The disqualification of (former) Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the basis of an undeclared salary that he never received is disappointing to say the least. Political analysts, constitutional experts and well-respected lawyers count the Panama Papers verdict among ‘flimsy’ and ‘lousy’ decisions in the country’s judicial history. If the same precedent were applied to every Parliamentarian, no one would turn out to be ‘truthful’ and ‘reliable’ under the Articles 62 and 63 of the Pakistan’s Constitution. In my previous op-ed pieces, I had expressed concerns over the conduct of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and the process of its investigation. I believed that deliberate efforts were being made to send the former Prime Minister packing by hook or by crook. Last Tuesday, I had written, “Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif knows that he has to go.” It was not just a wild guess from statements and body language of different leaders of the ruling party and other stakeholders. Undoubtedly, it was evident from day one based on the JIT’s conduct. Ever since the announcement of the decision, most analysts have termed it as a result of civil-military conflict. Notwithstanding the facts that Nawaz Sharif has been known as an ‘Army friendly’ politician, he has suffered the most from conflicts with the military. It has been obvious from the situation and from statements of the former Prime Minister and his cabinet and the ISPR that under his command the executive and the Army were not on the same page. An impartial analysis of the situation would enable us to exactly determine who had been encroaching upon the mandate of whom. But what remains certain is that no one seems to be thinking about strengthening democratic institutions in Pakistan. Whether it’s internal elements and forces or their external partners, everyone has wanted their hegemonic designs to rule over the will and the mandate of the people of Pakistan. A politically- and economically- weak country that shall always beg the World Bank and the IMF and look forward to US support suits them. General Ziaul Haq’s martial law had culminated in two major disasters. Firstly, the judicial murder of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was not only the blunt and bold voice of Muslim countries but also the strongest voice of Asia against hegemonic strategies of the US and the United Nations. So, it was necessary to eliminate him by hook or by crook. The regime used the judiciary to do it, quite injudiciously. Secondly, General Zia quite shrewdly used the name of Islamic Jihad to fight America’s proxy war against the United States of Soviet Russia (USSR). It had been disastrous for the land and the people of the country that is still facing the consequences — the Taliban, black-dollars, poppy trafficking and the Kalashnikov culture. It is obvious from the situation and from statements by the former Prime Minister and his cabinet and the ISPR that under Sharif’s command — the executive and the Army were not on the same page Why it was necessary to topple the Pakistan’s democratic government in 1999? Was it only an outcome of a conflict between the Prime Minister and the Army Chief or was it part of a larger plot connected to the 9/11 incident and the subsequent attack on Afghanistan. After all, the US and its NATO allies would have needed a government in Pakistani likely to bow down to their ‘request’ for assistance. General Musharraf, then Pakistan’s Army chief and the chief executive, supported the US strategic objectives wholeheartedly almost 10 years. Regarding Nawaz Sharif, we should remember that the US had had a bitter experience with him during his second term as elected prime minister. Sharif had not bowed down to the US ‘request’ when he proceeded with nuclear tests in response to India’s nuclear tests. What is the civil-military conflict now? Does the matter concern only corruption cases against the former prime minister and his family? If yes, then why couldn’t the judicial process come to a justifiable organic conclusion? Why did the Supreme Court judges have to take resort to the matter of unwithdrawn salary to send Sharif packing? Has the judiciary once again been used, intentionally or unintentionally, to punish the democratically-elected PM for not safeguarding strategic and economic interests of the US or for giving his consent and support to the CPEC projects and other economic growth initiatives in the country? Or, is Sharif’s ouster linked to his sovereign strategic and moral support to countries that do not fall in the strategic framework of hegemonic global powers? Corruption, no doubt, is a deep-rooted menace in our society and it should be uprooted at any cost. Nevertheless, accountability should be for all corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, army officers, business tycoons, mafia dons and media persons. Corruption cases should not be politically or strategically motivated, infatuated or influenced. The writer is an Islamabad-based policy advocacy, strategic communication and outreach expert. He can be reached at devcom.pakistan@gmail.com. He tweets @EmmayeSyed Published in Daily Times, August 1st , 2017.