ToRs body’s hands tied by SC letter, MPs resolution

ISLAMABAD: Though moving ahead at a satisfactory pace in their closed door deliberations with the government leaders, two noted opposition members of the parliamentary committee that is engaged in devising the Terms of Reference (ToRs) for probe into offshore companies, written off loans and corruption ventilated divergence.

This is not something unusual. Projection of views by a set of opposition leaders is a norm on such occasions so that they underscore their hardline to squeeze maximum out of tough negotiations. Vicissitudes are not ruled out as the committee will take up all the clauses of the new ToRs considering both sides’ production.

In its initial two days’ sittings, the body has smoothly done the necessary preliminary work. While Finance Minister Ishaq Dar was gratified with the discussions, held “in a cordial atmosphere”, and exuded confidence that the same spirit will prevail in future sessions, Aitzaz Ahsan and Shah Mehmood Qureshi, in their different formulations, stressed on the acceptance of their demands, picking up holes in certain aspects of the government stance.

Among the opposition parties, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) are obviously very keen to take political mileage out of the present issue, but at the same time they are eager to save their own top leaders, who own offshore shells, from the investigation by the commission.

Other four members of the opposition squad including Barrister Saif, Tariq Bashir Cheema, Sahibzada Tariqullah and Ilyas Bilour offered no comments after the session concluded.

Regardless of what the leaders of the opposition and government will assert at public forums, their hands are tied by the Supreme Court letter written in response to the government’s communication and the motion unanimously adopted by Parliament, which lay down clear parameters for the ToRs. They can’t deviate from these two documents and have to treat them as guiding principles.

The letter and resolution unambiguously determine the agenda of the 12-member body, which is mandated to make the ToRs while remaining within their parameters.

Neither of the two documents prescribes any preference to be accorded by the commission in its investigation into offshore companies of any specific individual or family or Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s children. Additionally, none ordains that only the offshore shells identified in the Panama leaks will be probed by the commission. So, such firms can be those mentioned in the Panama Papers and detected otherwise.

The brief but wide-ranging parliamentary motion precisely delineates the areas for the committee to firm up its proposals for inquest. It says the forum will consider options for inquiry into issues raised by the Panama Papers. These include offshore companies, transfer of funds from Pakistan originating from corruption, commission or kickbacks, and written-off bank loans.

It thus covers every offshore shell whether unearthed by the Panama leaks or uncovered otherwise. This is clear from its words, “issues raised by the Panama Papers”.

Similarly, the apex court letter also doesn’t limit the investigation to the Panama Papers disclosures alone as its text makes no mention of such revelations. Its main reservation related to the scope of inquiry sought by the government through its ToRs, which it found very wide and open ended that it said will need years together for the commission to conclude its proceedings.

The letter neither rejected government’s request to create the commission or its ToRs as erroneously claimed by Aitzaz Ahsan. The court’s reply was provisional and not conclusive. It further pointed out that “proper legislation” be reconsidered and resolved (in collaboration with the opposition) so that it constitutes the commission to investigate the issue. This is an essential precondition that the committee has to deliberate upon.

Most importantly, the court letter wants to get a list of all individuals, families, groups, companies, etc., with their total number, along with some relevant particulars against whom purported inquiry proceedings are to be held under paragraph No.1 (a) and (b) of the government’s ToRs. Only then, the court will form an opinion about formation of the commission or otherwise. Therefore, the list is mandatory, which can cover any issue.

Paragraph No.1 (a) and (b) of the official ToRs reads the commission shall (1) examine information relating to:-(a) involvement of Pakistani citizens, persons of Pakistan origin and legal entities in offshore companies in Panama or in any other country; and, (b) involvement of former and present holders of public office in (i) writing off their own bank loans or those of their immediate family members through political influence; and, (ii) transfer from Pakistan of funds which have originated from corruption, commissions or kickbacks.

Apart from settling other details, the primary job of the committee is to frame this specific list so that the inquiry by the commission is restricted to it and the matter before it becomes specific, certain and definite.