Nawaz Sharif's repatriation

The government of Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf has taken the extraordinary step of writing a letter to the UK authorities for the repatriation of former PM Nawaz Sharif who is in London for medical treatment. The government has alleged that Nawaz Sharif has violated the eight-week bail extended to him for the purpose by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) by staying on in London for the last more than three months. Special Assistant to the PM on Information Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan told a press conference on March 3, 2020 after briefing the federal cabinet on the issue that a medical board formed by the Punjab government on the directives of the IHC that had allowed Nawaz Sharif to leave for London for treatment has now reached the conclusion that Nawaz Sharif is quite well and therefore able to return since he has not been admitted to any hospital and has been seen frequenting restaurants in London. She added that the Punjab government has written a number of letters to Nawaz Sharif seeking his latest medical reports but instead he had submitted a certificate that is not acceptable to the medical board to ascertain his health condition. Not surprisingly, PML-N president and leader of the opposition Shahbaz Sharif, who accompanied his brother to London, reacted bitterly to the government's move. First and foremost, Shahbaz argued, the government did not have the authority to write such a letter. The government's haste, he added, betrayed its criminal intent. He underlined that attempting to stop Nawaz Sharif's treatment is tantamount to murdering him. Last but not least, he accused PM Imran Khan of acting out of personal enmity and political vengeance.

While the exchange outlined above comes as no surprise, the issue needs to be approached calmly, rationally, and according to the law. The IHC had granted an eight-week bail to Nawaz Sharif for medical treatment in London when local doctors seemed unable to control his complicated afflictions. The court had also directed that Nawaz Sharif could seek an extension in his bail by applying to the Punjab government. Now any rational and responsible government has to be guided in its decisions and actions by the law and rules. If the Punjab government decided not to accede to Nawaz Sharif's bail extension, this had to be based on some facts and evidence. However, according to Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, the medical board set up by the Punjab government has not received Nawaz Sharif's latest medical reports but a medical certificate instead, which, according to Dr Awan herself, does not allow the medical board to assess the state of his health. In that case, how can the medical board declare that Nawaz Sharif is now hale and hearty, based on the thin argument of being seen in London's restaurants? At best, the government should have approached the IHC to direct Nawaz Sharif to supply his latest medical reports instead of jumping to the conclusion that he was well and able to return. Second, an approach to the IHC regarding the issue of allowing or rejecting an extension in Nawaz Sharif's bail period may have been the correct and wisest course. Last but not least, does the government not know that there is no extradition treaty between Pakistan and the UK? If by some stretch of the imagination the UK government were to move to repatriate Nawaz Sharif, this would be open to challenge in the British courts. It may be recalled that the UK government, despite its desire to extradite Julian Assange to the US to face serious charges, has been unable to do so despite 'capturing' him from the Ecuador embassy in London because the issue is now in court. One would have thought there were bigger and more important issues for our government to focus on, not the least of which is the threatened fallout of the global coronavirus epidemic on our already faltering economy. Instead the concentration on pursuing Nawaz Sharif does arouse suspicions of political victimisation.