Case closed!

The Supreme Court has ordered the dissolution of Suddle Commission, ordering that its report be made public. A two-member bench observed that the court had taken notice of the issue when the judiciary was dragged into it, and that since the judiciary's involvement had not been proved the commission was no longer required. It may be recalled that earlier the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had refused to carry out investigations into the case, saying it was a matter between two individuals in which the NAB had no jurisdiction as exchequer money was not involved.
Malik Riaz's counsel had also referred to the NAB stance, requesting the court to stop the commission's proceedings on the plea it was an issue between two individuals. According to Commission's report, there was no evidence to prove Malik Riaz's claim that he had paid or spent Rs 342 million on Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, son of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. However, the report said Dr Arsalan did admit that he had received favour from Ahmad Khalil, a friend of real estate tycoon Malik Riaz's son-in-law. And that Khalil had spent Rs 5 million on Arsalan's travel and stay abroad through credit cards and cash, but that out of this money the latter had returned 4.5 million nine months before a bribe case was filed against him. Under normal circumstance, there would be nothing unusual about anyone borrowing from friends and returning money either in one go or in instalments. Dr Arsalan may have seen the exchange in that light as he now says he would file the "biggest damages" case against Malik Riaz under the defamation law. But it was not a normal situation; the party making payments apparently had a motive to cultivate the CJP's son.
Considering the background of the two men, it should not be a simple open and shut case of a money matter between two individuals. As a matter of fact, the CJP had been hearing cases involving Malik Riaz. The latter did not get any relief from the court which, of course, means if any favours were sought, they were not given. Yet, Dr Arsalan should have known better. Irrespective of the fact that Malik Riaz did not succeed in his designs, by his own claims he had approached Dr Arsalan in an attempt to influence the court's verdict. The issue therefore is not merely between two individuals; it involves principles of integrity and intellectual propriety as they affect the country's highest judicial forum. Whether the CJP's son knew it or not, it is more than obvious that the other party gave him money, even if he took it as a loan, with the intention of impacting the outcome of cases pending against it before the chief adjudicator. It is important, hence, that further investigations are carried out in the light of Suddle Commission's report. That is necessary not only to establish all the facts regarding the present case, but also to ensure no one thinks they can exploit relations with kith and kin of judges to impact judgments, and get away too. Given the present highly unsavoury state of government-judiciary relations, it would be too much to expect fair investigations through normal channels. An independent commission is needed to take the case to its logical conclusion.