Daily Times

The Memo Commission saga seems to be nearing a conclusion with the rejection by the nine-member Supreme Court (SC) bench of Husain Haqqani’s petition invoking his constitutional entitlement to being treated at par with the other major memo case player, Mansoor Ijaz, to whom the commission had allowed a video-link facility to depose from London. Haqqani has invoked Article 9 (security of person) and Article 15 (freedom of movement) in support of his contention. Moreover, he has contended that he has not been charged with any offence. Above all, he has called into question the constitution of the memo commission itself to probe the scandal. He has also raised some valid legal points regarding the apex court’s jurisdiction to constitute such a commission under the law. It should also be kept in mind that the commission is not a trial court, only a commission of inquiry. Obviously, all these points ought to be considered to assess their legal validity. Haqqani has reportedly been advised by his doctors not to travel, primarily because of his heart condition and other ailments. The apex court, while disposing of Haqqani’s petition, has thrown it back to the memo commission with the observation that it would be for the commission to decide whether to allow a video-link facility to him. Far it be from us to comment on the merits of the honourable court’s decision, but Haqqani, in view of his precarious health condition, deserves to be shown consideration by the apex court and the memo commission by allowing him the video-link facility, as was accorded to Mansoor Ijaz.

A perception seems to have meanwhile developed in legal and public circles that the case has probably dragged on far beyond its inherent importance or utility, and that it needs to be brought to an expeditious conclusion. As doctors in the US have not allowed Haqqani to travel, the only option left for him will be the use of a video link facility, as was done in the case of Mansoor Ijaz. Further, Haqqani has claimed that he has been receiving life threats from unknown quarters, which imparts additional gravity to his situation. It is argued that Ijaz had made unsubstantiated statements about Haqqani, which have not stood the test of scrutiny even before the memo commission. During his illustrious teaching and diplomatic career, Haqqani had rubbed some important personalities and institutions back home the wrong way. But that cannot be reason to deny him inherent fair treatment, justice, and consideration. The memo affair has withered on the vine, particularly after even General (now retired) Pasha failed to confirm anything Ijaz had claimed regarding Mr Haqqani. The country and the people now should be shown some mercy and no further time or expense wasted on this futile exercise that has failed to live up to its billing by certain motivated circles and sections of the media. Perhaps it is time to let logic take its course and give the whole ‘affair’ a decent burial. *