Scotland Yard to solve Bhutto Murder?

Despite London’s Metropolitan Police Force, known as Scotland Yard from its original headquarters in the yard of the Scottish Office in Whitehall, being a somewhat devalued brand in the U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has offered its services to the Pakistani government to assist with the “investigation” into the murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or indeed a Pakistani nuclear scientist to come to the conclusion that the 5 Scotland Yard investigators who have flown out to “assist” will have their work cut out and be somewhat challenged to “solve” this case.

For instance where have you seen a crime scene being preserved by being hosed down by the local fire service? Or indeed seen journalists, not the police, gather the video evidence which shows Benazir Bhutto being shot by TWO gunmen and falling back through the sunroof of her armoured vehicle before the suicide bomber killed the assassins and 20 others with his bomb? And then there is the small question that for this, the second gravest assassination in Pakistan’s troubled history, no autopsy was carried out on Benazir Bhutto. So in all probability, in this only slightly competent country, there is no forensic evidence from the crime scene, little corroborating evidence from media sources and no definite cause of death or evidence from the body. So no clue as to whether the explosive used was from a military source, whether the detonator was homemade, what guns the bullets came from, whether the guns had been used in other crimes, the identity of the assassins, their families, their previous movements and associates, whether money was paid, their support structure, etc; etc; In short very thin gruel indeed to feed the investigation or to point fingers. It would take a very creative Scene of Crime Officer to produce evidence from this mess, even in a country with a huge and powerful intelligence service and “traditional policing” to which America has rendered suspects.

Following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani government initially said there was no need for outside help with the investigation into the murder. Now the government has performed an apparent U-turn, with President Pervez Musharraf saying on Wednesday that the UK would be sending investigators from Scotland Yard to help in the inquiry. It will not be the first time Scotland Yard has come to the help of Pakistan after an assassination.

But will the UK detectives have more joy than their predecessors, for the history does not breed confidence?

Back in 1951 Pakistan asked the UK for help after the country's first Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, was shot dead in a park in Rawalpindi, the former British Raj’s garrison town which is the headquarters of Pakistan's military, and the site of Army House, where Musharraf lives (and where he has refused to leave, even though he has stepped down as head of the Army).

The park was renamed Liaqat Bagh (park) in his honour. Fifty-six years later it was in this same park that Ms Bhutto's attacker, or attackers, struck. The similarities between 1951 and December 2007 go beyond location. After Mr Khan's death, many opposition leaders said outside investigators were needed because they believed that some government officials were themselves involved in the murder conspiracy. As in the case of Ms Bhutto, the government back in 1951 initially rejected outside help before agreeing that an expert from Scotland Yard come to Pakistan. But for reasons never disclosed, the British investigator was asked to leave Pakistan only few weeks into his investigations. The Pakistani authorities never revealed anything about the investigation.

Move on four and a half decades to September, 1996 when another politician was killed outside his home in Karachi and the demand for help from Scotland Yard was again heard in the country. This time the dead politician was Murtaza Bhutto, the brother of Benazir Bhutto. Ms Bhutto was at that time prime minister and she enlisted the help of British Home Office forensic experts and former experts of Scotland Yard. But not long after the President, Farooq Leghari, sacked Ms Bhutto's government, which stood charged with corruption, and Mr Leghari sent the British experts back home.

The Scotland Yard detectives heading out for Pakistan do not face the easiest of tasks. No one can even agree as to whether a gunman shot Ms Bhutto. Her widower, Asif Zardari, is against exhuming the body to resolve the dispute. He ruled out an autopsy, suggesting that the results would be manipulated.

The detectives are unlikely to make much progress from the scene of the crime and a major question to be answered is how much co-operation the British detectives will get from the various police and intelligence organisations in Pakistan, some of whose members may be far from inclined to want to work with foreign police.

Bhutto's death has been a terrible shock to Pakistan, but it is hard to say that it is a surprise. As a woman, and from the poorer province of the Sindh rather than the Punjab heartland of Pakistan's establishment, she seemed to hold out the hope of turning Pakistan into a more modern country, although corruption charges from her two spells as Prime Minister were still simmering in Swiss courts. When she returned after eight years abroad, in flight from corruption charges, many reckoned that her life expectancy could be measured in weeks if not hours.

President Musharraf angrily denied allegations that he or his Government was behind Ms Bhutto’s death and said that the British detectives would be able to examine fresh evidence. In this I for one believe him as he has angrily protested that he is not tribal or feudal and had nothing to gain from Mrs. Bhutto’s death. This at least is self evident.

Since its traumatic independence in 1947 with the disastrous partition of British India and the assassination of its first Prime Minister democracy has not taken root in Pakistan with the military strangling democratic development (and hanging the only Prime Minister regarded as being fairly elected - Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979). Pakistan has degenerated into a poorly run and performing country in thrall to a powerful and self serving military, feudalism and corruption. Pakistan has remained since independence an impoverished and underdeveloped country, suffering from decades of internal political disputes, low levels of foreign investment, and a costly, ongoing confrontation with neighbouring India. Its GDP per capita is a lowly 2,600 dollars (IMF 2006) compared to 3,800 in neighbouring India and beneath the Islamic platitudes it has not been competent in providing for the vast majority of its people. Indeed the country for all its pretensions is only kept solvent by foreign aid and remittances from overseas Pakistani’s who thrive when they leave their homeland.

PPP officials and Bhutto family members say that the ISI and the Army stood to lose money and power if Ms Bhutto became Prime Minister. Pakistan has received at least $10 billion in military aid from the United States since 2001, which was supposed to be used for the campaign against al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, but has not been rigorously accounted for. Critics say much of it has been diverted into private pockets or towards other projects, such as upgrading forces on the Indian border. Proponents of this theory cite the appearance of the gunman, who does not look like a typical Islamist militant and appears to have had some weapons training, but they have yet to present any harder evidence.

Whatever the truth and whatever Benazir Bhutto’s deficiencies her brutal assassination is a great setback and today Pakistan, the sixth most populous country in the world with the second largest Muslim population, is staring into the abyss with no obvious way forward. All this is a far cry from the hopes invested at independence in 1947.

Indeed, we must wonder how a westernised Shia Muslim lawyer descended from Rajput Hindus and married to a Parsi would fare in today’s Pakistan by standing on a platform and declaring:

“If we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor... you are free - you are free to go to your temples mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state... in due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims - not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual - but in a political sense as citizens of one state.”

Muhammad Ali Jinnah – Inaugurating the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. 11th August 1947

A Policeman's Lot?

Shy Andy

If you have the misfortune to be arrested by the police in England you will be read the following statement:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

The implication is clear, that an innocent person wants to proclaim their innocence and speak in their own defence. Indeed under the same Act (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) a judge in their charge to a jury may instruct them to draw an unfavourable inference from a defendant’s refusal to testify or their refusal to make a statement to the police.

Consider then the contrast in the case of Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror, who has decided to retire immediately as the £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

His decision to step down is yet another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues have rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard.

This is where the Yardies live - A Male Gang obsessed with guns and "Respect"

Channel 4 News claimed Mr Hayman was in very close contact with the complaints commission official, who worked for the watchdog's communications department. The pair's exchanges came when the commission was drafting its report into how the Met handled the aftermath of the shooting of Mr de Menezes in South London in July 2005. Channel 4 alleged the “communications risked compromising the integrity and authority of the IPCC inquiry”. The female official at the centre of a row which led the Met's anti-terror chief to quit is named today as 36-year-old Nicki Redmond. She received hundreds of calls and texts from Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman while on the staff of the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigating the Stockwell shooting. After leaving the commission, Ms Redmond was at the centre of a probe into alleged "inappropriate contact". Ms Redmond worked for the Independent Police Complaints Commission while it was compiling its damning report into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station.


Andy Hayman with "friend" Nikki Redmond

The UK's former top anti-terror officer is to be given "advice" after breaking the police code of conduct following the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting. A report said Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman "misled" the public. Now the Independent Police Complaints Commission has ruled he should not face disciplinary proceedings but should be advised about future conduct.

In a statement, the IPCC said: "On 6 November, the MPA recommended that Mr Hayman receive advice because he had broken Code 5 of the Police Code of Conduct that says officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties.

"After taking legal advice, the three IPCC Commissioners, who oversaw the investigation, have decided to accept the MPA's recommendation." The IPCC also said it would pursue the MPA's recommendation that it undertake an "in depth" review of the lessons to be learnt from Mr de Menezes's death.

Mr Hayman, a 48-year-old married father of two, has been caught up in two internal investigations this year. The first was sparked after complaints that information about a series of anti-terror raids in Birmingham last February was leaked to the media in advance. Mr Hayman's telephone records for the months before and after the raids were scrutinised and he was cleared of any blame. Investigators did, however, find details of the hundreds of “unexplained” calls between Mr Hayman and the complaints commission official. She has now left the police watchdog and works for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

In a separate inquiry, Yard auditors raised concerns over the £15,000 spent by Mr Hayman on drinks, restaurants, hotels and foreign travel. He strenuously denied the expenses allegations and vowed to clear his name when details of the financial probe emerged last month. Mr Hayman vigorously rejected the claims but, after a reported fiery meeting with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair decided to take early retirement. He issued a statement saying the “unfounded allegations” had taken their toll. The former Norfolk chief constable will spend the next four months on paid leave before officially retiring in April. By then he will have served 30 years in the police and be entitled to a full pension.

In a statement, Mr Hayman said the time was right to leave the high-profile job after a string of hurtful accusations. “This role requires total commitment in both time and effort and has a considerable impact on your personal life, your family and friends,” he added.


Sgt Heidi Tubby

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: 'Andy Hayman has been at the forefront of the police's work to protect our country from the terrorist threat. “I am very grateful for his immense contribution to counterterrorism and to British policing.” Mr Hayman was awarded a CBE last year for his outstanding work after the London bombings of July 2005 and for his role in rounding up the failed July 21 gang. He is said to have impressed Tony Blair and leading Government figures with his calm demeanour and factual briefings to the Cobra emergency security committee that month.

Last year he made a humiliating apology to two brothers arrested and later released after a high-profile anti-terror raid on their house in Forest Gate, East London. One of the men was shot during the operation which involved a search for a “chemical device”. No such device was found.

In December last year, Hayman was found to have been in command of an "unlawful" investigation into one of his own colleagues, Ali Dizaei, who was then a Met police superintendent. Hayman was in overall command of an operation that included tapping Dizaei's phones, something the investigatory powers tribunal declared unlawful. The investigation took four years and cost £4m, but ended with Dizaei's acquittal on corruption charges at the Old Bailey. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair admitting it had caused "considerable damage" to relations between the force and its black officers.


Ali Dizaei

He was instrumental in government attempts to extend the period for which terror suspects can be held without charge to 90 days. MPs were unconvinced by the proposal, and Tony Blair's government suffered its first Commons defeat over the issue in November 2005.

So who is this shrinking violet who is resigning because he finds the “unfounded accusations” hurtful. Well as the former Chief Constable of Norfolk and Head of the Anti-Terrorist squad he probably doesn’t meet the normal profile of a sensitive soul. Mr Hayman joined Essex Police in 1978 where he served as a uniformed officer and in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). In November 1998 Mr Hayman was appointed Commander in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and given responsibility for drugs, crime and complaints investigations. In this role he commanded Operation Trident an investigation into drug-related murders in the capital. In September 1999 he was appointed Director of the Anti-Corruption and Complaints Investigation Department, which became the Directorate of Professional Standards, responsible for discipline and anti-corruption.

From April 2001 to December 2002 he was Deputy Assistant Commissioner, retaining responsibility for professional standards and assuming extra responsibilities as deputy to the Deputy Commissioner.

So as a former Chief Constable, Commissioner responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) why has he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset? The assumption of the Law in England is that innocence seeks to proclaim itself and be heard but Andy Hayman has made a decision to resign, to not square up to the allegations made and to not answer them. Is this the behaviour and example expected from a senior police office honoured with a CBE and the Queen’s Police Medal, paid generously over 30 years from the public purse and expected to be held accountable to that same public for his actions.

Indeed is this the same silence which would draw an “unfavourable inference” if you or I were being questioned by Andy Hayman’s erstwhile colleagues or appeared in court on the basis of evidence presented by them?