ORMER prime minister Imran Khan`s legal team and party loyalists may rejoice in their consolation victory at the Islamabad High Court, but the suspension of Mr Khan`s sentence in the Toshakhana case does little for him in the larger scheme of things. His conviction and, therefore, his disqualification from holding public office continue to stand, and until his appeal against the trial court`s verdict is disposed of, his political fate remains in limbo. Bail or not, it is also unlikely that he will be allowed to walk free anytime soon: as has been the case with other political leaders arrested in recent months, the state could bring new cases against him to bypass release orders.

The wheels are already in motion. Soon after the IHC announced its decision, it surfaced that a special court constituted to try Mr Khan under the Official Secrets Act had directed Attock Jail authorities to keep him locked up and produce him before the court on Aug 30 for the `missing cipher` case.

It had previously been commented that the IHC would find itself compelled to give some relief to the PTI chief, especially after a Supreme Court bench headed by the chief justice made adverse observations regarding `procedural defects` in Mr Khan`s conviction in the Toshakana case. Though the SC ultimately restrained itself from intervening more forcefully in the matter, it put the IHC on the spot. While the apex court`s `reservations` were justifiably criticised as `interference` in the high court`s workings, it bears mentioning that the manner in which Mr Khan was tried and eventually convicted left a lot to be desired. No wonder that independent observers saw it merely as another example of unelected quarters inflicting punishment on a political leader who had dared cross them.

As the aphorism goes, justice must not only be done, but seen to be done. At some point in Pakistan`s recent political history, the law stopped being a reference point for what is right and wrong or what is permissible and what is not. Perhaps it was always so. Court cases, especially those that have involved political actors, have always seemed more like a means through which different factions within the state may assert their dominance over the other. Despite many bitter experiences over the years, though, nothing seems to change. Those who were once the victims are now perpetuating the same cycle of violence under the patronage of their own oppressors, and those being oppressed today are just as likely to do the same whenever the roles are inevitably reversed. If the situation appears hopeless, it is only so because those who have had the power to change it have consciously chosen not to. Our leaders must answer: when do they want this to stop?