TWO weeks since the JIT delivered a hard-hitting report and a week since the Supreme Court began its final set of hearings in the Panama Papers case, the three-member bench has adjourned to decide the political fate of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. In a dispute that lies at the intersection of law and politics, it was perhaps inevitable that the case would be mired in controversy, but through a reasoned, well-argued judgement the court has an opportunity to reframe the accountability debate in the country in a lasting manner. A template to be avoided, however, is the dissenting opinion of two justices in the April judgement. At its heart, the dissent took a fundamentally cynical view of politicians and harkened to a period of judicial hyper-activism under former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Chaudhry. The Supreme Court’s best judgements are those that set reasoned precedents, gaining consensus over time rather than being cast aside because of controversy.

Unhappily, within the political class itself, the focus of accountability largely remains political opponents: the PTI wants the PML-N leadership held accountable; the PML-N demands the PTI leadership also be held accountable; etc. The Supreme Court has an opportunity to cut through the political opportunism and deliver an authoritative judgement on the scope of its own special powers, the parliamentary disqualification criteria in the Constitution and the role of the ECP. Currently, there is too much uncertainty, which is a disservice to both the cause of accountability and governance. What, for example, is the distinction between an act of corruption that allows the Supreme Court to directly disqualify a parliamentarian and refer the matter to the ECP? Will JITs form the basis of future judicial decisions in corruption-related matters? If so, will the court lay down guidelines for that process or will it be carried out in the controversial, ad hoc manner that it has been in the Panama Papers case?

Whatever the court decides in Mr Sharif’s case, it should also lay out a framework for accountability that can be expanded to other politicians and other branches of government and the state. After all, the Panama Papers exposed at the very least unsavoury financial practices by a range of Pakistanis, both private citizens and public officials. So while it was right that Mr Sharif was first in the queue for accountability, the process must not stop with him. Ultimately, a court can only adjudicate on matters before it and it rightly does not have the power to compel parliament to draw up a particular accountability scheme. But the court does have a unique opportunity with the nation’s attention focused on it and the prime minister himself at the centre of legal scrutiny. A methodical examination of the flaws in the overall accountability process in the country could put pressure on parliament and the executive to act.

Published in Dawn, July 23rd, 2017