The alleged affidavit of former chief justice of Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan Rana M Shamim has opened yet another can of worms. For the umpteenth time, the spotlight is back on the highly controversial 2017 Panamagate saga. The ever-so-observant PML(N) must have gotten a load of how them crying wolf over a vindictive government has not exactly panned out. Since former supremo Nawaz Sharif’s storming of the military leadership has become a non-affair, his party has now decided to lock horns with the force standing at the very top: the superior judiciary. A very risky move, especially when the appeal is to be heard soon. Justice always takes its course, one way or another. Islamabad High Court should be appreciated for immediately rolling up its sleeves and giving a befitting reply to the serious allegation. CJ Athar Minalla’s pertinent questions echoed loudly in the jam-packed courtroom. Since the devil lies in the murky details, only unearthing the new twist would explain what the PML(N) is up to this time. Previously, the Qatari prince’s letter and the Calibry font debacle have been used to muddy the waters. And to seal the deal, media is used as a convenient tout to put out a damsel-in-distress narrative, Dragging the judges’ conduct through the mud is a first-picked strategy to bring the trial outside the court. Unluckily for the Sharif family, it has not brought them any respite. Rather, the judiciary has been, understandably, even more upset at visible attempts to influence legal proceedings. The latest instalment in the new political scheme has been engineered on a very shaky ground. There is no need for anyone else to cut the affidavit’s legs off. Why did it take the ex-chief justice four years to step out into the open with such a crucial piece of the puzzle? Was he waiting for his retirement to finally act on the call of his conscience? Having sat on the bench for a long time, His Honour must have known how and when should one draft an affidavit. Notwithstanding that the notice has already pointed out how “such affidavits (do not) form a part of the judicial record,” it would have fared better had he taken a closer look before making such a big leap. Giving in an opinionated statement under oath serves no fruitful purpose. As has been rightly pointed by Federal Minister Fawad Chaudhry, it makes little sense for the ex-CJP to “hav(e) tea, sit in front of the phone and issu(e) such instructions in front of a visitor.” Stepping into this line of fire, the former GB judge has himself asked for trouble. Parallels are being drawn between the timing of his judgeship. His son’s appointment as the advocate general is also conspicuously known. Ergo, the need to do proper homework before his court appearance. While truth would surely reign supreme, it is disheartening to see one judge hurling such vile accusation against another, that too, in the open. Assuming that these exchanges would have no negative impact whatsoever on the sanctity of the judicial system itself would be downright naïve. Let’s just hope that the party in question stops tampering with such an esteemed institute for its nefarious designs. It may run all its want. It may hide all its want. But shooting down the judiciary on its way out simply adds to the insult. *