The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of Panamagate and issued notices to the prime minister and other government functionaries. Legal experts, however, believe that deciding petitions related to the Panama Papers leaks may be an uphill task for the court, as it has never dealt with such matters before. Dawn spoke to the vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council - the apex regulatory authority of lawyers - Senator Barrister Farogh Nasim, who explained a possible way for the SC to treat this issue.
Q. How would the SC examine the matter and, in your opinion, under the existing law what relief could the court provide to the petitioners?
A. The SC looks into such matters under Article 184/3, for which the SC can entertain petitions related to public interest and fundamental rights. Panamagate may be termed as a matter of public interest, however, the SC would examine whether it infringed on fundamental rights of an ordinary citizen. This issue also has some political aspects, and there are diverse judgments of the SC. Sometime the court held them maintainable and sometime it rejected the petitions at the first stage of maintainability. However, if the apex court holds the petitions maintainable it cannot assume the role of investigation, as this is the domain of the executive, which has been blamed for investing in offshore companies. Though the court has powers to investigate, it refers this task to the executive.
Q. Is there any possibility that the court may form a commission to investigate Panamagate?
A. There are four possibilities: after deciding on maintainability, the court may not proceed if the evidence is weak or the bench may decide to direct the investigation for the collection of evidence.
As this case is first of its kind, the court may constitute a commission for investigation or direct the federal government to probe [the matter]. However, the top investigation agencies, namely the National Accountability Bureau and Federal Investigation Agency, relevant ministries like the ministries of finance and law, and organisations like State Bank of Pakistan, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, have already expressed their limitations to probe the Panama Papers leaks. Therefore one cannot expect any positive results from them.
Q. Do you think the matter may be resolved in parliament instead of the court?
A. The matter could not be resolved in parliament and the government also failed to settle this issue through dialogue, therefore the petitioners knocked the apex court’s door. The court may vindicate the prime minister, and as a citizen it is my right to know whether my leadership is clean or corrupt.
Though investigation agencies and the relevant organisations expressed their inability to probe the leaks under the existing laws, the apex court may issue them directions and if the investigation is done under the supervision of the SC, it may be fruitful and would be result-oriented.
Published in Dawn October 22nd, 2016