Both the government and the Opposition are playing ToR-ToR for quite some time and now, as per the latest developments, PPP leadership has announced filing a reference with the Election Commission against Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif under Articles 62, 63.
The whole nation’s attention has remained focussed on ToRs or Terms of Reference for a considerable period of time with no breakthrough having being achieved so far. By breakthrough is meant that no progress could be made that on what terms the probe should start against the leading lights of politics, business and other segments for ‘committing the wrong’ of establishing offshore companies for the purpose of transferring the ill-gotten,black moneyand/or for the purpose of tax evasion.
It all began with the Panama Leaks whose story is now known even to a class one student of a school and knowledgeable people say that the practice of establishment of offshore businesses is common in many countries, not just Panama. It is also widely opined that not all offshore companies indulge in illegal business or in deals that are done under the table but when any such business is established by a Pakistani tycoon, the first question that comes to the mind is about the genuineness of the business particularly if that business is owned or co-owned by a politician or relative of a public office-holder. The reason for such queries is simple and that reason is the widespread perception by way of which all and sundry believe that tax evasion, underhand deals and transfer of corruption money to overseas destinations have been the standard practice of our leading people and their near and dear ones. Now this may not be a mere perception as things have been practically happening which point out towards corrupt practices in our public service offices, at all levels. Those who have not been indulging in petty corruption had been minting money through kickbacks and commissions in mega projects.
For the country, it is a good omen that the media (including the social media in the forefront), the civil society and other aware segments of the society that include the legal fraternity in particular, have waged a war against corruption. And if it seems to many as a mere war of words, even then it suffices to raise a strong bulwark against corrupt practices that will become somewhat like an impossibility (or a very difficult proposition) in the foreseeable future if this degree of mass accountability continues.
Panama Leaks have also provided an impetus to this war against corruption in Pakistan but unfortunately the political parties have played the ToR game in quite an odd manner. The onus lies on the Opposition parties to take the probe to its logical conclusion. They should have played on the pitch prepared by the government meaning thereby the Opposition should have accepted the Government’s overall ToRs barring a few ominous ones or totally bad ones and then watched the spectacle.
Now take for example the government’s first ToR according to which the government is ready to amend the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1956 to prepare the ToRs. The ideal thing offered in this ToR by the government is that all those would be investigated indiscriminately who possessed offshore companies. Then, how can one think that after the initiation of the high-powered investigative process, “all those” would not include the relatives of ruling party leaders. And the awakening that has come the society’s way at a mass scale won’t allow any exceptions and exclusions. It is not understandable why the Opposition failed to take cognizance of these ground realities and indiscriminate nature of the first ToR.
Even the second government ToR is not unreasonable since, after reposing its utmost trust in highest judiciary which would be empowered to decide further questions for further investigation, this ToR presses upon finding out how money was transferred abroad? This question is the question raised by every Pakistani citizen who wants to know how money was transferred abroad? Even a simple probe into the modalities of transfer of money can unearth the corrupt practices, if committed. Probably, the objectionable thing in this ToR for the Opposition was this clause that says: ‘It would also apply to all whose names have appeared in Panama papers including Aleem Khan of PTI and others.
In the third ToR, Opposition says: “ If the government side was serious in bringing back the looted money, whosoever appeared in the PanamaLeaks should give the power of attorney and oath about their property”.
The government point of view on the Opposition’s third ToR is that the Opposition wants to decide the matter of the ToRs assuming the role of the petitioner and judge at the same time.
The government’s stress is that all the legalities of the course of investigation should be decided by the judicial commission after the ToRs have been agreed upon between the Opposition and the government. This point can be put up before senior lawyers of national and international standing so that it could be decided whether by laying down the precondition of fulfilling the minutest legalities, the Opposition is assuming the simultaneous role of a petitioner and a judge?
As for the fourth and fifth ToRs, the Opposition’s point can be given consideration that if a person’s name appears in the Panama Leaks, he must prove that he bought property from legal sources and that the accused should have also tell as to how he bought and owned the property outside the country and about their source of income.
But it would have been a yet wiser and more pragmatic approach on the part of the Opposition had it done some serious home work and calculations. Instead of merely relying on circulated analyses and conjectures the Opposition leaders should have come up with legal proofs and concrete evidence that could put the wrongdoers on trial.
The government is not wrong in saying in this context that the burden of proof lays upon the claimants. The government asserts that instead of providing concrete evidence, the Opposition parties have resorted to a media trial of the government leveling baseless allegations on the issue of the Panama Papers.
In the sixth ToR, the Opposition wants that the process of accountability should start from the prime minister and his family.
The government claims that the Opposition members have tried to include the name of the prime minister in the ToRs without any justification. According to the government, the PM’s name has not appeared in Panama papers and in a democracy nobody can dictate others. Still, the PM has presented documentary evidence before the parliamentarians and in his address to the nation. Moreover, the PM doesn’t want that any of his family members should be absolved from the probe.
Against this backdrop, it can be inferred that an extensive probe can still be carried out if the Opposition takes a realistic route since the government ToRs too leave little room for anyone’s easy, quick-fix exoneration.