An Inglorious Tradition
By Dr Mohammad Taqi
Florida
The judicial commission appointed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) to investigate the so-called memogate affair released its report last month. More specifically, the Commission was tasked, in its own words, by the SC “to ascertain the origin, authenticity and purpose of creating/drafting of Memo for delivering it to Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen through Gen (retd.) James Logan Jones, former US National Security Advisor.”
The 123-page report unfortunately comes across as nothing but a witch-hunt keeping in line with the inglorious traditions of the Pakistani judiciary, which has persecuted, prosecuted and even executed civilian political leaders of this hapless land. If nothing else, the former Ambassador Husain Haqqani might feel some consolation in having been elevated to the ranks of the great Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan, Faiz Ahmed Faiz and others who faced one conspiracy charge or another throughout their lives.
In fact, the Memo Commission’s methods and the report bear similarities with the spite with which the Supreme Court prosecuted Khan Abdul Wali Khan and other National Awami Party (NAP) leaders in 1975. The ignominious judgment in the Wali Khan Case, written by the otherwise respected, nay celebrated, Justice Hamoodur Rehman who was endorsed by an ideologically charged Justice Gul Muhammad, had drawn criticism from across the board including from the greats like Justice Dorab Patel. Among other things, Justice Patel criticized the SC for using intelligence agencies’ reports, newspaper clippings and the speeches/books/pamphlets by the accused leaders to ‘determine’ that the latter were working against the so-called ideology of Pakistan. Fast forward 38 years and one finds the Memo Commission quoting from Husain Haqqani’s book ‘Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military’ to draw the monumental conclusion that because Haqqani has been advocating civilian supremacy over the military in Pakistan, he must, therefore, have dictated the memo to Mansoor Ijaz. In its zeal to pin down Haqqani, the Commission glaringly omitted Mansoor Ijaz’s own admission during cross-examination that he had nothing but his own notes to prove that the former ambassador had asked him to write the memo. When asked during the cross-examination, “Can you produce any document, email, SMS or BBM, which would show that Mr Haqqani had asked you to write the memorandum?” Ijaz’s reply was, “The only document, which I can produce is exhibit W4-1, which was my handwritten notes that I took down when Mr Haqqani telephoned me.”
Coming from Ijaz, who had saved every email and SMS with a fastidiousness reminiscent of Monica Lewinsky preserving the infamous blue dress, this effectively meant that there was no smoking gun proving beyond reasonable doubt that Haqqani indeed did author the memo. We know that no voice records of the telephonic conversation between the former ambassador and Ijaz exist, leaving the Commission to rely only on conjecture. But apparently the Commission was happy to accept conjecture as replacement for hard facts and inferred that Haqqani must have dictated a 1000-plus words memo to Ijaz in a 16-minute phone call! One has to be one heck of a writer, and a stenographer, to accomplish that. The Commission, however, seems to have other unfortunate priorities like delving into the details of Haqqani’s personal life and finances in an extremely prejudicial manner.
It is almost unbelievable that not owning a house or other property in Pakistan was held as ‘evidence’ of an urban middleclass individual’s disloyalty to the country. But this is precisely what the Commission has done. They did not even bother to inquire if an academic based in the US can afford much more than one mortgage and a car payment on his salary. Interestingly, the Commission notes that Haqqani was the chairperson of the House Building Finance Corporation for several years but it does not dawn on them that perhaps the man’s financial integrity is such that he did not accumulate residential plots or houses — unlike many others who are under the microscope these days. The Commission did not even spare the former ambassador’s matrimonial record. Suffice it to say the honorable judges should not have treaded into such personal territory, especially when they might find the response to be personally uncomfortable.
Another disingenuous observation by the Commission is about Haqqani’s security in Pakistan. They claim that he was, and will be, safe in Pakistan despite the media and political lynching he has already undergone. The report notes: “It is also clear that Mr Haqqani enjoyed excellent relations with the Government (of Pakistan) and had the singular honor of residing in the Prime Minister’s House when he came to Pakistan. Therefore, in addition to the compliance with our orders directing the Government to provide complete security to him, Mr Haqqani being the Prime Minister’s guest would have been well protected, and would not have apprehended restrictions placed on his departure from Pakistan by the Government placing his name on the exit control list (ECL).”
With utmost respect, one must submit that the Commission treated Haqqani’s personal safety issue in the most cavalier manner. If they were serious to provide him safety, they should have investigated who confiscated the then ambassador, Haqqani’s passport upon his arrival in Islamabad on November 20, 2012. The Pakistan People’s Party government or the SC had not put him on the ECL. And then the passport mysteriously surfaced on the dining table in the Prime Minister House’s annexe when the SC allowed Haqqani to travel. This is no trivial matter and had the Commission bothered to probe it further, it would have known that the threats to the former ambassador’s life were not imaginary or existed only on twitter, but lurked right outside his residential quarters in the PM House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
