Another sordid drama unfolds

This stance or that, there will be no letter written

Two things have happened. First, the PPP leadership has gone back on its much hyped stance of not allowing the Bhutto graves’ trial and, second, the buck of accountability for writing or not writing the dreaded letter has been passed to the law minister.

There is much speculation about the dynamics that brought about this cardinal shift. The growing unrest within the party and in the allied ranks, an understanding having been reached with the Swiss authorities or the assurances extended by the PPP leadership’s original patrons, ala NRO may be just some of the reasons. But the dominant perception persists that even this apparent change of stance is not going to impact the government’s intentions of not cooperating with the Supreme Court (SC) injunctions and allowing its co-chairperson to be exposed to any legal scrutiny in the Swiss courts. The battle that so far was being fought on the premise of the so-called immunity granted to the president by the constitution is now going to shift to the contents of the letter that the prime minister has agreed to write. Much will depend on behind-the-scene contacts between the government and the judiciary and the flexibility that the latter may show in compromising on what the communication to the Swiss authorities would contain. The attorney-general has already fired the first salvo by controversially stating that the court had accepted the constitutional clause granting immunity to the president and this would be mentioned in the letter to be sent to the Swiss authorities.

By stating in the court that “…I have authorised the law minister to withdraw the letter written by the (then) attorney-general Malik Qayyum” and “I am instructing the law minister in front of the bench”, the prime minister, its legal interpretation and ramifications notwithstanding, appears to have absolved himself of any further responsibility in the matter of writing the letter. It now appears that, henceforth, it would be a case between the apex court and the law minister and those others who would be associated with the process of drafting and transmitting the dreaded letter. So, instead of another prime minister falling, are we going to begin seeing the exit of the law minister/s?

In its desperate quest for winning more time for its government, there is a political price that the PPP may have to pay for altering its avowed stance on the issue of writing the letter. Reports have already emerged regarding the displeasure of some of the allies about this sudden shift coming after the PPP having consistently and arrogantly refused to budge from its stance of not acceding to the SC directive to write the letter. Some of the political allies, most notably the ANP, had been excessively critical of the judiciary. They have nowhere to look now that the very ground has shifted from under their feet.

The change of stance would also reflect on the lack of political maturity of the PPP leadership and may raise questions as to its conduct in the future. Having apparently planned to fighting the next general elections on the premise of being an aggrieved party that was assaulted by the judiciary and all its seen and unseen allies, the PPP may have lost all or some of that moral base. There are two possibilities. The PPP, being fully aware of this fallout, may have opted for this as a well thought-out strategy because it does not and will not write the letter under any circumstances. In that event, this can be perceived as a clever move to offset the judiciary and its political adversaries alike and also win some precious time to contemplate its next card. The other prospect is that the PPP may have been forced into doing this through a combination of circumstances including the depleting allied support and the increasing pressure that a continuing confrontation with the judiciary was generating on the system itself. The one common element in both cases is the risk that the PPP leadership has either taken of its own free volition, or having been forced into it through internal and external pressures it could no longer resist.

The net outcome of the move, however, is not going to be any different from what has been witnessed in the last three years: continuing confrontation between the executive and the judiciary, even an accentuation of the sordid spectacle. But, the government’s flanks are now also under attack by the judiciary which may further cripple its strength. The NAB chief has been asked to explain his lack of action on the SC adjudication of initiating cases against Justice (R) Qayyum, Adnan Khawaja and Sheikh Riaz and the attorney-general has also been questioned as to his efficacy for the court in prosecuting alleged transgressors. One of the honourable judges hearing the contempt case questioned the AG’s credentials by confronting him with the query that “how would you perform an independent role in this case when you have been a lawyer of Malik Riaz”. The honourable judge went on to say: “It seems that you are contesting Malik Riaz’s case. We’ll have to see whether you would be able to act as an independent prosecutor or not”. He has since been removed as the prosecutor in the case.

The apex court will have to look through the veneer of attractive packaging being offered by the PPP leadership in its bid to win more time for the government to prepare for the next election. It will have to go beyond the magic of ‘good behaviour’ in the court by the chief executive of the country and meaningless semantics that do not signify any change of intent. It is quite clear that, this stance or that, the letter would not be written as desired by the apex court. But, through this clever move, the PPP leadership may have saved its prime minister from being prosecuted in the future. Next time, it may be the law minister that the SC may have to send home.

The writer is a political analyst. He can be reached at [email protected]