ISLAMABAD - As the judicial commission probing the Memogate scandal meets today (Wednesday), it was on Tuesday that ‘Research in Motion’ company finally refused to give BBM data to government of Pakistan.

“Government told the judicial commission in written on Tuesday that the blackberry company ‘Research in Motion’ has turned down request of Pakistan government to give record of communication held between Mansoor Ijaz and Husain Haqqani,” an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told TheNation on Tuesday.

Earlier, during the previous hearing, judicial commission had directed Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir to contact the ‘Research in Motion’ requesting it to give access to the record of communication (including SMS, BBM and calls) held between former ambassador to US Husain Haqqani and Mansoor Ijaz.

The commission is scheduled to hold its important hearing today as the main character of ‘Memogate scandal’ Mansoor has promised to appear before the court to record his statement via video link from Pakistan’s High Commission in London.

According to officials of judicial commission, preparation had been finalised to depose Ijaz from London through video link while a rehearsal was also done twice to check audio/video streaming.

Meanwhile, counsel for country’s former ambassador to US Husain Haqqani obtained UK visa on Tuesday and was expected to reach London to question Mansoor Ijaz in connection with the latter’s oath statement submitted before the judicial commission.

Ijaz had submitted a written statement before the judicial commission last week in which he had given details of communication he had with Haqqani including BBMs, SMS and voice calls.

Analysts were of the opinion that in the absence of communication data, commission was unlikely to get a major breakthrough in Memogate investigation.

Also, commenting on statement by Ijaz, the experts were of the opinion that these were merely claims and did not contain ‘incontrovertible’ evidence about Haqqani’s link to the memo Ijaz sent to US Admiral Mike Mullen through former National Security Adviser James Jones.

They believed that Ijaz, through his written statement which he submitted before judicial commission last week, made it clear that the only alleged links between Haqqani and the memo were handwritten notes made by Ijaz of a telephone call.

While none of the text messages and BBMs included in the affidavit directly referred to the memo, most of the BBMs were related to dates well after the delivery of the controversial memo to James Jones, according to the email record sent by Ijaz to Jones.

An overwhelming majority of the BBMs were from Ijaz to Haqqani, which showed that he might have been creating a trail of BBMs to be used later to create circumstantial evidence. There is no BBM or email from Haqqani to Ijaz written before the writing and sending of the memo on 9th May 2011 that asked Ijaz to write and send the memo.

Although Ijaz claimed that Haqqani asked him to call him by sending a BBM message when Haqqani arrived in London on 9th May, most phone calls and BBM messages and all emails were from Ijaz to Haqqani.

According to the Communications log provided in the witness statement, Haqqani only made two short phone calls of less than 2 minutes each to Ijaz, which supported Haqqani’s version that he kept in touch with Ijaz as a courtesy. From the flow of communications it seemed Ijaz was the one who was eager to communicate with Haqqani. The alleged transcripts of text messages and BBM conversations established communication between Haqqani and Ijaz but did not shed any light on the memo. Ijaz accepted in his statement that he drafted the memo albeit with “content originating from phone conversation with Haqqani.”Haqqani has already denied telling Ijaz to write or deliver the memo or giving him the contents of the memo.

Ijaz also included the text of his email to Gen James Jones in which he says, “I am attaching herewith a document that has been prepared by senior active and former Pakistani government officials some of whom served at the highest levels of the military-intelligence directorates in recent years and as senior political officers of the civilian government.”

Unlike his October 10 Financial Times op-ed, Ijaz did not say the document came from “a senior diplomat.”

Legal experts believe that this gives weight to Gen Jones’ version of events given in his affidavit, where he says Mansoor Ijaz never mentioned Haqqani as the source of the memo and never said anything that would have led Gen Jones to believe that Haqqani had anything to do with the memo. Again, Ijaz takes refuge behind a telephone conversation to belie Gen Jones. Ijaz says Jones is just siding with Haqqani but if Haqqani is so close to Jones, why would he have needed Ijaz to deliver anything to him?

Although Ijaz’s statement, which is expected to be discussed during proceedings of judicial commission today, speaks of his relations with Haqqani yet it supports only Haqqani’s version of the relationship. There are sporadic email contacts and references to not more than 4 in-person meetings including a charity event in New York in 2009. There is, however, acknowledgment of closer ties with the military-intelligence establishment. All of Ijaz’s trips to Pakistan in the last few years were to meet Pakistani establishment officials.