THE Supreme Court has tasked itself with giving a verdict on the collective opposition allegations against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family in the matter of the Panama Papers and the London flats owned by the Sharifs. Daily court hearings are undoubtedly helping speed along what could be a definitive judgement on an issue that exploded last April, with the release of the Panama Papers, and that has refused to die down since. But the hearings themselves and the occasional investigative media report are raising a fresh and ever- expanding set of questions that the Sharif family is not addressing — and that the family may struggle to address in an adequate manner. Already this much is clear: while no explicit illegality may be evident as yet, Prime Minister Sharif and members of his family have provided an ever-shifting account about the origins and scale of the family’s wealth and assets.

Legal questions aside, the matter is deeply troubling from a democratic and political perspective. Consider that barely an allegation against the previous federal government led by the PPP has been proven in any court of law anywhere, but the reputation of the party and its allies is set in political stone. Few among the public, in the media or, indeed, in the PPP itself, will deny that the party has a virtually unshakeable political reputation for corruption, incompetence and misgovernance. While the electorate delivered its verdict by consigning the party to virtual obsolescence at the federal level in the last general election, the impact on the perception of the democratic system has been damaging and lasting. Now, the PML-N is doing its own damage to the democratic system with its shaky and seemingly evasive defence on the issues of the Panama Papers and London flats.

The Sharif family undeniably has every right to defend itself using every legal tool and argument at its disposal. But Prime Minister Sharif has a larger and more important duty to the nation: of both being and being seen as deserving of the office of prime minister. Instead, thus far, the prime minister has fallen woefully short of the elevated standards of conduct that ought to be expected of him – and it is the democratic system itself that is suffering damage and coming into some disrepute. As this paper has consistently held, the prime minister and his family need to be held to exceptional standards and must voluntarily submit themselves to independent scrutiny ahead of all other accused individuals. The Supreme Court can only examine the evidence placed before it; for the country to truly believe that the Sharif wealth and assets are untainted, independent and unhindered scrutiny is needed. Will the prime minister commit to the exceptional scrutiny of himself that democratic norms demand?

Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2017