|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
Editorial lawyers’
movement apdm civil
society ppp pml-n opponents
The lawyers want the deposed judges restored without any preconditions. So do the political forces that chose to boycott the polls. So does the civil society. And so does PML-N. For Pakistan People’s Party, matters may not be as smooth. It worries about the legal and political implications. The judges were deposed as a consequence of Nov 3 actions which include other matters. All of these need to be seen by the parliament and dealt with by a constitutional amendment, it holds. And then there are the
pro-Musharraf legal and political forces that dread the restoration of
judiciary. Their public face is more visible among lawyers like Malik
Qayyum, Sharifuddin Pirzada, There are a couple of other stakeholders, to the restoration question, that we could not interview. The United States and Pakistan’s military, for instance. Some might even say we ignored the real players. But we choose to ignore this advice. We do not want to establish their stakes in the issue by bringing it on record and our sense is that they will not want to do that either. So for the moment, almost on the eve of the second deadline given by the ruling alliance to solve the judges issue, we talk to the stakeholders we want to. The responses are consistent, flexible, ambiguous. Things will fall in place once the committee gives its verdict and the action taken will determine who stands where, who gains and who loses. Meanwhile this is how various pieces in the puzzle figure. They certainly do not form a complete picture.
The News on Sunday: There is this sense that the lawyers are putting undue pressure on the parliament for solutions as they want. Because some people say change in the country has not come as a consequence of the lawyers’ movement but because of the ballot box. The lawyers, they say, had given a clear call for boycott. Justice (r) Tariq
Mahmood: You see, before March 9, 2007, no one could ever think that we
will be able to get rid of Musharraf who also categorically stated that
Nawaz Sharif and Mohtarama Benazir had no role in the upcoming election.
Then, after March 9, wherever the chief justice went, there was a small
but consistent presence of the political parties. No doubt they wanted to
see TNS: Can we interpret it this way that the politicians exploited the emerging situation to their advantage? TM: Well, you can also use the word ‘avail’ instead of ‘exploit’ because they wanted to get rid of the military dictatorship. In that situation, Musharraf’s position started weakening and a major development that took place alongside was the general awareness about the issue, of course aided in huge measure by the role played by the media. So, even the laymen started discussing various constitutional provisions. What happened through this movement was that Musharraf was weakened. Otherwise the election would still have taken place minus Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. But because of this, he was forced to go to Dubai and engage in a dialogue with the political forces. As far as the call for boycott is concerned, I have stated on record that I was opposed to this decision. Initially, Aitzaz Ahsan even filed his nomination papers and that was why he was shifted to Lahore from Adiala -- to facilitate their filing. Even I was asked if I wanted to file nomination papers. But I think when the APDM decided to boycott the polls the lawyers went with them. TNS: If the people had gone with the stand of the lawyers and the APDM, the polling stations should have been deserted on Feb 18. But, ironically, the lawyers and the boycotting political forces started taking credit for the election results when they came? TM: I accept that people did not go with the call for boycott. Because, you see, election offers a tremendous opportunity for change. You can either bring a change through ballot or bullet. The people opted for the ballot and we should acknowledge that the call for boycott was rejected. We had fears that the elections would be massively rigged and even though they were not totally fair at least they gave a clear verdict against the Musharraf-led dispensation. TNS: What do the lawyers have against restoration of judges through a constitutional package instead of a resolution or an executive authority. Don’t you think there could be consequences of an executive order and the de facto Supreme Court chief justice may call the army to his aid. TM: To begin with, it was a Grade-22 officer who sent these judges home through an executive order. We now want an executive order issued by the prime minister to reverse that executive order because this executive order will have the backing of the entire parliament. Two, the scenario that you have stated would mean that Justice Dogar does not accept the verdict of Feb 18. It will then be a power game. If he calls in the law enforcing agencies, they are under the control of the government. So the government will not risk that in the current situation. If the army’s help is sought, and it decides to come to the aid of the de facto Supreme Court that would mean that the armed forces do not serve the country and the people, the people serve the armed forces instead. TNS: There is also a feeling that in opting for the course of a resolution in the parliament, the lawyers are now being used by those political forces that are opposed to a constitutional amendment simply because it would validate the NRO and those cases will not be reopened again? TM: I don’t think the lawyers are influenced by any political forces. They make their own decisions. TNS: But what is your personal opinion regarding the NRO? TM: See, at this stage we do not want to get into an additional controversy. We want to stick to our basic agenda. TNS: Can you foresee what is going to happen regarding the restoration of judges? TM: Now that’s a difficult one to answer. All I can say is that on Nov 3, after sixty years, the judiciary of this country said no to a PCO. They did not care about their jobs, they were illegally confined but they paid the price. This they did in the exact spirit of the Charter of Democracy (COD) which clearly states that no judge shall take oath under the PCO. So if you reject the judges who acted in the spirit of COD and accept those who acted against it, I can safely predict that you cannot shut the door for more PCOs in future and there is no question of independence of judiciary ever returning to this country. TNS: Does this mean that you are not in favour of retaining the existing PCO judges on the benches? TM: You see there are three categories of judges. The judges who stayed back on Nov 3 and took oath under the PCO did violate the judgement of the seven-member Supreme Court but we want to retain them on the same principle that we want upheld in the case of deposed judges which is that no judge can be ousted without recourse to Article 209 of the Constitution. Then there were those judges who were sent from the high court to the Supreme Court. Our position is that they should be sent back to the high courts because we want to revert to the position as it existed on Nov 3. The third category are the new appointees. According to the judges’ case, no judge can be appointed without consultation with the de jure chief justice; they have to go through the proposed scrutiny process. I suggest that the solution should be sought from the constitution wherein according to Article 182, if there are surplus posts, there can be one-time ad hoc appointments. -- Farah Zia apdm By Saeed ur Rehman The News on Sunday: Do you think that by boycotting the Feb 18 general elections the All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) supported Musharraf because now most of the parties favouring the restoration of the deposed judiciary are out of power and cannot help the judges? Liaqat Baloch: No, I do
not think so. My position is that we took a principled stand and now the TNS: How do you see the events will unfold? LB: We are all observing the situation keenly. The situation of PML-N is the most intriguing and crucial. Let us see what Nawaz Sharif and others do. TNS: How do you see the position of Musharraf in the foreseeable future? LB: Musharraf is becoming increasingly unpopular. His favourite party has been shown the exit door in the elections. Now he is clinging to power because of his allegiance to the American interests. TNS: What is the role of the US in all this? LB: The US does not want an independent judiciary in Pakistan at all. The government of Pakistan arrests people and keeps them incommunicado for two, three years and still cannot prove them guilty of anything. Then these people, the so-called disappeared ones, come out of nowhere. Where can the re-appeared go to seek justice? Of course, the deposed Chief Justice had taken up their cases. The government and the USA both were feeling embarrassed. That is why, the USA does not favour the reinstatement of the deposed judiciary. TNS: Are there any other actors who are responsible for the judicial crisis? LB: The civil and military establishment is in favour of keeping the Musharraf regime propped up. The recently elected democratic set-up does not really have full autonomy in running the affairs of the country even now. This is power sharing not a real transfer of power. Had all the democratic forces boycotted the elections, Musharraf would have been uprooted by now. TNS: What is the course of action the APDM plans to take? LB: We are going to wait and see what the coalition does until the 12th of May. We have already called a meeting of the APDM on the 14th of this month. Out future strategy will be decided in that meeting.
By Ammar Ali Jan The News on Sunday: How does the civil society analyse the prevalent situation regarding the restoration of the judges? Hamid Zaman: Well, hope
has been an integral part of the struggle of the civil society and we
still remain hopeful for the restoration of the judiciary. However, our
hope has been diluted since the TNS: Why do you think the post-Nov 3 movement did not witness a large-scale participation of the masses? HZ: Civil society movements are never meant to be mass movements. A civil society group consists mainly of educated sections of society like businessmen, students, teachers, traders etc. This has been the trend of the civil society historically around the world. It is the job of the political parties to mobilise the masses as they have roots in them. People have been telling us that nothing will change no matter how much we try, just as nothing has changed over the past 60 years. However, if the CCP members remain steadfast and continue to take principled positions on different issues even after the restoration of the judiciary, we will soon be able to rally more people to our cause. As far as the common man is concerned, most people in our society are living in miserable conditions and don’t have time to miss their work and protest. This increases the responsibility on our shoulders as God has given us enough and it is time we return it to society. TNS: During the 60s, many radicalised workers joined the movement to the oust the then dictator, General Ayub Khan. Does that not refute your thesis that the working class cannot join the movement and you have to shoulder its responsibility? HZ: First, I have stated that the political parties have roots in the masses and it was primarily their responsibility to take the people out on the streets. Secondly, the 60s was an age of ideology. Everyone was aligned to a particular philosophy and ready to sacrifice. Pakistan had been independent for only 20 years and there was a lot of hope for a better future. Bhutto led the first mass movement and I remember how we all looked up to him as students. However, when in power, Bhutto’s regime became dictatorial and he openly violated the 1973 Constitution. Zia ul Haq ruled Pakistan for 11 long years after which the people of Pakistan showed an overwhelming support for BB and Nawaz Sharif. However, every time people dared to hope, they were disappointed by the betrayals of our leaders. This has diminished the capacity of the people to protest as they don’t trust any leadership. It will take a long, dedicated effort on the part of the civil society to win the confidence of the people and CCP is ready to make that sacrifice along with other groups. TNS: Many people believe that the civil society is part of the status quo that oppresses people. Issues like minimum wage are never addressed. How do you respond to such allegations? HZ: I don’t deny that there could be people within the civil society to break laws such as minimum wages, but you find such people in every group. I am ready to accept that the civil society has been dormant for the past 60 years and we have not been able to achieve what we should have been. This prevented us from becoming agents of change and aligned us to the status qou. However, that has changed over the past 6 months and we are ready to take the responsibility of changing our society. As far as issues such as minimum wage is concerned, CCP plans on taking such issues as soon as the judiciary is restored. The group should also hold its own members accountable. That is the whole purpose of a civil society. It should keep a check not only on the government, but every member should also be accountable to the group. TNS: How will the civil society respond if the coalition fails to restore the judges? HZ: I must tell you that we fully support the parliament as it is elected by the people. Hence, we are hopeful that this parliament will solve the issue by respecting the mandate given to it. However, if it fails to do so, we will be forced to pull out our support. CCP is not in favour of any adventurism and we will wait for the SCBA’s verdict in this regard. Once a decision is taken to launch a campaign, we will be out on the streets, ready to protest again. We will join with the lawyers, APDM and all other political forces who believe that the judiciary has to be restored to its position as it stood on Nov 2, without which any democratic exercise will be futile. TNS: Don’t you think that by unnecessarily pressurising the coalition, you are paving the way for another military takeover? HZ: The military is not in a position to take over. Its image has been tarnished and the economic situation is so terrible that no one is willing to take on the leadership role. Our struggle is for the supremacy of the parliament and our movement will not serve any other purpose but the strengthening of the democratic institutions.
ppp By Usman Ghafoor The News on Sunday: PPP is believed to have maintained an ambiguous stand on the judges’ issue all along. Was this ambiguity deliberate and, if yes, did it not make PPP unpopular? Farhatullah Babar: No. There has never been any ambiguity in PPP’s stand on the judges’ issue. We believe that the mini martial law or, as some call it, emergency plus, that was imposed on Nov 3, was unconstitutional and illegal. It was designed primarily to sack the judges. Therefore, the sacked judges have to be restored in order to undo the effect of a patently unconstitutional act. Having said that, the
constitutional amendments, decisions and orders made after the
‘emergency plus’ must also be reviewed and reversed. There can be no
two ways about that. There may be different opinions on how to go about it, but there are no differences on what has to be done with regard to restoring the sacked judges through the Parliament. As the Law Minister has said, the draft resolution to be tabled in the National Assembly for the restoration of judges has been finalised by the Committee. It’s a big achievement that demonstrates the consistency of the PPP’s stand on the issue as well as that of our coalition partner -- the PML-N. There is no alternative to undoing the pernicious effects of post Nov 3 actions and to the restoration of the sacked judges through the Parliament. The absence of alternatives makes the mind clear and does not allow for ambiguities. TNS: Some people say that this is not the right time for a constitutional package because that needs a lot of debate within and without the parliament. They also think that the issue of restoration should be de-linked from it? FB: There are two separate issues involved here. One, the reformation of the Constitution to restore the balance of powers between the Presidency and an elected Parliament which have been tilted heavily in favour of the Presidency during the past eight years. This includes undoing clauses like the 58(2)b, restoration of the Constitution as it existed on Oct 12, 1999, sans the provision of joint electorates, reserved seat for minorities and women, lowering the voting age to 18 and increasing the seats of Parliament, etc. These are the proposed Constitutional reforms as agreed in the Charter of Democracy. But this package has nothing to do with the issue of restoration of judges. The other issue is, a review and reformation of the unconstitutional provisions planted in the Constitution through executive fiat by General Musharraf as Army chief on Nov 2 last year. During the six weeks of emergency, the people of Pakistan were made to suffer a PCO, two constitutional amendment orders (altering 12 articles of the Constitution besides adding one more to it), four President’s Orders and a number of ordinances in addition to, of course, the sacking of the judges. The Islamabad High Court was set up under these constitutional amendments. The IHC is already functioning confronting the new parliament and the government with a fait accompli. The PCO also seeks to make a number of ordinances permanent, including amendments to Army Act of 1951 (providing for court martial of civilians). It also amended the election laws providing for vote count by returning officers -- a done and finished deed already. These issues are separate from the overall reforms in the Constitution. But these issues are a consequence of the Nov 3 action and are linked to the sacking of judges. These will also have to be considered by the Parliament. TNS: From the details of the constitutional package that have been made available, people are of the view that some of the proposed amendments are person-specific and not about strengthening institutions and principles? Also, historically, such person-specific legislation never helped us. Comment. FB: The broad contours of the constitutional reforms package were agreed upon between the PPP and PML-N in the Charter of Democracy in May 2006, long before the judges were illegally sacked in Nov 2007. None of the reforms in this package are person-specific. It aims at restoring the balance of power between the Presidency and the Parliament. Among other things, it envisages the appointment of judges to a superior judiciary with the advice and consent of a joint parliamentary committee consisting of equal representatives of the treasury and opposition besides several other matters. TNS: What will be the PPP’s strategy in case the judges are not restored and the PML-N withdraws from the coalition or calls back its ministers? FB: It’s a hypothetical question. Both the PPP and the PML N know that it is important for the success of the new democratic dispensation that the coalition remains intact in a climate of mutual trust. Both know that the breakup of the coalition could cause huge damage to the democratic process itself. But, if the coalition fell apart or if a coalition partner recalled its ministers, then the PPP knows what it will do. Indeed, as a political party it ought to know what it has to do. TNS: The reform committee does not include two important stakeholders in the functioning of our political system if not in the issue itself i.e. the United States and our own military. Judging from PPP’s experience in the government so far, does it see them as having a different and rigid stand on the restoration issue? FB: We believe in the supremacy of the Parliament. Parliament is a forum that represents the will of the people. The issue of the restoration of judges will have to be decided inside and not outside the Parliament, no matter how influential the outside actors may be (if indeed there are any). TNS: It is common perception that the post-restoration political scenario has no scope for Musharraf in the president’s chair. Is the PPP ready for such an eventuality and will the US accept this development? FB: We are not concerned whether the post-restoration scenario holds any scope for Musharraf as the President. That is his (Musharraf’s) concern. If he is irked either by the restoration of judges or by the Parliament asserting its rightful role he may decide to quit or continue. That is his problem and outlook; not that of the PPP. The PPP as a political party has already said that, in its view, Musharraf is not a constitutional head of the state. We believe that the international community and the US will accept the decisions of the people of Pakistan through their elected Parliament. There is no reason why they will not.
pml-n -- Chairman PML-N Raja Zafarul Haq on his party’s firm stance on the restoration of pre-Nov 3 judiciary The News on Sunday: The PML-N has agreed to work on a constitutional package regarding the restoration of pre-Nov 3 judiciary. Doesn’t it mean that the PML-N has done away with its tough stance and surrendered to its coalition partner’s pressures? Raja Zafarul Haq: Not at
all. I would simply deny any softening of stance of the PML-N on this
issue TNS: It appears that the progress on talks between the PPP and the PML-N on the issue of judiciary has been very slow from the very start. At one moment, you think a major breakthrough has been achieved but on the other everything seems to crumble. Why is it so? RZH: The reason for this perception is that we expect outcomes overnight. When committees are formed to review a situation they have to take endless things into account and invite suggestions from every one involved. This definitely consumes time and energy of those involved. What’s more important is the result which in this case has been very positive. I would like to inform you that the final draft of the constitutional package is ready and needs the approval of all stakeholders. Asif Ali Zardari, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, Khawaja Muhammad Asif and others have left for London to discuss this draft with Mian Nawaz Sharif who is there for the last couple of days for his wife’s medical treatment. Our hopes are high that all the required modalities and formalities pertaining to this issue will be finalised in the next couple of days. TNS: Two members representing the lawyers’ community have disassociated themselves from the committee for the restoration of the deposed judges. Besides, Pakistan Bar Council has expressed its reservations over the decision about retaining PCO judges. Does it mean that the PML-N is taking decisions without taking the lawyers’ community into confidence? RZH: Here, I would like to correct you. These representatives of the lawyers’ community have not disassociated themselves from the committee for the restoration of the deposed judges. In fact, they have given their suggestions and pointed out bottlenecks that need to be removed to achieve this end. They are simply sitting with their fingers crossed and waiting for the political forces to come out with the solution, as the ball is in the latter’s court. About the contentious issues I would say that the very purpose of forming the said committee was to address them. Had there been no contentious issues there would be no committee. The committee has been constituted in a way that the reservations/suggestions of all the main stakeholders are considered before reaching a final conclusion. For example, there is a consensus over the decision to fix the term of the chief justice of Pakistan at five years. TNS: The PML-N has joined the federal cabinet conditionally. It has also warned of quitting the coalition in case the deposed judges are not restored within a limited timeframe. What will be the party’s course of action in case the May 12 deadline is not met or the judiciary’s issue not handled properly? RZH: In my opinion, this question is not timely as we are very hopeful that the May 12 deadline will be met. I also hope there won’t be any deadlock on the issue leading to PML-N’s taking any drastic step. On the whole the consultative process has been very smooth and productive. Here I would also like to clarify that the stance of the PML-N has been firm and not rigid as it is being made out to be. Were we rigid we would not have been open to suggestions and consultations. The PML-N very well knows it has to fight for the cause of judiciary as well as democracy at the same time. To keep the coalition (with PPP) intact without compromising on the independence of judiciary is also part of the party agenda. opponents By Aoun Sahi The News on Sunday: Over a year ago, your ‘open letter’ about Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry worked as a catalyst to create a judicial crisis in Pakistan and now you have written another letter (Newspost published in The News on April 27) targeting Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. It appears you have some personal score to settle with him? Naeem Bokhari: Look, I
wrote an open letter just to point out the attitude of Iftikhar Muhammad My recent letter (that you have mentioned) also has nothing personal against him. I just pointed out that Iftikhar Chaudhry, if restored, will not only strike down the constitutional amendment regarding his tenure but will again start running a parallel government. The present Supreme Court is working very well. Lawyers who appear in the SC know and talk about the difference in the atmosphere, the ambience and the attitude of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar. It is no longer the bullying area, where the dignity of neither the lawyers nor the civil servants or litigants was respected. TNS: But, the public and a majority of lawyers are with Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and they want to see him as the Chief Justice of Supreme Court again. NB: In fact, the issue is no more judicial, but a political one. I am really against the sacking of judges and the way the previous government tackled the issue was hopeless. President Musharraf should also have sacked the people (Shaukat Aziz, Wasi Zafar, Law Secretary etc) responsible for creating the mess. But the judges should also behave like judges. After their removal, some of them such as Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry behaved like judges; you may never have even heard about them in the media. Many others have been campaigning like Barack Obama. The conduct of judges after the removal will have to be taken into account before they are restored. I do not think the judges, even if they are restored, will be able to hear cases from hundreds of lawyers because they have become their personal friends and will be feeling obliged. I strongly believe that their aim is not the independence of judiciary but they are doing all this to secure their jobs. I strongly believe that the issue of restoration is being used for political gains. TNS: Who could be doing so? NB: Apart from PML-N, no other political party including PPP, ANP, JUI-F and MQM have fought elections on the judges’ issue and PML-N has not come up as the majority party. But it is trying to impose its decisions on the majority parties. I am very sure that Mian Nawaz Sharif is not forcing this for his love of independent judiciary. He does not have a good track record on this particular issue. In fact, he thinks that Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry will help him settle scores with the president. TNS: If, as you say, re-securing their jobs was the prime concern of the deposed judges, why did they resign in the first place? NB: You should understand that many of these judges did not resign but they were forced, under the PCO, to leave their offices. A majority of these judges was not even asked to take oath under the PCO after Nov 3. Only three or four judges including Chaudhry Ijaz, Tassadduq Gillani and Justice Iqbal Hamid ur Rehman were asked to take oath and they declined, while others have become heroes because of them. They are fighting the war of survival and not the war of the independence of judiciary. TNS: How do you see the role of the lawyers’ fraternity since March last year? NB: This so-called ‘movement’ has completely changed the attitude of the lawyers. The fraternity that was once known for its legal and logical arguments to convince others has been forced to come out on the roads and become violent. They are not only creating problems for their families by not earning money but they are also creating traffic and law-and-order problems through their regular protests. They should rethink their movement and soften their ‘very rigid’ standpoint. They should understand that Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is a judge; he does not represent the whole judiciary. The entire judicial system of the country should not be destroyed for the sake of a few personalities. TNS: What, according to you, is the solution to this crisis? NB: There is no solution. This is like a disease which is incurable and one has to live with it. TNS: Both parties have agreed to restore the deposed judges. Even then you think the issue will not be resolved? NB: What will happen if these judges are restored through a resolution? They will go to the Supreme Court in a big procession, whereas the sitting judges will deny them entry. They will resort to force and get embroiled in a scuffle with the law-enforcing agencies. If some of them are injured or treated badly, a new movement will start. The other scenario can be that they barge into the Supreme Court and reach the chambers of sitting judges, they will thrash them out and occupy their chambers. This can be even more dangerous and sanctity of Supreme Court will be affected badly.
|
|
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Naeem Bokhari, Ahmed Raza Kasuri and much less among
politicians, even of the Q-League variety.
democracy return
to this country but they also saw that the lawyers’ movement which stood
for the rule of law and constitutional supremacy and independence of
judiciary was also taking Gen Musharraf head on. Thus they welcomed it and
encouraged it.
political situation in Pakistan is proving our decision right. At that
time, if all the parties had decided to boycott the elections, we could
have brought down the Musharraf regime. Those who did not boycott are
still struggling to get their act together. Now different parties are
trying to give different reasons for their victory in the elections.
However, it is a fact that only those parties got the vote which were
committed to the restoration of the unfairly dismissed judiciary. People
are serious about the issue of judiciary and that is what they asserted
when casting their votes.
PPP has been given mixed signals about the restoration of the judiciary
which is causing a lot of confusion among the masses. This is why, the
APDM and a large section of the civil society demanded a boycott of
elections because we knew that these political parties have the tendency
to compromise on such issues. The Musharraf government was forced to hold
free elections on the polling day due to international pressure, but the
conspiracies against democracy have not seized in the President House. We
hope that the PPP does not fall a prey to such conspiracies and takes a
principled stand for the restoration of the judges.
of great
significance for the country and its people. In fact, the PML-N has
succeeded in convincing the PPP that the deposed judges need to be
restored through a resolution. The objective is clear and it’s the way
to achieve it which is being worked out at this time. When you are part of
a deliberation you have to listen to other partners also and give due
weightage to their practicable suggestions. This does not mean that you
have succumbed to pressures of any sort. I assure you that the PML-N will
not disappoint the nation on this count.
Chaudhry as the Chief Justice and, in that letter, I just discussed the
legal issues. I am still of the view that his behaviour as chief justice
was not correct; he did not clear the backlog and converted the Supreme
Court into a trial court. No Supreme Court can work this way. Still, my
letter was not the reason for his suspension or the reference against him.
I did not make a mention of his son nor did I bring up any other personal
matter upon which a reference could be moved against him. The crisis was,
in fact, the result of the army chief’s behaviour with Iftikhar Muhammad
Chaudhry and, after that, the police really mistreated him that provoked
the general public and the lawyers to react. That was the start of the
fuss. So I cannot be blamed for this.