ISLAMABAD - While judicial commission probing the memogate scandal is working speedily to conclude its findings, following a series of proceedings based on months, legal experts believe former Ambassador Husain Haqqani should have appeared before the commission to clear his name.However, the same legal experts opine that decisions by the judicial commission on how to proceed further could result in the entire memo episode being discussed in US and European courts as he has not been charged with or convicted of any crime. Any punitive suggestion by the Commission that involves action against Haqqani will most likely be challenged in the US and European courts to prevent implementation, opening the door for discussion by foreign judges of the constitutionality and legality of the entire proceedings.The commission has been insisting that former ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, should appear before it in Islamabad. However, Haqqani kept on demanding video link facility from the commission to record his statement just like Mansoor Ijaz was allowed in view of security threats. The commission on April 5 gave a final chance to Haqqani to appear before it on April 12 which the later refused to avail.Haqqani’s insistence of being treated at par with the other main witness in the fact-finding exercise was clearly intended to pave the way for arguing that the Commission facilitated his accuser while denying him a fair chance to explain his position. The commission also did not offer video conference facility to other witnesses in the memo affair such as US General James Jones and Admiral Michael Mullen, who are supposed to be the recipients of the memo.Now when the commission is expected to finalise its recommendations without Haqqani’s point of view, legal experts say, the decision may prompt the former Ambassador to knock the doors of International courts in case of the Commission’s adverse findings. This may also be the reason Haqqani recently described the Memo Commission in a recent interview as showing no interest in his account and “only seeking ways to affirm the account of Mansoor Ijaz.”“Haqqani should have appeared before the memo commission, however, any decision against him may put the Pakistani authorities in trouble in case if Haqqani moves to international court,” an Islamabad based legal expert said on Tuesday when TheNation approached him.At its last hearing, the Commission discussed the option of issuing warrants for Haqqani or for taking other punitive action in accordance with Pakistani laws. Implementation of any warrant against Haqqani would require cooperation from the United States government as Haqqani is currently in the US. Such a decision would open the way for Haqqani to question not only the Commission’s decision but even the Supreme Court judgement that resulted in the formation of the Commission before a US court.The Commission maintains that Haqqani assured the Supreme Court that he would return on four days’ notice if required when the Supreme Court allowed him to travel abroad on 30th January after having restricted his travel for two months before that. In his application to the Supreme Court, which is still pending, Haqqani says that at that time the Commission had not yet offered the possibility of recording statement by Videolink, which facility was offered for Mansoor Ijaz after the Supreme Court’s 30th January judgement. The changed circumstances, he argued, should apply to all witnesses and not just to one foreign citizen.Meanwhile, several legal proceedings against Mansoor Ijaz are also expected as a consequence of his statements in the course of the memo-related proceedings. Mansoor Ijaz’s claim of serving a foreign ambassador as a messenger violates US law unless he registered himself with the US Justice department as a foreign agent. His comments about several people, including Americans, could also result in courts. Husain Haqqani’s lawyers are already investigating initiation of claims against Mansoor Ijaz in US courts, including a suit for damages.Haqqani has not been charged with or convicted of any crime and his international supporters have consistently argued that the original restrictions on his travel abroad were unjustified under international law.In a statement on 25th January, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) had criticised the travel restriction and had also questioned the legitimacy of the Commission created by the Supreme Court. An ICJ statement had said, “There are legitimate concerns that in convening this Commission, the Supreme Court may have overstepped its constitutional authority and that this action could undermine the ongoing Parliamentary inquiry.”If the Commission issues warrants against Haqqani or takes other punitive action, he will most definitely seek protection from US courts against implementation of such orders. This could increase the confrontation of the PPP government with the judiciary but would certainly provide it with political ammunition as foreign courts examine and question legal issues involving the conduct of Pakistani courts.The United States and Pakistan have an extradition treaty that can be used to seek the extradition of a Pakistani criminal living in the US. Under the US law, however, non-appearance in person as a witness before a fact-finding Commission without being charged with any criminal offence is unlikely to be treated as an extraditable offence. So far no specific crime has been identified as having been committed in the memo episode though some people have suggested that negative findings by the Commission could result in instituting criminal proceedings against Haqqani for treason or undermining the morale of the armed forces.If the Memo Commission recommends that Haqqani be tried fort reason, he is unlikely to be extradited by the US. Black’s Law Dictionary clearly says that “Political offences (crimes directed against the security or government of a nation, such as treason, sedition, espionage, murder during a revolution, etc.) are generally excepted from extradition.”