The opposition parties could not break a deadlock over a demand for the prime minister’s resignation but thrashed out a consensus draft of terms of reference for the Panama leaks commission after just two days of brainstorming. The terms were forwarded to the prime minister and the Supreme Court. However, the government rejected them and said they were “malicious” and aimed to target the prime minister. The opposition parties have already rejected terms of reference formulated by the government, on the grounds that an accused cannot suggest ways for his own trial. The main difference between their terms is that the government wants to involve state agencies while the opposition demands a foreign forensic firm should be hired for the investigation, as the Supreme Court will not be able to probe the allegations on its own. It is a general belief that state institutions, like FIA, NAB and FBR, lack the capacity to probe the issue. They will not act against the sitting prime minister and the result will be the same as was in Swiss accounts against former President Asif Zardari.
According to the opposition’s terms, a special Panama Papers inquiry and trial act shall be introduced to investigate the foreign and domestic assets of the prime minister and all other Pakistanis named in the leaks. The bill shall be formulated with the consensus of the opposition. The commission will be headed by the Supreme Court chief justice and comprise two more judges, who shall be nominated by the chief justice himself. The commission may appoint a committee of experts, including international forensic auditors, to carry out the investigation, including all transactions, sale and purchase of all assets of the PM.
The commission is supposed to complete the inquiry of the prime minister within three months while the investigation of others may be completed in one year. The opposition parties have mentioned 15 specific questions, asking the judicial commission to be formed to quiz the prime minister and his family for their properties, income tax and sources of income between 1985 and 2016. Similarly, the commission shall have the powers of a court under the Constitution, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Supreme Court rules. The panel shall have the authority to prosecute and punish like a court of competent jurisdiction if the prime minister is found guilty.
Each report of the inquiry body shall be made public by the government within one week and all the proceedings of the commission shall be open for public viewing. The opposition also wants the government, including institutions like the National Accountability Bureau, Federal Investigation Agency, Intelligence Bureau and Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan, to extend all assistance to the commission and comply with all its directions. The burden of proof in all matters shall be entirely on the prime minister’s family to prove their innocence.
The terms were carefully drafted after suggestions from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA). They based their proposals on a general belief that there will be no accountability in the country if people holding top public offices are not held accountable. The commission should focus only on names mentioned in the Panama Leaks. The information in the Panama Leaks is very technical and it should be dealt with separately by a commission and no other corruption issues should be mixed with it. There should be a separate commission for other cases, they advised.
According to critics, the proposed judicial commission, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, faces an uncertain future after his retirement on December 30, 2016. What if the next chief justice refuses to continue with the commission? In the proposed terms of reference, the prime minister should be held accountable within three months while one year has been proposed for other people. In other words, it will be impossible to hold anyone accountable, except the prime minister. The opposition believes the commission will remain intact even after the retirement of the chief justice and will complete its task for national interest under the next chief justice.
Experts say the opposition’s terms are absolutely the same for the prime minister and all others and the only difference is that the PM comes first. It was because he had presented himself and his family for accountability. The government has panicked after the opposition put him first. It claims the terms are unconstitutional because they put the burden of proof on the accused, while the fact is that in all corruption inquiries in the world, the accused have to prove themselves innocent. They have to prove that their property was procured through legitimate means and resources. The rule applies under the 1997 Act, made by Nawaz Sharif himself. The principle was also accepted by the Supreme Court in the Asfandyar Wali case. The opposition demands that all named persons must declare their assets and income tax on a yearly basis. However, the government is not willing to accept it. It claims the opposition wants to focus on the Panama Papers alone and protect bank defaulters and other corrupt elements. It is also a lame excuse because the FIA, NAB and FBR are at the disposal of the government and it can take action against them, whenever it wants.
The terms of reference of the opposition are comprehensive and based on principles adopted in corruption cases all over the world. However, the government is not willing to accept them. It is a good sign that both have agreed to start negations to reach a unanimous agreement. The opposition has dropped its demand for the prime minister to resign, but the government should not take it as an opportunity to evade accountability. Uniform accountability is the need of the time. Pakistan cannot progress without holding corrupt people accountable. It will benefit the prime minister, his party, all political parties and democracy in the country.
Post a Comment