Accountability - an ever-lasting myth?

The Army's sacking of eleven high-ranking officers and proceeding with recovery of the wealth they amassed through corruption, and the commitment of the CoAS that the Army will assist the state authorities in nabbing all corrupt elements indicates that the Army sees a link, and rightly so, between corruption, crime, and terrorism - diseases that ail Pakistan. The Army's initiative on checking corruption within its ranks prodded the ruling elite to initiate their make-believe pursuit of exposing the 'truth' of the Panama Leaks (not surprisingly) by trying to turn it into a long-drawn process that eventually becomes fruitless. For a start, the Prime Minister's (PM) proposal to set up a controversial 'judicial' commission wasted three precious weeks.
Next, in his April 23 speech focused on denying his family's offshore investments, he said that he "will" write a letter to the Chief Justice to constitute a Judicial Commission; given opposition parties' pressure to participate in defining the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of this commission, the impression his speech created was that he will seek their advice in drafting the ToRs.
But within minutes of the PM's speech, TV channels began telecasting the text of the PM's letter to the Chief Justice specifying the ToRs for the Judicial Commission because that letter had already been sent to the SC. Yet the next day, the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly Khurshid Shah denied knowing whether the PM's letter had been sent to the SC.
Later, Khurshid Shah began praising the PM for writing that letter though, in his view, the ToRs should have been drafted in consultation with his party. Not only that, he also opined that now that the PM has requested the Chief Justice of the SC to constitute a Judicial Commission, there is no need for public protests on the issues raised by the Panama Leaks.
Differing radically with Khurshid Shah, Aitzaz Ahsan and Qamar Zaman Kaira faulted the PM's initiative because, after his family members were exposed by the Panama Leaks, the PM had no right to specify the ToRs of the Judicial Commission. PPP's Co-chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari went a step ahead by advising the PM to resign, thereby exposing a clear split in the PPP.
While PPP is playing a double-game, the other opposition parties plan countrywide protests over the PM's refusal to resign despite serious accusations of wrongdoings by his family members. Instead, the PM has opted to go on a spree of inaugurating projects all over Pakistan, and use these events to address public meetings to defend his family members' integrity.
This mad spree of the government and the opposition parties holds out the prospects of clashes between party workers and disruption of life routines that will worsen the prevailing socio-economic chaos; prospects of these campaigns leading to exposure of the truth in the Panama Leaks and conviction of the guilty, are zero. Instead, more Model Town-like tragedies could occur.
The PM doesn't realise that the argument that by not disclosing to the Election Commission the details of the assets of his family (exposed by the Panama Leaks and admitted by his family members) the PM violated the election rules is gathering momentum, which raises a question mark on the PM's eligibility to be elected to the parliament, let alone become the PM.
The PM's insistence that those accusing his family members of money laundering must provide proof thereof is amazing; the right course was to produce convincing evidence confirming that his family members didn't commit this crime; that the wealth they own abroad was earned abroad; that it wasn't transferred from Pakistan, nor does it reflect bribe payments routed via other countries.
If the PM is really sincere in this context, he should realise that before any other accused is investigated, like David Cameron, he must strive to clear his own position in the Panama Leaks affair (ideally by stepping down) to sustain the writ and integrity of the state for trying and convicting every other person on the charge of corruption and money laundering.
In this questionable backdrop, the PM's decision to specify the ToRs for the Judicial Commission, rather than let the Judicial Commission do so, makes things difficult for him. Can the head of a family that is accused of violating the law, decide the terms whereon his family members be prosecuted? Despite such conduct, can the PM claim being impartial in this matter?
The ToRs require the Judicial Commission to enforce attendance of any person (including accountants and tax experts), requisition any public record, require discovery/production of any other document from any place, record evidence under affidavits, and examine the witnesses but "subject to any privilege claimed by that person under any law for the time being in force."
Doesn't the last condition limit the Judicial Commission's authority to question "privileged" persons? Who is being protected by this condition? Can compliance with this condition ensure dispensing justice impartially? Finally, will requiring this inquiry to cover all the cases of corruption since 1947 not ensure that the Judicial Commission never completes its task? So much for the impartiality of the ToRs!
The Supreme Court doesn't appear interested in constituting a Judicial Commission; more than once, it has shown its reluctance to conduct investigations which, it rightly believes, is the job of the state institutions. It therefore seems likely that the SC will refuse to set up a Judicial Commission to investigate the Panama Leaks, which will postpone the investigation and conviction process - the least desirable outcome.
If the PM really wanted the law to take its course, he should have refrained from specifying the ToRs of the Judicial Commission. Similarly, instead of threatening political unrest and sit-ins, the opposition should have come up with a clear, un-political course of action that could ensure speedy and impartial justice, and thus avoid accusations of revenge politics.
What any Judicial Commission requires is un-contestable evidence for proving the accused guilty or honourably acquitting them. What the opposition parties (except PTI) didn't do was to gather such evidence, have it examined and certified by forensic experts, draft charges based on that evidence, and then request the SC court to summon the accused and try them.
This was the strategy to force the accused to tell the truth, ie, either produce legally valid evidence of their being innocent or be convicted. The fact that instead of producing the evidence of his family's innocence the PM opted for a battle with the opposition parties gives the impression that, perhaps, his family members don't have the evidence to prove their innocence. In such a setting, accountability is bound to remain an ever-lasting myth, nothing else.