At the people's expense
April 09, 2001
The PPP had fought a three-front battle to defend its leader in the corruption cases brought against her by the PML(N) government. With the retrial ordered by the Supreme Court, it has scored clear victories on the psychological and political fronts. As for the critical legal front, it has won to the extent that the conviction stands overturned and lost in so far as an outright acquittal has been denied. The corruption and kickbacks charges stand, and will have to be answered.
When the Ehtesab trials had begun, each date of hearing saw PPP activists trying to storm the High Court and fighting pitched battles with the police. These increasingly violent confrontations won valuable media attention and, thus, began building psychological pressure not only on the government but also the judges. In-court confrontations had raised the temperature further.
Aided by an inapt prosecution, the PPP defence team flooded the courts with multiple applications seeking adjournments and even outright acquittal on technical grounds. The intent seemed to be to delay proceedings in the hope, as is customary in such high-profile cases, of a political climate change. These tactics provoked bitter exchanges with the judges and created general acrimony in court.
Besides, the prosecution witnesses were heckled and one gentleman even had his face blackened by a diehard female. She was, finally, jailed (on terrorism charges!), two PPP lawyers were charged with contempt and the entry of PPP supporters in the court restricted.
Even so, the judges continued to be aggravated not only by the defence lawyers but also by a combative Ms. Bhutto herself and Mr. Zardari. She accused them, specifically Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, of being biased and demanded that they opt out of the trial. But barring one judge, for reasons that had seemed inexplicable then, they did not do so.
As the endgame approached in a visibly fast-forward mode, Ms. Bhutto pointedly accused the court of being in a hurry to time her conviction to deflect attention from a 32-million dollar breach-of-contract decree issued by a London court against the Sharifs. The court remained too tolerant, at times even apologetic, and did not send Ms. Bhutto to jail for contempt when she dared it to do so.
Thus, even as the trial turned into tribulation for the plundered people, the acrimonious proceedings continued--with the judges' pedestal guarded by police commandos and PML lawyers sitting in to counter the muscle and lung-power of their PPP colleagues. Justice, indeed!
This psychological and political pressure, accentuated by the frailty of the court, ill intentions of an insecure PML(N) government and delaying tactics of the defence, apparently combined to press the panic button somewhere.
Even without the benefit of hindsight and, ofcourse, The Sunday Times tapes, it was painfully obvious that something was simmering underfoot when closure was suddenly applied by the court to the defence evidence and the case adjourned to the next day for its closing arguments. But, on that day, without hearing these arguments, the guilty verdict was announced. Its written text was dated a day before and, naturally, attracted charges of pre-judgement.
Commenting on this sorry state of affairs, it was said then that, while justice may have been done, it certainly did not appear to have been done. Particularly damaging was the disinclination of the "accused" judges to opt out of the trial and, ofcourse, the unseemly haste in the end.
Not surprisingly, therefore, these issues echoed in the Supreme Court. Alleged bias of the trial bench was a prime focus of the appellants' case. How far it has helped them will be known only after the detailed judgement is released. Of particular interest will be the apex court's ruling on the telltale tapes.
These tapes and alleged judicial bias now have only academic relevance to the Bhutto-Zardari retrial. But these could be invaluable in salvaging from the unholy mess a possible indictment of judges and PML(N) hotshots accused of subverting justice in a trial which could have marked a turning point in the fight against mega-corruption.
If the Supreme Court holds the tapes to be genuine, which is less likely, the matter could go to the Supreme Judicial Council--unless, ofcourse, the judges put in their papers voluntarily. But even if the Supreme Court orders an inquiry into their veracity, which is more likely, pressure will build on the named judges. This will be a keenly awaited aspect of the detailed judgement.
As for the retrial again, only the judgement will tell if it is to be open ended, or confined to re-tendering the defence evidence or focused on any other omissions by the trial-bench. These parameters should give some indication about its course and time-span.
Also critical for the retrial of the SGS case (and at least one other corruption case against Bhutto-Zardari) will be the apex court's ruling on the so called Swiss documents. The case of accused is that these are fake and inadmissible in evidence for being photocopies acquired by the prosecution through questionable means.
If this plea is accepted, which is unlikely, the prosecution will be left holding a basketful of its follies. If these documents are validated, after the current euphoria is over, the accused could soon be staring down the barrel of the gun. If, however, this issue is left to the trial court, as seems more likely, both sides would be on an equal footing for the retrial.
Besides being morally reprehensible, one reason why all the gerrymandering alleged against the PML (N) hotshots and the trial bench was utterly unnecessary (and, thus, inexplicable) was that these documents provided the prosecution with an irrefutable case.
Ms. Bhutto and her husband were charged with misusing their offices to award a multi-million dollar pre-shipment inspection contract to M/S. Societe Generale De Surveillance (SGS) in exchange for six per cent in kickbacks. Of that, 4.3 million dollars were said to have been deposited in a Swiss bank Account No. 552343 of Bomer Finance Inc. (BFI) of which Jens Schlegelmilch was the sole director/president (the same charge awaits their attendance in a Swiss court). The points at issue were: whether the former first couple had any link to BFI and whether its bank-account was, in fact, "wholly and beneficially" owned by them.
Ordinarily, such accounts are very difficult to link to the real owners. That is why illegal money wends its way into assets and accounts owned by shadowy off-shore companies like the BFI. But the prosecution had found fatal slip-ups. It linked the accused couple to Schlegelmilch through official correspondence whereby his hotel reservation in Islamabad and payment for his stay were made by the Prime Minister's office. His visits to the PM house/office were also logged-in by the security staff--albeit, as stressed for the accused in the Supreme Court, his name was misspelled!
The damning linkage between the accused and BFI's Account No. 552343 was established through a receipt whereby Ms. Bhutto had allegedly purchased a necklace in London (for pounds sterling 1.17 lakhs only!) and, fatefully, charged pounds 92,000 to account No. 552343.
To scuttle the defence plea of forgery and fabrication of these documents, the prosecution had secured the appointment of a Judicial Commission which travelled to Switzerland and verified the documents. The Supreme Court's ruling on these crucial documents could hinge on what, if any, sanctity it attaches to the verification proceedings by this commission. Or, again this matter could also be left to the retrial court.
Thus, three years after it began and millions of the people's wasted rupees later, the corruption trial that could have been a landmark in the fight against corruption is back to square one. Somehow, after the flight of the Sharif's, it seems to have lost relevance to the national quest for a moral rejuvenation.
But Ms. Bhutto and her spouse can still put the nation out of its misery. They could, as suggested by the former law minister, Khalid Anwar, write to the Swiss banks expressing their 'no objection' to the transfer of the money in the accounts attributed to them to the Pakistan government. If they have no link with these accounts, the letter would be ignored and there the matter would end. But, obviously, life is much more complicated than that.
The author is a freelance columnist
Back