If the Supreme Court is hoping to dispel the myth that it is doing someone else’s bidding — it is perhaps not going about things quite the right way. After all, its renewed interest in the infamous Memogate case has prompted the issuing of an arrest warrant for a former Pakistani diplomat. At the heart of this so-called scandal is Husain Haqqani, the then ambassador to Washington. He has always denied allegations pertaining to penning a letter in which he reportedly sought American help in reining in this country’s military; floated the idea of setting up a joint Pak-US civilian national security team which would see him on top; questioned the safety of our nuclear weapons; and accused the security establishment of maintaining ties with the Taliban. We agree with the apex court that these are extremely serious allegations that we need to get to the bottom of. But we have to ask why now? After all, the latter date back to 2011. Moreover, why does the SC only want to hear from Mr Haqqani and not from the government of the day that he represented? If these questions remain unanswered it will give rise to further speculation that vested interests are pulling the SC strings; and no so discreetly at that. Meaning that the Memogate scandal was not the first time that Haqqani had fallen foul of the security apparatus. For just two years previously the latter had taken exception to the Kerry-Lugar bill that went on to become the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, 2009. Indeed, in an unprecedented move the ISPR issued a press release expressing its irritation at those clauses seeking to link civilian aid to national security. Haqqani was said to be a key player in negotiating the bill. The entire saga represents the conundrum facing today’s Pakistan. Those who are seen to compromise the deep-state’s ability to go about defining the parameters of the national interest are brought to book; in most cases. Whereas those who at one time represented the military establishment remain free to go on local television as they continue to badmouth successive civilian leaderships and promise more political comebacks. Yet just as Haqqani was free to go back to the US, so, too, was Gen (rtd) Pervez Musharraf permitted to leave Pakistan; both on the understanding that they would return when summoned by the higher judiciary. Haqqani was allowed to leave by the judiciary and his case is a convenient ploy to divert national attention from the serious issues that the country faces. Further, the singling out of particular individuals as opposed the systems that supported them smacks of selective justice. And that is in no one’s interest. * Published in Daily Times, February 17th 2018.