The Third Day

On Masood Mehmood's testimony :
Mr. Bhutto : Procecution witness 2, MAsood Mahmood claims i told him to be on the right side of Vaqar. What was the point of my telling him to be on te right side of Vaqar? they are all civil servants. They belong to their tribe. No question arises of "being on the right side of Mr. Vaqar."

I have made it clear that it is entirely a formal meeting with him upon his oppintment. what he says here shows that he is telling a lies. To corroborate Ahmad Raza's prophetic vision and versions of the FSF, Masood Mehmood has said that in some meeting i told him to swell the crowds and also to break up opposition meetings. But he has not said so in his original statement. On the contrary, in that he was given the charter and the functions of FSF. His later ststement was an improvement to marry with what Ahmad Raza kasuri had said. The marriage was so complete that he almost reproduced the works which Ahmad Raza Kasuri had used. Masood Mehmood makes this improvement in teh court on the so-called three oral directions of mine which he says given to him. When further questioned in the high court about public meeting in Rawalpindi, he denies knowledge on the size of the crowed. He says i do not remember. However, everyone knows and it can be checked up tehre were at least two lakh people in the meeting. Masood Mehmood sayd there were 1,000 people of FSF. Now, how can 1,000 people's swell a crowd of two laks? Here also he has shown that he is not a reliable witness.

Masood Mahmood says that the prime minister would call me frequently, and he would also speak to me on the telephone. You cannot objectively evaluate what is "frequent". It is basically a subjective opinion, unless, ofcourse, it is happening everyday. But he says frequent, let us take his word for it that we met frequent. If we met so frequently then i would be meeting him every day. There would be no need for me to tell Saeed Ahmad to give him a message.

My Lord, the june 3rd speech of kasuri: Masood Mahmood dilates on the 3rd june speech. He says in the high court, that i said that i was fed up with the obnoxious behaviour of Mr. Kasuri and Mian Abbas knew all about his activities. He says;"The Prime minister further told me that he had given directions already". Now my lord this is one of the vital things, he has not said in his earlier statement. He neither said this on the 24th of august. or nor he has mentioned this on the 14th of september, And it is a very vital statement. It is not a statement easily forgotten while making the original statement. In court he improves by saying that i called him immediately, two days after the june 3rd speech and told him that his predecessor had already been given instructions and that i want to see Kasuri's bandaged up or dead body, Masood Mahmood did not say any of this in his earlier statement.

Let us generalise the posotion. I will generalise it to do this extentthat every material statement that Masood Mahmood has made in the high court, almost everyone, is an improvement or a new ststement. Without going into any improvement or omissions raises the question whether the two can stand together? as this hounouable court has asked. The two cannot stand together because Masood Mahmood has taken refuge behind the words" i was not asked this question". On every material aspect of the points,whether it is his discussion with Welch, whether itis his discussions with me. whether it is what he has told mian Abbas, he says "this question was not asked of me".
Masood Mahmood has been in custody, a questionaries has been given to him. a part from the questonaries, he has been told to say whatever he wants to in his forty days in Martial custody. He gets arrested on the 5th of july, the same time as we get arrested, after forty days in august, i think 13th or 14th august, he makes the statements. Not only that, he ask for a services of a stenographer. He asks for a stenographer. He asks for Abdul Haq, Abdul haq whom he takes with him to London, his favourite officer. and he gets the Abdul haq the man ho plays the role between him and the authorities. He also says for the peace of mind because he wants to relieve from all those responsibilities, tentions and strains under which he was suffering. He has all the time in the worls. He has stenographer. He has his advisor Abdul Haq, and yet he leaves out all the material aspects of the points both in the August and september statement.?

Let us go to the incident itself the incident,Masood Mahmood is living in the rest house in Multan, a canal rest house. ANd i am staying with Sadiq Hussain Qureshi, at the white house in multan. Masood Mahmood says that i gave him a call at 6:30. This is also an improvement, it si so vital that he had forgotten every thing else in his earlier statement, he should not have forgotten this. It is out of question for him to have forgotten, as he later says , that i called him at 6:30 in the morning and what i told him , in 'colourful' language. I was not in the headquarter and did not have a direct telephone in the first place, not did i know where this man was living. Secondly, at 6:30? the ADC and others came at 6:30 and not that i am rising at 6:30. There were times when i worked right through the night 6:30,7:00,8:00 or 9:00 and then went to sleep. I would not be so uncivilised as to get up at 6:30. It was out of question.
As a matter of fact, this is corroborated by Rao Rasheed in his affidavit filed in the supreme court where he says," I phoned the primeminister at 8:30 and the ADC told me to ring up after an hour, 9:30. Rao Rasheed was also on Multan, because he was the IG Police. I was in Multan, and therefore he had to be in Multan. The factual position is that Rao Rasheed was the first one who informed me about the incident of Lahore. Masood Mahmood says i called him at 9:30 and in the presence of Sadiq Qureshi, told him non-chalantly, i believe so and so.

How can i call him at 9:30 and tell him this? And how can i telephone him when i have given you reason on the inability to be able to telephone, and that also on open line. Suppose the open telephone is available to me. My lord, I tell him all this on an open line? When i told my ministers to use the secret phone,it is in the white paper it mention that he cautioned Rafi Raza not to talk on the open telephone, because these are not safe.Now, if i tell my minister to talk of secret phones,I, would be discussing a crime, a murder on the open telephone even if i had one in the room , which i did not when the secret phones are available to me, the best secret phones, the safest secret phones? I could have waited for some time to be able to get him on the secret phone and talked to him on the secret phone. But if I was going to call him, why should i even talk to him on any telephone about the crime in question? I would have told my ADC, " call Masood Mahmood". i would not do both. But the main point is that i would not use an open telephone. Using an open telephone would be an absurd, stupid thing to do. Therefore, I say he is telling a complete lie.
My lord if i am so keen , that heaven and earth may fall, the sky will fall, but Ahmad Raza Kasuri must be out. I have no other source but the federal security force and Masood Mahmood says he is not going to be a party then he would not be in FSF till the 5th of july, 1977.If the FSF is the only source avaible to me and if, come what may Ahmad Raza is to be eliminated, and if have brought Masood Mahmood, or brought 'X', into this post for this specific purpose, then how is it conceivable that the same man remains in the post until the coup of july 5th right from the time he makes this defiant declaration, this churchill with a churchilian ring?, Not only does he stay on but claims that i becomehis enemy after 11th november 1974. If i became his enemy, that rules him out as an approver. If he is my enemy, then he does not qualify to become an aprover. So there also he disqulifies himself from being an aprover.

This man says that i tried to poisen his food, i tried to threaten his children, i tried to do all sorts of things to harm him. but the contradiction arises because he does not say in his earlier statement, firstly. Secondly, if the man's wife and children are threatened, he gives another reason, also, for it.He says that in the elections of january 1977, there were certain oppositon leaders who had said in their statements that they will hang him upside down. He said yes they said it. He admits that there are other opposition leadres who used to say that we are going to deal with this man. So who is threatening his wife and children? Am I threatening his wife, his children? while he remains in FSF as direcor-general ? Is the opposition doing it or both of us are doing it? if the government and the opposition are both bent upon doing these things(which he claims)then there should be no difficulty. But nothing of the kind happened.

In the court, in order to attack his veracity,a question was asked about whether he knew a man called Munawar Ali Khan. He sais "yes, Munawar Ali Khan was with me as a student.Then he was with me in the air force". And then he is asked :You this Munawar Ali Khan"? He says, "yes i know him because of that.""Do uyou know what his job is" He says i donot know his job"."Have you met Munawar Ali Khan?." "No i have not met Mr. MUnawar Ali Khan". without trying to be scandalous(after all we have got families)the next question was asked to attack his veracity: You do not know Munawar Ali Khan job, You do not meet Munawar Ali Khan, you have not met him since the airforce days, and you have not contact with him, how is it that you married his wife?" He has to be either a Rasputin or a bengali to be able to do that. He does not meet the man, he does not know the person and yet he pulls the eggs out of the nest, and the crow is sitting on top of it.but the does not allow this question to be asked. It says teh question scandalises the lady,we donot want to scandalise the lady, certainly not. but it is murder case. I am being charged with capital punishment. I am being charged with the crime of murder and of being hanged, and we cannot attack the veracity of the main man, the person who accused me of murder and is the principlal witness, the main approver? We cannot attack his veracity, scandalise his wofe or say she is not of good character. We may be bringing the lady in but we are attacking your truthfulness, your capabilities to excel yourself in telling lies.

Masood Mahmood's wife is a cousin of Mrs, N.A Faruqui, Khan Bahadur Qayyum's daughter.Masood Mahmood sayd he does not know N.A faruqi, an Ahmadi of Lahori sec. Begum N.A Faruqi, whom i also know from my bombay days. They are a nice people. He does not know that N.A Faruqi was the chief secretary of West Pakistan cabnet secretary, holding very high offices and not just an Ahmadi of Lahori Sect, but a very important one. Begum Faruqi and Masood Mahmood's wife are sisters or cousin and he says" i do not know". What u do know then? You only know that i told you to kill my son Mr. Ghulam Murtaza! That is all you know! You do not know the seth Abid!you do not know anything about the conspiracy!you do not know anything about the plot!you are not involved!you do not know ghulam hussian!you do not know do not know any thing!you are so innocent!and you become the man approver!Approver must have also the knowledge. He must have participated. He must be a party.He must be a part and parcel of the drama.

In short i am putting two and two together. Masood Mahmood has not been an approver. you cannot categorise him as an approver because he has himself said that from 11th nov. 1974, i was his bitter enemy, trying to kill his family, wife and children. Secondly, he cannot be an approver because he says that he has no knowledge at all of the plot or of the people. I am trying to prove that he is a liar on the face of it. Therefore, i mentioned Manawar Ali Khan, N.A Faruqi, seth Abid, Mir ghulam Murtaza Khan. It is in this context of the chain that i have said that he writes a hundred page letter.of course during Martial Law it can happen, because Martial Law is Martial Law, your judgement on Martial Law, i say positive judgement, but the other day, my lord, you said that we have validated Martial have not validated a blank cheque, you have not given.

Honourable Judge: NO, No, No
Mr. Bhutto : Your validation is in very logical terms, in terms of how you have defined and limited the scope of necessity and put the power of judicial review there.I think, if you judgement is followed correctly, it may be very crucial in saving this country. In this judgement you have given a flower to them, a bouquet, and if they want to trample on that bouquet and flower that will be great national tagedy.But if they treat it as a flower, should treated, it might render a service to finally saving this country with this bouquet which you have given them? Are they going to throw it, trample on it as they unfortunately appear to be doing.