12
I DON’T often say ‘I told you so’, but in the matter of Panamagate, I really did.
Last April, details about offshore companies in Panama became public, triggering a feeding frenzy in our TV studios. Imran Khan and his PTI spearheaded demands for accountability for the prime minister and his family.
Back then, I wrote that for all the sound and fury, little would be achieved, given the inertia built into the system. To quote from my column: “Documents will be sought. Excuses will be made. Endless delays will take place. And before we know it, elections will be due, and the whole thing will vanish from public memory.”
People accept corruption as part of the system.
Thus far, events have more or less followed this script. It has taken nine months to reach this point, and there are no indications that a baby will be delivered without a Caesarean section. Indeed, the prospect of a judicial commission looms large, with all its scope for further delays and foot-dragging.
Imran Khan now threatens to boycott such a commission, despite having called for one earlier. He wants the present bench to continue its deliberations when the Supreme Court returns from its winter break. He has also promised to hold public rallies.
How the incoming chief justice will respond to these demands and pressure tactics remains to be seen. But the bench was not impressed by the quality of the ‘evidence’ presented by both sides.
Given the changing versions regarding their clients’ respective properties and the source of funds, both legal teams have obscured more than they have revealed. The burden of proof is normally on the accuser, and newspaper clippings don’t usually constitute proof of wrongdoing.
One thing we forget is that the higher judiciary is not in the business of investigating crimes and misdemeanours. Judges weigh the evidence placed before them, listen to arguments and witnesses, consult precedents and then deliberate among themselves before delivering their judgement.
Under Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Supreme Court charged into areas where its jurisdiction was questionable. A sitting prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, was removed for contempt of court in 2012. Normally, impeachment is the route for an elected prime minister to be sacked; hence to some observers the court is reluctant to be seen moving against another prime minister.
In the circumstances, such reluctance to get directly involved in a nasty political battle would be understandable. Whichever way its decision goes, the other side will certainly claim a miscarriage of justice, and see bias where none exists. Why would the newly elevated chief justice want to put his hand into this hornet’s nest?
Far better, then, to distance itself by setting up a judicial commission that, while exercising full powers to summon documents and witnesses, would not have the prestige and gravitas of the court itself. And since the PTI legal team has submitted the documents it has collected and presented its arguments, a boycott ought not to impede the working of a judicial commission.
But this approach would play to Nawaz Sharif’s strength. He and his inner circle are past masters at dragging out inquiries and investigations. They also have the advantage of being in power, thus being able to influence the bureaucracy. No wonder Imran Khan wants the Supreme Court to continue hearing the Panama case.
While Khan and his party obviously would like to see Nawaz Sharif dismissed for his alleged corruption, it is not at all clear that he has much public support, apart from his own adoring fans. There has been much talk from PTI spokesmen about the whole nation demanding the prime minister’s resignation. But in the absence of any opinion polls on the subject, or a mass movement, it would appear that, apart from those gullible viewers who are influenced by TV chat shows, few are pushed about the Panama revelations.
The reality is that people accept that corruption is part of the system. Most developing countries suffer from this cancer; more so in our part of the world. Sleazy politicians, bureaucrats and fixers who brazenly live beyond their means are welcomed to parties thrown by the high and mighty. In fact, many fortunes in Pakistan are built on bribes, people smuggling and the drug trade. Seats in parliament are often alleged to have been bought with black money.
Ever since he entered politics in the 1980s, Nawaz Sharif has been known to be a rich man, even though the family fortune was much depleted by Bhutto’s nationalisation. So the knowledge that his children have somehow acquired four flats in London doesn’t really shock anybody. ‘So what else is new?’ is the usual response.
In politics, perceptions are more important than reality. Millions think Nawaz Sharif is doing a good job, at least in Punjab. Should he get away with, allegedly, making money dishonestly? No. Will he get away with it? Probably.
After all, I did tell you so.
Published in Dawn, December 17th, 2016
