SPY EYES

The NRO issue has continued to evade any conclusion for the better part of three years now. The restored and powerful judiciary of 2009, which promised to deliver speedy justice to all, has failed to solve the problem, which has now become an existentialist dilemma given all the publicity around it.
The PPP-led parliament has proven more resourceful and loyal to its premier than any could have expected. The most recent and relatively speaking positive development was a 22 day reprieve given to the new prime minister for writing the letter to Swiss Courts to open corruption cases against the incumbent president. The criticism that the judiciary received in the media, which had a PPP-member always ready to express his/her views on how the Supreme Court is turning into the new bully, was instrumental in forcing the Supreme Court to allow the 22 day reprieve. According to PPP, the judiciary had become the new opposition. Though many would argue that the criticism is not unwarranted, the vitriol has done a lot to vaporize whatever little faith the masses had in the institutions of the state on both sides of this issue. The final decision by the courts, seen as the much talked about ‘middle-path’, is simultaneously touted as  a desperate bid to ‘save the system’,  bringing about an anti-climatic end to a deepening quagmire of more than a three-year-long stand-off between the executive and the judiciary.
However it may seem that this restraint on both sides may be another masterstroke by PPP. There is apparently a time stamp on such cases, as is the case with most legal proceedings, in the Swiss Courts. A time stamp that could expire after September, shortly after the end of the 22 day reprieve granted by the Supreme Court, after which the case will be closed by the Swiss courts permanently.
This is not helped by the fact that the country’s law minister was recently in Switzerland, speculated to get assurances from Swiss authorities that the time limit will be enforced and the case will not be re-opened after its expiry. Keep in mind that if a letter is written before this time, the time limit will not be applicable
(Article 97 (3) (of Switzerland) that states: “If a judgment is issued by a court of first instance before expiry of the limitation period, the time limit no longer applies.”).
It is unlikely that the Supreme Court is unaware of this expiration date. The question remains why then was this case dragged out for a period of three years, see an unprecedented forced removal of a prime minister and engage in media theatrics only to have the Supreme Court back out at the most critical junction. PPP is indeed a virtuoso of dilly dallying tactics and at the pretext finding the ‘middle path’ out of the impasse has bought itself the time to let the case die down.
Numerous unanswered questions lie at the archway of the Supreme Court at the moment. From the futility of furthering a case against the country’s premier with blanket immunity, in another country’s courts, to setting a precedence of removing an elected prime minister through undemocratic means. As it is, chances that the Swiss courts will ever receive a letter with the prime minister’s signature at the end were always rather slim, and after the last court hearing, next to impossible.
By Sarah Eleazar
ZoneAsia-Pk