ON the morning of November 13, 1994, whilst Nawaz Sharif was enjoying his breakfast of siri-paya, nan, nihari and badami-sharbat he was interrupted by a telephone call. His father's chauffeur, highly agitated, informed him that Mian Mohammed Sharif's office at Empress Road had been surrounded and that police in and out of uniform were conducting a raid.

Nawaz Sharif managed to get through to his father and was told that the invaders wished to take him away for questioning. "Hang on", said Nawaz, "tell them I am on my way".

The raiders were impatient. When Mian Mohammed Sharif asked them to produce their warrant, the answer was, 'here's your warrant' - and he was hauled out of his chair, and driven to Lahore airport. He was flown to Islamabad in the Chief Minister's plane and taken to an FIA safe house. He was not allowed to make a phone call to his lawyer or son. The old man of 75 was kept without water or food until 1600 hours that afternoon.

Nawaz Sharif telephoned me from Islamabad the next day, asking whether I had heard about the brutal manner in which his old father had been mauled, dragged out of his office and abducted. I had, and commiserated with him, but refrained from remarking that had he behaved with restraint whilst in power he may not then have been reaping what he had sown. I suggested that as a son, who also happened to be the leader of the opposition, he get on to home minister Naseerullah Babar and ask why what had happened had happened, and demand to be allowed to meet his father. The conversation that followed says a lot about the mindset of the man:

"Main jaon?" he asked. "To kya 'main jaon?'," I replied, "Hamara baap hai, ke tumhara baap hai?".

He was unmoved. I did not understand politics, I was told. He would send Sartaj Aziz to meet Babar. The nearest Sartaj was able to get to Babar was to the Interior Secretary who informed him that Babar's response to Nawaz's request was to go to court.

Five years have elapsed. Nawaz Sharif has managed to once again sit atop the greasy pole as prime minister. Has anything changed; have we moved with time? Najam Sethi, editor of The Friday Times, talked to the BBC about the corruption and defaults of the Sharif family. Nawaz Sharif was angry. Sethi had to be taught a lesson. Nawaz's henchmen, Mushahid Hussain, Saifur Rahman, and Chaudhry Farooq were activated, lame excuses were found. Sethi was accused of being a RAW agent and the government's dirty-tricks machinery went into gear. The rest is history. However, the government failed to involve the army, and the AG had to then turn to the civil courts and evoke the Pakistan Penal Code, charging Sethi under the following sections having programmed a ruling party MNA to file an FIR:

Section 123-A of the PPC - (brought on the book in 1950)

"(1) Whoever, within or without Pakistan, with intent to influence, or knowing it to be likely that he will influence, any person or the whole or any section of the public, in a manner likely to be prejudicial to the safety of Pakistan, or to endanger the sovereignty of Pakistan in respect of all or any of the territories lying within its borders, shall by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation, condemn the creation of Pakistan by virtue of the partition of India which was effected on the fifteenth day of August 1947, or advocate the curtailment or abolition of the sovereignty of Pakistan in respect of all or any of the territories lying within its borders, whether by amalgamation with the territories of neighbouring States or otherwise, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, when any person is proceeded against under this section, it shall be lawful for any Court before which he may be produced in the course of the investigation or trial, to make such order as it may think fit in respect of his movements, of his association or communication with other persons, and of his activities in regard to dissemination of news, propagation of opinions, until such time as the case is finally decided. (3) Any Court which is a Court of appeal or of revision in relation to the Court mentioned in subsection (2) may also make an order under that subsection."

Section 124-A of the PPC:

"Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Central or Provincial government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life or any shorter term to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."

Section 153-A of the PPC:

"Whoever - (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, promotes or incites, or attempts to promote or incite, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or (b) organizes, or incites any other person to organise any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in any such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates or incites any other person to participate, in any such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community or any group of persons identifiable as such on any ground whatsoever and any such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to five years, and with fine."

Read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act of 1974 :

"Punishment for anti-national activities. (1) Whoever : (a) takes part in or commits; or (b) advocates or abets, or attempts to advocate or abet, the commission of any anti-national activity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever, in any way, assists any anti-national activity of any association declared anti-national under section 3, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."

How unprotected and defenceless we feel. Are these laws on our book to protect the life and liberty of the country's citizens, or to 'fix' them?

The tide turned when Justice Mamoon Kazi of the Supreme Court on May 31 made noises to the effect that he would order Sethi's release. It rose higher the next day when Justice Arif, the second judge of the bench of three followed suit, and on June 2 the AG appeared bearing news that the government had withdrawn all charges and decided to release Sethi.

Who accepts responsibility for depriving Sethi of his liberty for 25 days?

Questions to the Supreme Court:

Empowered as it is, could the Court, acting through its Chief Justice or any other judge, not have taken suo motu action as soon as the Lahore High Court had handed down its order of May 12 and sent for the Attorney General and asked him to ascertain from the government how and why it was that Sethi was dragged out of his bed in the middle of the night, battered, abducted by police in uniform accompanied by plainclothes men, and was being held incommunicado (a fact not denied by the government)?

Could the Supreme Court, the highest arbiter of justice, and particularly responsible for the liberty of the people of Pakistan, not have ordered Sethi's release unless by dawn the next day the Attorney-General had fully satisfied it of the necessity of arresting and holding Sethi in the manner in which he had been arrested and held?

It is hoped that those empowered to do justice who are responsible for protecting the life and liberty of the people of Pakistan are aware that Hussain Haqqani has been similarly framed, abducted and held in police custody, and will now act as they should act.