The ECL controversy

The federal cabinet has decided to await receipt of written orders issued by the Supreme Court (SC) on removal of names of the Chairman Pakistan Peoples' Party Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and Sindh Chief Minister (CM) Syed Murad Ali Shah from the Exit Control List (ECL). The SC has intervened to remove the anomaly in the Joint Investigation Team's (JIT's) report on the fake bank accounts case and ordered their names be struck off the ECL in which they had been included as part of a wholesale tally of 172 persons. The court found it unacceptable that young Bilawal, who Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar described as carrying the legacy of his slain mother Benazir Bhutto, should have been mentioned in the report without any proof. Similarly, the court castigated the JIT counsel for including the name of the CM of the second largest province of the country as though he would flee the country. The CJP also inquired whether the authors of the report realised the implications of this action for the solidarity of the federation. Farooq Naek, the counsel for Asif Zardari, one of the 172 placed on the ECL despite he and his sister Fayal Talpur having surrendered their passports when they appeared before a banking court hearing the case, and Asim Mansoor, brother of Attorney General for Pakistan Anwar Mansoor, were given similar relief. The court ordered the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to carry out its investigation independently into the case within two months and only file references against the Sindh CM if needed after affording him a hearing. The SC gave short shrift to the argument of the JIT counsel that Bilawal's name was included because he was a major shareholder and director of Park Lane Private Limited, which had allegedly misappropriated Rs 1.5 billion. Now the SC has remanded the case for NAB investigation with directions not to impugn serious corruption charges against any individual unless warranted by facts and evidence.
While the PPP has heaved a sigh of relief at this turn of events in the SC, the government refuses to let go of the bone between its teeth. Inevitably, it fell to Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry to trot out the government's usual rhetoric against the opposition leadership, laced with colourful language that in any discourse would be considered unparliamentary and insulting. The previous order of the SC to the federal cabinet to review the list of 172 persons placed on the ECL was avoided by setting up a special committee for the purpose under the Interior Ministry headed by none other than Prime Minister Imran Khan. Now the government has decided to await written orders of the court in this behalf. The government's reluctance stems from the way ex-finance minister Ishaq Dar fled the country in the prime minister's aircraft on the pretext of attending a meeting abroad as a cabinet minister and was thus able to avoid accountability. The government could well seek review of the court's order after it has had the opportunity to examine it.
While Asif Zardari's and Faryal Talpur's interim bails have been extended till January 23, the questions raised by the government's approach to accountability generally, and the drive against the PPP leadership in particular, go to the heart of the issue. The accountability campaign has suffered from the perception, despite constant denials by the government, that it is not independent. The PPP and the PML-N have been describing it as politically motivated and a witch-hunt. Certainly the discovery of the fake bank accounts scandal and allegations surrounding the role of Asif Zardari and others, including the Omni group, is sufficiently troubling to warrant investigation and charges if the evidence points in that direction. But the essential principle of law that a suspect or even someone charged with white collar crime be considered innocent until proved guilty, cannot be dispensed with despite some of the draconian powers of arrest and physical remand with which NAB is endowed. Guilt or innocence on the basis of presumption cannot in any case provide a satisfactory outcome. Only due process, with the defendants given a fair trial and opportunity to defend themselves, conforms to the irreducible foundations of the rule of law. Seeking 'shortcuts', no matter how intense the temptation for reasons other than legal soundness, can only serve to erode that rule of law without which any society would fail to answer to the description of a modern, civilised entity.