IN its long, sometimes chequered, at other times commendable, history the Supreme Court has addressed and fashioned several defining moments. With the conclusion of the Panama Papers hearings, another such moment is at hand. Certainly, all the ingredients are present for a momentous decision: the fate of a prime minister and possibly a government in balance; an energised opposition that has issued full-throated denunciations and believes it has emphatically proved its case; a months-long media-feeding frenzy; the credibility of institutions of the state and the very system of accountability on public trial; and the highest court in the land that must demonstrate that it will fearlessly deliver verdicts based on the evidence before it and in line with the law of the land. Win or lose, there is much at stake for all sides, though there is a trace of democratic maturity in the pledge by the protagonists to accept whatever decision the court reaches.

As the country awaits the court’s verdict, two things need to be reiterated. First, whatever the court’s verdict, the system of accountability of public officials needs a thorough overhaul. The Panama Papers hearings rightly focused on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the first family, but what has come to the fore since the papers were released last April is a disturbing and sweeping scale of potential illegalities, nepotism and corruption. Up and down the power structure and across it, public officials appear to use the mechanisms of the state and manipulate the law of the land for personal enrichment; the higher the official, the more egregious the violations. It remains to be decided by the Supreme Court if Mr Sharif and his family violated the law, but it is already clear that the law as it exists is inadequate. The vast fortunes that public officials and their families have accumulated in office are simply not compatible with a strong, functional democracy. Change must come.

Second, the politicisation of accountability is clearly impeding the process of accountability. The circus-like media atmosphere that surrounded the Panama Papers hearings reduced the issue of accountability to the political fate of the prime minister and his daughter, Maryam. While spectacular and immediate, the ouster of Mr Sharif or the barring from public office of Ms Sharif would not translate into broader gains for the democratic process. As recently as the last parliament, a prime minister was ousted by the Supreme Court while his successor also faced serious legal jeopardy. Debarred politicians usually find a way to return to politics. In part that is because the focus of politicians is on the ouster of their opponents as opposed to strengthening the system. It is not clear how the system can be strengthened when improvement depends on the very politicians who appear uninterested in improvement. Perhaps public pressure and responsible media reporting will make a difference.

Published in Dawn, February 25th, 2017