The Panama judgement has created a storm of fiery statements from opposing corners of the political spectrum. Beneath the storm many people are wondering whether the Joint Investigation Team will be able to gather sufficient evidence to answer the questions raised by the Supreme Court in its 20th April order.
Those doubts aren't unfounded. In the first place, as Justice Ijaz ul-Ahsan noted in para.79, "in today's world of offshore companies, dummy directors and elaborate devices to hide and camouflage financial transactions, as has been seen in this case, direct evidence is seldom found," though "there are telltale signs that may point towards the possibility of legal beneficial or equitable interests in financial resources or assets."
The very nature of cross-border financial wizardry is such that even investigators with the purest of intention and highest of skills are often bogged down for years, which is why, as this newspaper's editorial noted last week, an extension to the 60-day period given to the JIT is but inevitable.
In this particular case, however, pure intentions are in short supply, as noted by the honourable judges to this case, dissenting or not. The judges' assessment of almost all the institutions that will form the JIT (FIA, NAB, SECP, SBP, ISI and MI) is rather damning.
In para.68 of his judgement, Justice Asif Khosa noted: "these petitions had been entertained by this Court in the backdrop of an unfortunate refusal/failure on the part of all the relevant institutions in the country like the National Accountability Bureau, the Federal Investigation Agency, the State Bank of Pakistan, the Federal Board of Revenue, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and the Speaker of the National Assembly to inquire into or investigate the matter or to refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan against respondent No. 1." (Respondent No. 1 was PM Nawaz Sharif).
In para.83, Justice Ijaz ul-Ahsan wrote: "We are perturbed and disappointed to find that state functionaries/institutions charged with the responsibility to enforce law and safeguard the interests of the state by strict, impartial and unbiased enforcement of the laws are disinclined, disinterested and unwilling to do so."
"We are in no manner of doubt that by conscious planned and premeditated design all important State institutions which could offer any resistance or act as impediments in the way of loot and plunder of State resources which rightfully belong to the people of Pakistan by those who wish to impoverish our country and its people have been captured, taken over and neutralized by appointment of their handpicked officers in complete disregard of merit, honesty and integrity to head such institutions. These cronies owe their loyalty to their masters to whom they are beholden and do not feel any sense of allegiance, loyalty or fidelity to the country or its people," he continued.
Perhaps this is why the judges decided, to the dismay of those who champion the cause of democracy, to include ISI and MI in a civilian investigation assigned to the JIT. With civilian members of the JIT seen as "cronies" or at least susceptible to cronyism in the lighter reading of Justice Azmat Saeed's order (para.91), it seems the ball now is in army's court.
In the past, the army was found meddling in politics. Quoted from the judgment of 2013 Asghar Khan case, Justice Gulzar Ahmed wrote in para.3: "it has been established that in the general elections of 1990 an Election Cell was established in the Presidency to influence the elections and was aided by General Mirza Aslam Beg (retd), who was the Chief of Army Staff and by General Asad Durrani (retd), the then Director General ISI and they participated in the unlawful activities of the Election Cell in violation of the responsibilities of the Army and ISI as institution."
PM Nawaz may be technically grounded to stay in power, but general sentiments and accepted moral standards of 21st century citizens are that those under investigation should not hold office.
This is the very reason why several political leaders across the world resign when serious charges are alleged against them. Is it not a travesty of moral sentiments of the public that when Pakistani cricketers are under investigation, they are temporarily suspended, but when the holder of the highest public office of this country is under investigation, he continues to stay? Will his defiance to moral standards not compromise political and economic stability of the country? The stock market punters may like to jack up the index on account of bullish bias inherent globally to the capital market community, but which foreign investor will like to invest in a country that seems to be heading towards another phase of political instability.
Shouldn't PM Nawaz be considering the future of PML-N? What if the most gung-ho judges comprise the Supreme Court's bench to ensure implementation of the 20th April judgement? And what if JIT's period is only marginally extended, say until Jan/Feb 2018, and what if the ensuing decision is adverse to PM-Nawaz? Will an adverse decision hurt PML-N more if it is announced in the next 60 days or if it is announced closer to the General Elections due in 2018?
Or perhaps PM Nawaz is sure that he will come clean in JIT's investigation. It is no use conjecturing on that at this point, but it would be prudent to bear in mind that the JIT is also tasked to "examine the evidence and material already available with the FIA and NAB relating to or having any nexus with the possession or acquisition of the aforesaid flats or any other assets or pecuniary resources and their origin."
Apparently, a very detailed and documented report submitted by PPP's Rehman Malik in September 1998, then in his capacity as an Additional Director FIA, "had established the money trail through which the relevant four properties in London and many other properties and businesses had been purchased or set up by PM Nawaz in the names of his children through opening of fake and fictitious bank accounts, clandestine money transfers amounting to money laundering and use of huge unaccounted for money."
According to Justice Khosa's judgement, the petitioners claim that almost all the transactions mentioned in the Rehman Malik's report "were supported by the names of the concerned banks, the numbers of bank accounts, the numbers of the cheques issued and the origin and the destination of the money transferred."
It is interesting how former President Zardari is lambasting PM Nawaz these days, but he never followed up on that report during PPP's regime ending 2013.
Comments
Comments are closed.