminate us economically. They want to make a horrible example [of us]. We cannot fight them with guns but at least we have the right to defend and right to exist and we are trying our best to survive. Our struggle is not just for our own survival. We are actually struggling for the freedom of whole Pakistani media. If we don’t survive the freedom of the whole media will go away. Today they have targeted Geo TV but tomorrow they will target those TV channels that were used against us.

CPJ: With attacks on religious minorities, it seems there is a whole wave of religious extremism which the military is not really putting down. It doesn’t seem like the military is behind it, it’s just that the state does not seem to be reacting to it. And the use of blasphemy charges to go after some members of the media in the courts seems related to that. Are we seeing the emergence of a more religiously restrictive, more conservative Pakistan? If that’s true, is it being driven by the grass roots? Or are conservative groups within the government/military/intelligence complex encouraging it, or just stepping back and letting it happen?

HM: I want to make it clear again that the whole Pakistani army is not involved in dirty double games or violating the local laws. Some individuals like Gen. Pervez Musharraf or some bosses of the intelligence agencies have given a bad name to the whole institution. It was very unfortunate that banned outfits like LeT came on the roads a few weeks back with pictures of ISI head in their hands and raising slogans against Geo TV. They were demanding to take action against Geo TV on blasphemy charges. It was clear that supporters of the ISI head were exploiting blasphemy laws against a media house. This attitude encouraged many other extremist groups to attack religious minorities for the same baseless reasons. Civilian government is looking helpless right now. They are under pressure. Some political pygmies are trying to involve the army in politics for becoming big but I think it’s the time that media and civil society must support civil rule and democracy because extremism in Pakistan is the product of military regimes. Criticizing the involvement of some army officials in politics does not mean that I am against the whole army–I think all those who use the Army for achieving some political objectives give a bad name to this institution and they are the real enemies of the Army. Using blasphemy charges against a TV channel to protect an army official is not a good service to the country. Spreading the flames of hatred may save one individual but ultimately these flames can burn the whole country in the fire of extremism.

CPJ: CPJ met with Prime Minister Sharif and Information Minister Pervaiz Rasheed in March. We came away hopeful after we were given assurances the government would address the violence against journalists and the impunity with which it happens. It doesn’t seem like much has changed since our meetings. Are there changes coming, new legislation say, that are just taking time to come into effect? Or has this government walked away from the issue?

HM: PM Nawaz Sharif and Information Minister Pervez Rashid tried their best to fulfill their promises but they have their own limitations. The attack on my life changed the whole scenario. Anti-democratic forces were able to divide media and political parties. First of all Geo TV was under attack and now Nawaz Sharif is under attack. Those federal ministers who were advising Nawaz Sharif to take action against Geo TV for saving the government proved wrong. Some political groups famous for their links with anti-democratic forces are now threatening Nawaz Sharif to resign, otherwise they will replace him with a million [man] march in the capital Islamabad. Nawaz Sharif is fighting for his own political survival. I hope that if he survives then we will demand that he must fulfill his promises made to CPJ.

CPJ: If the government can’t protect journalists from militants or from its own security forces, where can journalists turn for protection? I used to argue that journalists themselves are well organized in Pakistan, and that the media industry for all its flaws, was fairly well united. It seems that since the government’s response to Geo’s coverage of the April attack on you, that solidarity has waned, if not disappeared. Is that accurate? Can the coherence of Pakistan’s media players, from field reporters up to its owners, be regenerated? Did anything like that, in fact, ever exist?

HM: In many cases some journalists just left Pakistan because government failed to protect them from militants and security agencies. I think it’s a short term solution for an individual but it is not a permanent solution [to] a big problem. I am facing security problems [for a long time]. I was asked by many friends and colleagues to leave Pakistan but I refused. I decided to stay in Pakistan because running away is not a good option. I am staying here and trying to survive and giving some hope to my colleagues facing security threats. Our unity is our solution. We were united when Gen. Pervez Musharraf imposed a ban on some TV anchors including me in 2007.We came on the roads and defeated him. We were again united after the murder of journalist Saleem Shahzad. We organized big rallies and joint shows on many TV channels. We forced the government to set up a high powered commission for investigating the murder of Saleem Shahzad. Our unity became a problem for the powerful establishment of Pakistan. Enemies of democracy and free media changed their strategy. They adopted the strategy of divide and rule. Yes some TV anchors said in their shows that I am a traitor because I criticize intelligence agencies, yes banned outfits, cable operators and PEMRA were used against Geo TV, but on the other side working journalists from Karachi to Peshawar came out on the roads with my pictures in their hands. They defied the pressure of those who have guns in their hands and who have banned extremist groups on their side. The journalist community realized that media again need unity. Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) was divided in three groups. These groups now have started talking to each other for unity and trying to remove misunderstandings which were created long ago by the military regime of General Zia-ul-Haq in late 70s. I am still hopeful that unity of media will make a big difference. Surrender is no option.

CPJ: How is your health? I know the shooting took a terrible toll. How far along are you in terms of your recovery?

HM: I got six bullet injuries in my shoulder, lower back, stomach, and both legs. My bladder was damaged. My intestines were damaged. A stent was placed in my kidney. It was difficult for me to sit on a chair. I faced horrible pains. I used a wheelchair for two months, then I started using a walker, then used a stick for many days–now I can move without any help after three months. I still feel pain in my legs because bones in my both legs were damaged. I consulted an orthopedic surgeon in Cromwell Hospital London recently and now I am recovering very fast due to the prayers of millions of people. I have started my TV show again a few days back and proved all those wrong who predicted that Hamid Mir will run away from Pakistan. I am back on the TV screen but still facing pressures. I am sure that people of Pakistan will stand by us in our struggle of survival.

CPJ: What can groups like CPJ accomplish in Pakistan? How do we go about it?

HM: First of all I must say thanks to CPJ for doing an excellent job for the protection of journalists. Enemies of free media in Pakistan are angry with CPJ which means CPJ is doing a good job. CPJ must help and guide us for raising awareness [about] why free media is essential for strengthening the democracy and why Pakistan needs legislation for the protection of media. CPJ engaged not only top government officials but also met Pakistani intelligence officials in the recent past. I will appreciate further engagement of that kind in the future.

Bob Dietz, coordinator of CPJ’s Asia Program, has reported across the continent for news outlets such as CNN and Asiaweek. He has led numerous CPJ missions, including ones to Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka. Follow him on Twitter @cpjasia and Facebook @ CPJ Asia Desk.

Committee to Protect Journalists

Against this backdrop, a group of experts on Pakistan and its media came together, under the auspices of the Commonwealth Journalists Association and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London to discuss the threats facing the country’s journalists. In a discussion chaired by BBC presenter Owen Bennett Jones, former High Commissioner of Pakistan Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Kiran Hassan of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, BBC Urdu Service Editor Aamer Ahmed Khan, New York Times Pakistan Bureau Chief Declan Walsh and renowned journalist and author Babar Ayaz tried to answer the question, How safe is it to be a journalist in Pakistan?

Censorship in Pakistan used to be straightforward, explained Khan. Certain topics were simply off limits. Today, the situation is more complicated and more confusing. Threats to journalists and press freedom take many different shapes, and come from many different sources, including the government, extremists like the Taliban, the intelligence service ISI and powerful media owners.

There are currently 84 different cases against Geo TV, of which 53 are over blasphemy. You cannot defend yourself against that, said Khan. Ayaz raised a similar point when arguing that extremists are the biggest threat to the media. The government might put a person in jail, but these extremist groups will kill for their beliefs, Ayaz said.

While Geo TV and ISI have long been fighting behind closed doors, the case of Hamid Mir created an “open battlefield”, explained Walsh, who was expelled from Pakistan in May 2013. The station aired reports linking the security services to the attack.

Walsh also brought up the ownership issue within the Pakistani television landscape, which he says has gone from “zero to 100″ in the past few years. The country today boasts some 90 TV stations. Editorial control remains with media owners, according to Hassan.

But even journalists themselves did not escape criticism. Sections of the media are responsible for the current situation through irresponsible reporting, said Hasan. Quite a few were “playing with fire” by earlier glorifying the Taliban as peacemakers, he explained. Khan also highlighted corruption within the media as a “novel form of censorship”. However, as Khan pointed out, it is difficult for the Pakistani media to be responsible, without enabling them to be responsible. Most of the information that effects people’s lives is under strict control by authorities, he said.

Hassan, however, argued that there has been some progress. Journalists, and by extension the threats they face, are more visible and garner more attention today. She also pointed out that despite part closures, all Pakistan’s TV stations are still running. There was some talk of the role of media regulation in improving the situation, and Hassan said she had hopes for Pemra, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regularity Authority.

Yet, the overall conclusion was that Pakistan is not a safe place to be a journalist – illustrated well by Walsh explaining how, for the first time since he’s covered Pakistan, The New York Times recently had to use a pseudonym to protect their reporter on the ground.

Hasan summed it up: “The establishment doesn’t want the media to be as free as it can be.”

This article was originally posted on 24 February 2014 at indexoncensorship.org

IFEX

Jamshed Baghwan, as I know him for the past 15 years, is a brave and self-made journalist. He is among those who have balanced views and encourage unbiased reporting. He researches thoroughly, making sure never to air any kind of story without multiple credibility checks. He is a strictly professional journalist and is liked by everyone inside his community, which is why he remains the general-secretary of the Peshawar Press Club and the vice president of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists. While being committed to ethics, he maintains friendly relations with his fellow journalists at the Express News bureau in Peshawar.

If Baghwan can be attacked, so can other journalists in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Its no wonder that Amnesty International deemed Pakistan to be the most dangerous place for journalists. Pakistani journalists face multiple threats from all sides. They are not free to think freely and write freely. He/she is always threatened, always feeling stifled and stressed.

In the past eight years, I have seen 13 journalists being killed in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Majority of the journalists in this area have imposed self-censorship. Many are found saying that their lives are more precious than media ethics.
Journalists get no support from the federal or provincial authorities. The injured get no monetary compensation. Families of those dead are not extended any support either.

The other sad side of his story is the rivalry and jealousy between media organisations. While reporting Baghwan’s attack, his name and his media group’s name was not even mentioned in the bulletins. When Hamid Mir was attacked, there was country-wide outrage. But when Baghwan was attacked, that too for the third time, his predicament was largely under-reported and even ignored. He was ignored like those dozens of journalists who lose their lives or are paralysed in FATA and Balochistan, as if they are not citizens of the state, but some unwanted aliens.

Express Tribune