Seeking the truth

More relevant than ever, not less

The memo has not only become a test case for the judiciary to untangle, it is also so for Mansoor Ijaz, the (named and un-named) government functionaries, the army and the ISI. I say so not for any other reason, but for the stands taken by each party in the matter.

So far, the principal witness in the case Mansoor Ijaz has been the most forthcoming in terms of testifying before the SC-appointed Commission with transcripts of conversations and other proofs to substantiate that he was in contact with Haqqani and the memo conspiracy was, indeed, conceived and put in motion for implementation. He has also indicated his willingness to forgo his privacy rights with regard to securing information from the BlackBerry Company. Haqqani, on the other hand, while denying the allegations, has been non-cooperative saying that he had misplaced his two BlackBerry sets and did not remember his pin numbers. The army and ISI chiefs, in submitting signed affidavits with the SC, ostensibly based on incriminating evidence secured by the ISI which has already claimed the scalp of the former ambassador to the US, were accused of having committed ‘unconstitutional acts’ by the prime minister – an accusation that has since been withdrawn under increasing pressure from the GHQ. In his affidavit, the COAS had stated that the memo ‘was a reality’ that had ‘affected national sovereignty’ and should be investigated thoroughly. The government, on the other hand, considered the memo a ‘non-issue’ and questioned why the army chief had not brought the matter to the notice of the government any earlier than he eventually did. It also cautioned the ISI chief as to the chain of command that he needed to follow under the relevant laws and rules. The detailed log of conversations allegedly between various actors which is part of Mansoor’s testimony provides extensive incriminating details of the events of the night of May 1-2.

Amid reverberations of an accord having been reached between the government and the security establishment to bury the controversy, it remains to be seen whether the army and ISI chiefs stick to their stated positions or take steps backwards. In the former event, the memo could boil over into becoming a major controversy while, in the latter case, their own positions would be rendered untenable – an eventuality that neither of them would be able to live with. In such a situation, would pursuit of truth be a preferred option with either party, or will they join hands, as indicated in various reports, to quash it?

That brings us to the other party in the equation: the judiciary. So far, it has taken all the right steps. It appointed a three-member judicial commission to investigate the matter thoroughly which has given time and space to each party to state its case. When the government resorted to vile tactics to stop Mansoor Ijaz from coming to Pakistan to appear before the commission, it conceded his request to record his statement through a video-link facility from London which he has since done to telling effect. After the completion of his cross-examination, the commission asked Hussain Haqqani to appear before it on March 15 with details of his phone sets, pin codes and any other evidence that he may want to produce in support of his contentions. He did not come. Instead he asked for the provision of a similar facility that was accorded to Mansoor Ijaz – recording of statement vide video-link from London. The commission rejected his request and directed him to appear in person before it on March 26. He has not done that again citing security reasons for his inability to travel to Pakistan and sent a communication directly to the CJ outlining his reasons for non-appearance. The SC has, however, reiterated that he should appear in person before the commission as per his affidavit submitted earlier when he was allowed to leave the country that he would appear on a four-day notice.

The question is: will he come at all? If he does, of which the chances now appear to be slim, the matter would proceed towards its final resolution on the basis of ascertainment of evidence produced by each party before the commission. But if he does not, which appears the more likely option at this stage, what is the course that the judiciary would follow in pursuit of truth and what are the roles that every other party to the case would play, more notably the government and the chiefs of the army and the ISI?

The matter has become even more relevant in the light of the proposals that the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) has submitted for discussion before the parliament for the revival of Pakistan-US relations. This endeavour would have to be viewed in a different perspective if some of our own senior officials were found involved in forging conspiracies with a foreign power to destabilise national military and intelligence institutions. So, it is absolutely vital that the court gets to the bottom of the alleged conspiracy before the parliament could move any further with the proposed review of the Pakistan-US relations.

The crucial factor here is not so much whether one party is guilty or the other. The crucial factor is the task of seeking the truth in a matter that has adversely impacted the legitimacy of the government functionaries and security institutions alike. For them to continue with a stigma on their character would be absolutely untenable. Apparently, the government is virtually pitted against the security establishment. If, along the way, there has been a decision to forget and forgive, that does not render the task of seeking the truth any less important and relevant. If, for any reason or a combination of reasons, the pursuit is aborted, it would be a sad day for the country, its institutions and its fast-obliterating credentials.

The writer is a political analyst and a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. He can be reached at [email protected]