Government, opposition can reach accord on scope of inquiry

Panama Papers

ISLAMABAD: Most of the objections of the opposition parties to the otherwise commendable Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the yet-to-be formed inquiry commission that will look into the offshore companies of politicians and businessmen are removable when the two sides will sit together to sincerely find out a common ground.

However, to cut a long story short the upshot of the demands projected by a majority of the opposition forces is to “get” Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif under all circumstances, even at the cost of the democratic system, and therefore they want exclusive focus of inquiry on him. They cherish to create a deadlock, forcing the establishment to intervene on the pattern of the 2014 sit-ins.

A strong impression is that the all-inclusive nature of ToRs that showed that the government did not want to hide or evade anything and the prime minister presented himself and his family for accountability caught the opposition unawares and it was left with putting up lame excuses to spurn the ToRs.

However, before the two sides will put their heads together to search for a solution, they are waiting for the decision of Supreme Court Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali. With that in view, the opposition parties scheduled their joint deliberations on May 2 after his return from Turkey. Their discussions apart, none of them has yet come out with its own ToRs. This amply reflects the homework of the opposition.

A leading constitutional expert told The News that the chief justice may not agree to constitute the commission on the ground that inquiry has not been sought in “any definite matter of public importance” and that formation of such a forum doesn’t fall in the scope of the apex court.

He referred to the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act (PCIA), 1956, which says the federal government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, appoint a commission for the purpose of making an inquiry into “any definite matter of public importance”.

The expert also mentioned the raging political controversy and said the Supreme Court may decide to stay away from it considering its bitter experience of probing the election rigging charges.

Neither the government nor the opposition has so far spoken its mind on the scenario if the top judge declines to involve the apex court in this matter. If the top judge declined, both parties will possibly issue an appeal to him to set up the commission after they will reach a consensus on the ToRs.

Although some major and minor demands of the opposition are frivolous and ridiculous, the two sides can find a meeting ground during their joint deliberations.

One, the opposition is solely obsessed with the probe into the offshore companies of the prime minister’s children. The stand taken by senior government ministers shows that they have no problem if the inquiry starts from Nawaz Sharif’s family but they want to expand the investigation to other offshore companies at the same time.

However, the government is unlikely to agree that the commission should make public its findings on the offshore firms of the prime minister’s family first and its recommendations into other companies later. It will press that the entire report should be released simultaneously.

Two, the opposition presses that two commissions - one for investigation into the premier’s families and the other for inquiry into all other offshore firms - should be created. This is a laughable demand that smacks of discrimination.

Three, the opposition’s objection is that no timeline has been spelt out in the ToRs, and the commission will consume endless time, decades, and not years, to finalize its findings. Under the PCIA, the government has the powers to stipulate that the inquiry may be completed “within such time as may be specified” by it. Thus, it has the authority to fix or not to fix the timeframe. However, even if it spells out the period, the commission hardly adheres to it due to workload. But still this demand can be accepted by the government by determining the time schedule.

Four, the opposition demands that identification of the public office holders, who got their loans written off by using political influence, should be excluded from the scope of inquiry. It claims that unending time would be required in this exercise.

However, it is not true as this process can be concluded in just a few hours because all waived loans are documented by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) and will be easily available to the commission. In addition, in 2011 a commission headed by retired judge Jamshed Ali had prepared a report on the loans written off from 1971 to 2009, which will be available to the new forum for scanning. Similarly, the record of waived loans from 2009 till to-date lies with the SBP, which can also be gone through to name the public office holders, an exercise that will not require any long time. Therefore, the opposition’s view is fallacious and misplaced.

Five, the opposition’s objection is that it has not been consulted by the government while formulating the ToRs. This is a genuine demand, which will be met as the two sides are disposed to holding deliberations.

Six, acceptance of the opposition’s demand to have a special law to probe the offshore companies instead of relying on the PCIA will not be a big deal for the government if they arrive at consensus ToRs.

Those having hidden agenda and dancing to the tunes set by others need to be kept at arm’s length from the impending parleys if an honest inquiry into the offshore companies and other matters is the prime objective because their every effort will be to rock the democratic dispensation.