The conviction of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari for corruption in the SGS\Cotecna case isn’t surprising in terms of its legality. It is not true that Justice Abdul Qayyum was historically “biased” because “his brother is a Muslim League legislator and his father was on the bench which sentenced Mr Z A Bhutto to death”. Ms Bhutto made these allegations not when the supreme court established the bench, not when the trial began, not while it was conducted over many months, but at its fag end when cast-iron proof of massive kickbacks, authenticated by the Swiss authorities who have already indicted husband and wife along with three Swiss nationals (two of whom are former employees of SGS\Cotecna), was presented by the prosecution.
For much the same reason, Ms Bhutto is not the victim of a “witch-hunt”. Since there are no such things as witches, a “witch-hunt” connotes a frame-up; it refers to an innocent person wrongly accused and unfairly adjudged. But Ms Bhutto and her husband were guilty as hell and they have been adjudged as such.
However, if the decision was anticipated for legal reasons, there were doubts whether Senator Saif ur Rehman would pursue the case to its political end. Indeed, when delays set in, we wondered whether the senator merely intended to harass his leader’s political opponents rather than to seek their conviction, much as Ms Bhutto had done as prime minister when she used DG-FIA Rehman Malik to investigate and lodge fool-proof cases of corruption and misuse of power against Nawaz Sharif and his family members but studiously refrained from seeking their conviction. Since there is an “honour among thieves”, we reasoned, Mr Sharif might also stop short of convicting his opponent because, once such a precedence is set, there is no guarantee that the noose might not be around his neck in time to come. That is why no one of any political substance has ever been convicted and sentenced for corruption in this country. In the end, however, one wise adage was finessed by another: it took a thief to catch a thief!
The facts are clear. Ms Bhutto prolonged the case by shrieking “due process” even when “due process” was patently exhausted — the trial dragged on for over a year but should have concluded within three months as per the law. On the strength of the evidence, this was an open and shut case. That it took so long to conclude attests to the ingenuity and doggedness of Ms Bhutto’s lawyers rather than to any doubts about her guilt. In fact, any “procedural” lapses by the high court were duly resolved by the supreme court during the trial.
That said, it is absolutely true that this is no “accountability”. Far from it. Accountability is supposed to be transparent and across the board. That is why the accountability law framed by the much-vilified caretaker regime in 1996 has sprung to everyone’s lips as the only true yardstick by which it should be measured. But two critical amendments made in it by the Muslim League government have made it farcical. In order to protect Nawaz Sharif and his cohorts, the cut-off date of the original law was changed from 1985 to 1991 and the writ of the Chief Accountability Commissioner was circumscribed by making it impossible for him to accept or investigate corruption cases without the approval and backing of senator Saif ur Rehman’s notorious Accountability Bureau.
This trial has led to three far-reaching and irrevocable conclusions. One, the verdict against Ms Bhutto and Mr Zardari, however well deserved, is not likely to be perceived as fair or just because it is one-sided; two, it is likely to create some unmerited sympathy for the couple, especially for the lady, and reinvent her as a martyr, which is most unfortunate because she is not one; and three, the verdict is likely to raise the even more critical, urgent and principled demand that Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif should also be subjected to the same fate. In this sense, clearly and decisively, the two set of thieves are bound one day to be hoist by their own petards!
Of course, many legal and political battles lie ahead and there will be some instability. But that is nothing new. Of course, there will be exaggerated talk of ethnic passions and federal disunity. That, too, will pass. Of course, Nawaz Sharif will appear omnipotent and despotic. But no mortal is invincible and history has always exacted a full-blooded revenge from dictators. Therefore we should be patient and far-sighted. We must not quibble about this verdict.
If an unstable, immoral, iniquitous and thoroughly discredited two-leader (not two-party) system is in danger of losing its bearings, we must shed no tears for it. If certain highly dubious individual “human rights” have been legally restricted, as alleged by some well-meaning groups, we must applaud the fact that society’s collective “human rights” have been immeasurably enlarged by such a political precedent. If “one-sided accountability” has been rejected by some, “even-handed accountability” is now demanded by many. If this seems like one step back today, it is destined to lead us two steps forward tomorrow.