CaseISLAMABAD: In a startling revelation that has sent shockwaves through Pakistan's political landscape, senior Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Rana Sanaullah has directly accused former Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa of being responsible for the fabrication of a false narcotics case against him. This allegation, made during a recent interview, underscores the ongoing tensions between political figures and military leadership in the country. Sanaullah, who served as interior minister, claimed that the case was politically motivated to sideline him during the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government. He asserted that while PTI founder Imran Khan orchestrated the plan, it was executed under Bajwa's direction, highlighting what he described as undue interference in civilian affairs. This comes amid broader discussions on accountability and the role of institutions in democratic processes.
The narcotics case dates back to July 2019 when Sanaullah was arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) on charges of possessing 15 kilograms of heroin. At the time, he vehemently denied the allegations, labeling them as a conspiracy to weaken the opposition. After spending several months in custody, he was granted bail in December 2019, and the case was eventually dismissed due to lack of evidence. Sanaullah has consistently maintained that the arrest was part of a larger vendetta by the then-ruling PTI regime. In his latest statements, he elaborated that General Bajwa, along with former ISI chief Lt Gen Faiz Hameed, played a pivotal role in ensuring the case proceeded, despite knowing it was baseless. This accusation revives debates on the military's influence over law enforcement agencies like the ANF.
During the interview with ARY News, Sanaullah recounted a conversation with Bajwa where he confronted the general about the matter. He stated that Bajwa denied institutional involvement, but Sanaullah insisted that the evidence pointed otherwise, leaving the matter to divine justice. The PML-N leader emphasized that such actions undermined democratic norms and eroded public trust in state institutions. This is not the first time Sanaullah has spoken out; in 2022, he had complained to Bajwa about the ANF's role, but recent disclosures escalate the blame directly to the former army chief. Political analysts suggest this could be part of a strategy to rally support ahead of potential elections or to counter narratives from rival parties.
The allegation has elicited mixed reactions from various quarters. PTI spokespersons have dismissed it as a desperate attempt by PML-N to deflect from their own governance failures, while some military veterans have called for restraint in dragging the armed forces into political controversies. Civil society groups, however, have urged an independent inquiry to ascertain the truth, arguing that transparency is essential for strengthening democracy. Sanaullah's claims align with similar accusations from other opposition leaders who allege military backing for the PTI during its tenure. This narrative has fueled ongoing discourse on civil-military relations, a perennial issue in Pakistan's history marked by periods of direct military rule and indirect influence.
Amid these developments, questions arise about the implications for national stability. If proven, such interference could prompt calls for institutional reforms, including greater oversight of intelligence and enforcement agencies. Sanaullah's boldness in naming high-profile figures reflects a shifting dynamic where politicians are increasingly vocal against perceived overreach. Yet, without concrete evidence or legal proceedings, these remain allegations that could polarize public opinion further. The government has not yet responded officially, but insiders hint at internal discussions on how to address this sensitive matter without escalating tensions.
As Pakistan navigates economic challenges and political uncertainties, such revelations risk deepening divisions. Sanaullah has expressed his intent to pursue justice through appropriate channels, though he acknowledges the challenges in holding powerful figures accountable. This episode serves as a reminder of the fragile balance between military and civilian authority, urging all stakeholders to prioritize national interest over personal or institutional vendettas. Observers will watch closely for any follow-up actions that could either vindicate or refute these serious claims.