Attempts to save skins of top leaders to flop

Islamabad

The bipartisan parliamentary committee on offshore companies, written off loans and corruption faces a challenging task to prepare a list of individuals, families, groups and companies that will be probed by the judicial commission.

In the light of the Supreme Court’s letter that was written in response to the government’s communication, the total number of such persons and entities, along with some relevant particulars, will have to be spelt out in the Terms of Reference (ToRs) to be prepared by the committee.

The list will be required to be precise and specific and the ToRs should not be wide and open-ended. Only then, the apex court will consider creating the commission.

As per the general practice, every side will endeavour to protect and save its respective powerful leaders from inquiry, but the motion passed by the National Assembly and Senate will not let anybody escape the probe if it was strictly followed.

According to the resolution, the committee will consider options for inquiring into issues raised by the Panama Papers including offshore companies; transfer from Pakistan of funds originating from corruption, commission or kickbacks; and written off bank loans.

The motion covers every offshore shell whether identified in the Panama leaks or unearthed otherwise. This is clear from its words, “issues raised by the Panama Papers”.

Generally, parliamentary parties get share in such committee in proportionate to their numerical strength in the National Assembly or the Senate. But in the instant case, the government agreed without even slight resistance to give the opposition the same representation in the committee as that of its own although it enjoys numerical superiority in the parliament. Apparently, this was done not to let the formation of the body hit roadblocks, giving the impression that the government is eager to get the matter probed. Obviously, in the case of voting the two sides will bag equal support for having similar representation if they remained united.

At least three opposition parties, whose nominees figure in the committee hold conflicting views on some issues the body will grapple with.

This disagreement is going to reflect in the deliberations of the forum. On the other hand, the government team will act as a coherent, cogent force, speaking with one voice in the impending tough discussions.

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Awami National Party (ANP) and Jamaat-e-Islami hold almost similar views on investigation into the offshore companies disclosed by the Panama leaks and uncovered otherwise.

The MQM and ANP are strongly opposed to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and are poised not to let its prominent leaders including Imran Khan, Jehangir Tareen, Abdul Aleem Khan, Liaquat Tarakai and Shahram Tarakai off the hook in this investigation.

It was mainly because of the PTI that the MQM had earlier left the opposition grouping. While it is back, with Qaumi Watan Party (QWP) chief Aftab Sherpao vacating the place for it to get rid of the hassle, it will pursue its previous policy of not to be lenient to any PTI stalwart. It will mostly take a line different from that of the PTI in the deliberations.

All these three parties also did not want to exclusively focus on the offshore companies owned by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s children. They press for across-the-board accountability by the commission and want no distinction or discrimination against anybody.

In contrast, the representatives of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), PTI and Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) are likely to share views on most issues that will come before the committee for consideration. They will attempt that only those offshore companies, which were named in the Panama Papers, should be included in the ToRs for inquiry, and those which discovered otherwise should be excluded.

As usual, the MQM faced great embarrassment because of its erratic decisions. It had suddenly walked out of the opposition alliance, complaining against some of its components. But when the parliamentary committee was constituted, it transpired to it that it has been left behind. It then insisted that it must also be included in it. But then question arose as to which side it should be bunched. The opposition was not prepared to accept it in its ranks. However, the government showed sympathy and insisted that the MQM should be incorporated in the body.

The opposition thought that by this gesture, the government would be able to garner the support of the MQM. Therefore, it finally accepted the MQM as a component of the opposition coalition and gave representation to it in the forum.

It is almost universally argued that it will not be an easy task for the parliamentary committee to meet the timeline of two weeks to conclude the ToRs and the new law for the commission. Given the stands taken by the two sides, much more time will be required for the job. What is most encouraging is that the two sides have agreed to iron out their differences through dialogue and formulate consensus ToRs as well as the law. If they ultimately come out with these unanimous documents, the Supreme Court may not have any objection to the constitution of the judicial commission.