NEWS ANALYSIS
Does the memo exist? To determine Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s statement, based on the information and preliminary enquiry by Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director General Lt General Ahmad Shuja Pasha that the memo is a reality, the Supreme Court declared all 11 petitions maintainable and appointed a high-powered three-member judicial commission to investigate the treacherous conspiracy that has bedeviled civil-military relations.
Prima facie, it is evidently clear from the judgement that the nine-member bench was satisfied with the contents of the affidavits submitted by the COAS and the ISI DG that the memo was a “reality” and it needed to be investigated to determine its origin. The objective resolution, under Article 2A of the constitution, forms the basis of the Supreme Court judgement.
“And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order; wherein integrity of the territories of the Federation, its independence and all its rights, including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air, shall be safeguarded…” the article commands.
Though Asma Jahangir, counsel for former ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani, expressed her disappointment over the judgement with her observation that it was not the system she had struggled for as the military authority continued to subjugate the civil authority, she accepted the judgement. Her arguments in the court during the proceedings had unambiguously suggested that the generals pulled the strings despite a civil dispensation being in place. But the judges’ observations had tacitly indicated that someone, somewhere did it (the memo).
Notwithstanding the arguments for and against the question of maintainability of these petitions, the verdict is balanced – the contents of the memo are criminal and it warrants an investigation. The formation of the commission with unprecedented power – with three chief justices of the high courts and no Supreme Court judge being part of it – leaves no room to question its formation. The composition of the commission reflects the gravity of the matter that involves the Federation of Pakistan. Hence, it had to be with the representatives of the federation.
The largest province has, however, not been given representation in the commission. This is understandable as the main petitioner, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) President Nawaz Sharif, belongs to Punjab. This again gives credibility to the commission, which would sit in the federal capital – the Islamabad High Court. The deadline is also set for the commission: the investigation has to be completed within four weeks. February, therefore, is the most awaited month and is critical for the country.
With the alarm bells already ringing in the corridors of power ever since this memo surfaced with the publication of an op-ed article by Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz and the military establishment taking it as a conspiracy against the state, the government strategy, which will be evident from its actions, will speak for its approach to the judicial probe. The stated position of the government is that parliament is the right forum to probe the memo issue.
The Supreme Court did take cognizance of a press conference held in the Press Information Department (PID) by Babar Awan with some other Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leaders also in attendance to criticise the court “contemptuously”. However, the Supreme Court did not give any direction in the short order as they would be passed in the detailed judgement. Probably, the Supreme Court has checkmated the critics of the judicial process and seemingly put them under observation during the four-week judicial process before giving a final word on contempt of court.
Parallel to the judicial process, the parliamentary investigation into the memo issue will also start after January 10 with the committee summoning the ISI DG and the former ambassador to Washington. But there is no cut-off date for the parliamentary probe. There is a possibility that with two parallel investigations, one political and the other judicial, the parliament and judiciary may come face-to-face, if the question of parliament’s sovereignty arises at some stage.
The PML-N’s position, whether it stands with the judiciary or the parliamentary committee – of which it is also a member – will also be of critical importance in case of dissimilarity in the results of the judicial and parliamentary probes.
