Clear mismatch

The replies submitted by the respondents to the Supreme Court reveal a clear mismatch of positions taken by the government and the armed forces over the Memogate scandal. This mismatch is not only over the substance of the memo but also over the procedure adopted for investigation into this affair that threatens to explode into a clash between the two paramount institutions. They differ not only over the existence and authenticity of the memo, but also on the question of the apex court's jurisdiction. Even more importantly, while the government's reply has been sent under the rubric of Federation and therefore includes the position taken by the Ministry of Defence, the Army Chief's reply hasn't come through the ministry. It has been handed over personally by the Adjutant General to the Attorney General (AG) Anwarul Haq for filing in the Supreme Court 'without changing even a comma or full stop' - the AG's emphasis on submission as received is apparently meant to convey that it was independent of the Federation's input. Then there are other conflicting aspects, in that while the replies, sent separately by Army Chief, General Kayani and ISI chief, Lieutenant-General Pasha, amply demonstrate their perception that the Supreme Court has valid jurisdiction to hear Nawaz Sharif's petition (who has bracketed the two with the government) the federation rejects it with full force. Not only the federation, former ambassador Husain Haqqani also insists that "said matters prima facie are not the proper subject matter of proceedings within the meaning and scope of Article 184". The government says the memo scandal is being investigated by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and "it was essential that it should proceed with the probe to determine the issue and give its recommendations". The government is quite brief and its only annexure appended to the reply is an internet download of a blog item in a British newspaper. How the Supreme Court would react to this stance taken by the government is anybody's guess, given that the matter of apex court's jurisdiction was indicated at the time the petition was admitted for regular hearing. Yet another contradiction in their respective positions is that while the government is inflexible on the issue of jurisdiction, the forces haven't levelled the charge as such but only asked that the matter being extremely important, the court should look into it and give its verdict as to the veracity of the memo. What even more clearly reveals the abounding mismatch is conflict over the substance of the memo. General Kayani's reply insists that on the face of it, the memo does exist and sufficiently establishes "[T]hat there may be need to fully examine the facts and circumstances leading to the conception and issuance of the memo...It has an impact on the national security and ...attempts to lower the morale of the Pakistan Army". ISI chief Lieutenant-General Pasha, however, more specific; in his reply says Mansoor Ijaz has "real evidence as claimed by him" that proves Husain Haqqani's role in writing the memorandum seeking US intervention to rein in the army from toppling the Zardari-Gilani government. He wants the apex court's forensic examination of the BlackBerry sets and computers of both Mansoor Ijaz and Husain Haqqani. Ijaz's 81-page Witness Statement sent to the court through the Foreign Office is expected to be of some help in figuring out some clear contours of the conspiracy that the Memogate has uncovered. Since neither the army chief nor the ISI head directly imputed the memo conspiracy to President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and some of his party men seem to be overreacting at this stage of the probe, lending the government position a tell-tale perception. At this stage of the case it would be improper to forecast how it is going to end, but the fact remains that the present parliament doesn't enjoy much credibility with the people. Also, there is sufficient evidence to show that the political opposition, even if it part of the parliamentary probe, is not going to support its committee's verdict. The truth is that the only forum where the people's confidence and trust is the higher judiciary and it would be in the larger interest of democratic forces that the issue be decided by the Supreme Court. We expect the Gilani government to render full co-operation to the court; the alternative is too hazardous fully loaded with risk to derail the democratic system. Copyright Business Recorder, 2011