ISLAMABAD: Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif’s remarks about the necessity of across-the-board accountability are apparently directly related to the prospective probe into the offshore companies of Pakistani businessmen and politicians, exposed in the Panama Papers leaks, by a judicial commission.
It so happened that the statement was coincidently timed with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s homecoming from London after a weeklong absence from Pakistan in connection with his medical check-up. It was meant that the moment he lands back, he gets a clear insight into the army chief’s mind.
Also, the remarks coincidently came a month after the departure of former dictator Pervez Musharraf from Pakistan on the pretext of his medical treatment abroad, with the special court, which is trying him for high treason, expressing annoyance over his exit without informing it. Other courts where his cases are pending disposal are also displeased.
A natural question that comes to many minds is: was there any need of making such a statement by General Raheel Sharif when eagerness is being shown by all political sides to establish a judicial commission to inquire into the offshore companies including those owned by the prime minister’s children? The difference pertains only to its members with one set stressing that the serving judges should be part of it while the other emphasizing that the retired justices should become its members.
It is a foregone conclusion that the commission is going to be created come what may. Now the detractors of the government and conspiracy theorists would argue after the formation of this forum that it became possible only due to the push of the army chief.
The debate was focused on the offshore firms before this statement became public. Immediately after Raheel Sharif’s remarks were released, the discussion diverted to them. The statement provided a lot of meat to the TV discussants, who always look for such material.
The ongoing heated debate on the composition of the commission among the political parties is part of democracy, which will create a situation where a consensus body would be constituted precisely like the commission that was formed to look into the electoral rigging allegations of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and others.
It is clear that the government will form the present commission only after almost all the political parties will reach an agreement. The delay in having the body in place is only because of lack of accord among them.
Neither the government has any power to impose its decision on the political parties nor are these forces in a position to force the regime to accept their demand. In democracy, the principle of give and take always comes into play.
Apart from other comments, two federal ministers articulated the official view on the army chief’s assertions. Khawaja M Asif’s reaction was brief. “It is a known fact that corruption is also our concern. But according to the international organizations, it has come down in Pakistan. The statement of the army chief, who heads an institution, is like that of the chief justice of Pakistan, who has also often spoken against corruption.”
Information Minister Senator Pervez Rashid’s reaction was elaborate and well-considered. He aired the view that investigation into the white collar crime was a complex matter.
However, he referred to the era of Pervez Musharraf, who, he said, had diverted the accountability. “The record of his tenure about corruption cases is not even available. Continuation of democracy system is essential to curb corruption. The way accountability was done in the past was ridiculous. We will not allow anybody to play politics on the pretext of accountability.”
His allusion to Musharraf’s rule was apt. Politicians have been ruthlessly made accountable by successive military dictators. Not only Musharraf but General Ziaul Haq and Ayub Khan also tried to decimate politics by victimizing politicians. The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) had got their share in this vendetta.
In principle, there can be no disagreement with the general’s statement about corruption and across-the-board corruption.
