BY the time you read this, every columnist and editorial writer in the country will have analysed the implications of the conviction of Benazir Bhutto on corruption charges.

So why am I bothering to add my two paisa to the mass of opinion already available in print? Basically, the Lahore High Court judgment is an important landmark in our political history, and the more the debate on it, the better. Predictably, Benazir Bhutto and her jiyalas have rejected the outcome of the trial out of hand, the PPP leader calling it the 'murder of a trial'. But anybody who has read the short judgment will not fail to be impressed by the documents that have been collected, and the facts that have been marshalled to prove the allegations.

Benazir Bhutto's lawyers have concentrated on trying to establish the inadmissibility of the documents gathered by Saifur Rehman and his team at the Ehtesab (or Accountability) Bureau. According to them, the papers were all forgeries prepared by the government to pin this corruption charge on the leader of the opposition. I think this defence is based on an excessive and misplaced belief in this administration's creativity and ingenuity. For documents to be faked well enough to fool a Swiss judge and his team of investigators, we must assume a degree of skill and imagination which is in serious short supply in Nawaz Sharif's camp.

The fact that these documents have been removed from the office of Jens Schlegelmilch, an old-time Bhutto friend, confidant as well as agent, gives them a stamp of authenticity. The certified copies have been rechecked and compared with the originals in Switzerland in the presence of the judge dealing with the case. To quibble now over the admissibility of the documents is to engage in sophistry that borders on desperation. Indeed, the government's case has been immeasurably strengthened in the court of public opinion - the most relevant bench where a politician is concerned - by the fact that the Swiss judicial authorities have investigated the allegations and satisfied themselves that prima facie, there was a strong legal case against Ms Bhutto and Mr Zardari.

An even more compelling - if indirect - piece of evidence lies in the fact that the Swiss government sealed a number of bank accounts said to contain funds illegally garnered by the ex-First Couple. In addition, a necklace worth 117 thousand pounds has been impounded. Benazir Bhutto claims that it does not belong to her, and neither are the bank accounts in question hers or her husband's. But then whose are they?

After all, the money and the necklace must belong to someone. If they are somebody else's property, why hasn't the rightful owner protested to the Swiss government and demanded the release of his or her property? This is a classical case of the dog who did not bark: the silence of the owner - if indeed he or she exists - proves that in fact, the bank accounts and the famous necklace are indeed the wrongful property of BB and AZ.

The most ardent jiyala will admit privately that Asif Zardari is as crooked as they come, but will deny Benazir Bhutto's involvement in his many scams. However, it is unlikely that a wife - especially when she ws prime minister of Pakistan - knew nothing of the source of her husband's income. I know people who have had dealings with the ex-First Couple, and they speak of doing business with a very clued-in team. Whatever the quantum of guilt or the amount skimmed off, the vast majority of the public believes there was corruption at the very highest level of government during BB's two stints in power.

There are many who say that accountability should be even-handed, and those in government should also pay for their crimes. While in theory this is a perfectly valid viewpoint, it'll be a cold day in hell before a sitting prime minister of Pakistan will undergo due process of law for corruption. This is not to suggest that those ruling the roost today are blameless; the recent decree by a London court directing the ruling family to pay a Middle East bank $32 million to clear a loan indicates the extent to which the Sharifs are indebted to various financial institutions.

Their recent ploy of offering some broken down industrial units to local banks in settlement of sundry loans is a clear signal of their willingness to use their political muscle to break all banking rules. And their reluctance to pay income tax severely erodes their moral authority when they exhort the rest of us to foot the bill for their excesses. There was the infamous instance last year when duties were lowered on big cars briefly as two shiploads of luxury vehicles docked. Once they were cleared, duties were raised again while somebody made a packet.

Then there is the case of the new airport at Lahore: against the strong advice of the finance ministry, the project is proceeding full speed ahead. No prizes for guessing who is benefiting. The export of sugar to India has raised many eyebrows: sugar is being exported at rates lower than the market price in Pakistan, with the subsidy being paid by the tax-payer (i.e., you and me). As many leading members of this government are manufacturing sugar, the beneficiaries of this neat little scam are well-known figures.

In short, the charge of corruption made by this lot against their predecessors is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The head of the Ehtesab Bureau is reputed to be one of the biggest bank defaulters around, and a nationalized bank has a hefty claim against him in the courts. Good luck to the bank is all one can say, as those in power usually remain excepted from judicial answerability. But the process has to start somewhere. So if BB gets the chop, so be it. Perhaps one day those in power today will undergo the same process.

But what does this verdict mean for the PPP and the country? By having herself anointed life chairperson of the party, she has tried to head off a leadership challenge in case she is removed from parliament. By her nature, Benazir Bhutto is suspicious to the point of paranoia, and has consciously prevented any colleague from establishing a strong political base. But if the PPP is to survive its present crisis, it must rise above the Bhutto syndrome and elect a leader capable of reuniting and motivating a party still reeling from the battering it received from its leadership when it was in power.

The country clearly needs a two-party system, and the demise of the PPP is in nobody's interest. It still has a support base, but desperately needs to shed its blind dependence on the Bhutto charisma.