THE judgment holding no man guilty of having stormed the Supreme Court on November 28, 1997 and of obstructing the course of justice has awoken and angered many, some of whom have acted and written. That these highly critical writings have been printed in our press is most encouraging indeed.

The file is thickening. We have read, inter alia, The Nation's editorial of May 16, 'SC contempt case,' Iftikhar Ahmad's letter 'Storming of the supreme court' (The Nation, May 17), Javed Jabbar's letter 'Contempt of the people' [The Nation, May 18], Anwar Ahmad's column 'An opportunity lost' [The News, May 24] and the APNEC-PFUJ statement quoted therein, Dr Ijaz Ahsan's column 'End of the rule of law' [The Nation, May 25].

The question raised is how come not one man was identified by the court when familiar faces were so prominently shown on the BBC and CNN filmed reports, were plastered all over the pages of our own press, and caught on the court's own CCTV cameras? Those on camera were called and testified to the effect that they were all indeed there, inside and outside the court building, but their role was to persuade the faceless stormers (fallen from the skies?) to disband and disappear. If all these men were there simply to beg the stormers to leave, who was it that led the stormers in? That was for the court to investigate under the powers vested in it under Article 187 of the Constitution: "The Supreme Court shall have power to issue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person or the discovery or production of any document."

Apart from this, the initial enquiring judge, Justice Abdur Rahman Khan, in his report of 18/2/98 recommended to the Chief Justice: "It is considered appropriate that the honourable Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of the Court to initiate contempt proceedings for the outrageous incident of 28/11/97. The Bench so constituted can adopt such measures and take such actions as it may deem necessary to identify the concerned persons."

The video cassette sent by me to the court contained footage of the BBC recordings of the riots that took place at the gates of the Supreme Court and inside its premises, plus footage taken from certain of the court's CCTV cameras. The request that recordings made by all the cameras installed in the court be shown in open court and provided to those wishing to identify others present that day was denied.

Hussain Haqqani, "former Special Assistant to Punjab Chief Minister Nawaz Sharif (1988 -90), former Press Assistant to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (1990-92), High Commissioner of Pakistan to Sri Lanka (1992-93), Press Assistant to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1993-94), former Secretary to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (1994-95)," in his written statement filed in the Court on May 4, 1998, solemnly swore "that having held the above mentioned positions, I am well aware how the governments and political parties of this country organize demonstrations and rallies and am of the opinion that the storming of the Supreme Court was the result of an orchestrated and organized plan by the ruling party."

Haqqani further submitted "that all the video recordings of all the CCTV cameras that were installed inside and outside the court should be shown on PTV with the plea that members of the general public should come forward and identify any individuals present that day either inside or outside the court building. Full footages of all video recordings made by Pakistani and foreign television crews should also be shown on PTV for the same purpose."

Many may not be aware that as a consequence of the film sent to the Supreme Court which prompted the Chief Justice to take action on December 15, 1997 and appoint a Judge to enquire into the matter, the honourable judges of the Supreme Court immediately ordered the removal of all the CCTV cameras installed in the court. The reason - the cameras provided by a security company posed a threat to their 'internal security'. They later announced in April 1998 that they intended to ask the "authorities" to install their own in-house CCTV system. This has still to be done.

It simply cannot be denied that the press people and other concerned citizens did their best to come forward in aid of the Supreme Court in its hour of dire need. It also cannot be denied that the people are incapable of making their judges see what they do not wish to see nor hear what they do not wish to hear.

The result of obduracy is now on the ground not only for the citizens of Pakistan to observe but for all those in the world who provide us with aid and who may be potential investors in the country. In the May 22 issue of The Economist a scathing editorial says it all. Entitled 'The rot in Pakistan,' with the sub-title 'This is not the time for the IMF and the World Bank to be lending money to Pakistan,' it announces to the world:

"So when a government sets about undermining the institutions designed to hold it in check, it is time to start thinking about shutting off the flow of money. Pakistan has been run by such dreadful governments for so long that it seems barely worth remarking on any deterioration. But whereas previous governments were chaotic in their awfulness, this one has turned out to be systematic.

"Over the past two years, Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister, has been picking off individuals and institutions that he believes pose any threat to his own power. He has seen off a president and the chief of the army staff, and is now trying to push through a constitutional amendment that would give him sweeping powers to ignore Pakistan's legislature and provincial governments in the name of Islamization.

"The judiciary at first tried to check Mr Sharif, but has given up. When the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Sajjad Ali Shah, took the president's side in an argument with the prime minister in 1997, a mob from Mr Sharif's party stormed the Supreme Court and Mr Sharif sacked Mr Shah. The courts have given Mr Sharif little trouble since..

"..... All this is unfortunate for Pakistanis, of course, but should it really matter to those who hand out the money? Yes, without an independent judiciary and a free press there is little chance of the accountability and openness that Mr Wolfensohn regards as essential to development."

Having said that the editorial asks the IMF's Board "to think long and hard about whether Mr Sharif's Pakistan is really likely to use the money well. Of course, there are many badly governed countries in the world, but some of them, often thanks to prodding from outside, have been moving in the right direction. Pakistan under Mr Sharif is moving in the wrong direction. It seems perverse to give it more cash to speed it on its way."

This editorial dwells also upon Najam Sethi's arrest. We all have read our government's statements on why he was picked up and we all know the real reason. But so far the government has been unable to justify the manner in which he was arrested and battered, in the middle of the night, and then kept incommunicado for days. The Supreme Court may perhaps ask the government why this was done. Surely nobody is above the law.

Arresting citizens without warrants or charges is nothing new in this country. In 1976, twenty-three years ago, I was arrested without a warrant, and taken into custody without any charge having been framed. (More on this another day.) The point I now make is that in such circumstances what is important is what sort of men sit in judgment on one's fate.

After two days in police custody, the magistrate concerned took suo motu action and ordered the police to produce me in his court. Politely he informed me that he had read of my arrest and had tried unsuccessfully to ascertain why and under what charge it had happened. He asked if I would like him to order that I be moved to jail, to judicial custody. Seeing consternation on my face, he explained that the suggestion was made for my protection. I would be safer in jail. The police may beat me up. That magistrate had more concern for the welfare and liberty of an individual than some who adorn our higher Benches. Should he by any chance be reading this, I ask him to accept this belated expression of my gratitude.