The terms

When the Panama Papers first surfaced, the more optimistic among us thought it might be the perfect opportunity for our political class to try to reform the culture of corruption that has blighted our politics and introduce a culture of across-the-board accountability and transparency. Finally, politicians who had cried themselves hoarse over corruption would have an opportunity to offer constructive moves and suggestions on how to combat the menace posed by illegal offshore accounts, writing off of loans and kickbacks. Instead, we are seeing a rerun of a familiar drama, where the opposition parties pretend to be purer than Caesar’s wife while indulging in opportunism. They have kept shifting the goalposts – first demanding a commission, then insisting it comprise sitting judges and now arguing over the Terms of Reference (ToRs). The ToRs released by the opposition parties for the judicial commission zoom in on only one person – Nawaz Sharif, whose name is not even on the list – while a clear attempt may be seen to sideline the issue of the rest of the 200 names on the Panama list. Why is the minus-Nawaz formula being put across so strongly, and what purpose can it serve if the aim is to tackle corruption? A fair investigation is necessary also because the Panama Papers specifically mentioned that they offered no proof of criminality or innocence of those named.

The original ToRs by the government – which in no way implied that the family of Nawaz Sharif would not be prioritised for investigation – gave a lot of leeway to the commission which, as demanded by the opposition parties, would be formed by the chief justice and look into various crimes involving loans, kickbacks and offshore accounts. But the opposition parties are not even pretending to look interested in the financial affairs of all those Pakistanis named in the Panama Papers, let alone the allegations of corruption that swirl around politicians within their ranks. They are completely ignoring the fact that opposition politicians have also been named in the Panama Papers. Some of them have been named in previous such reports on offshore companies too. There have also been admissions of accounts in offshore companies by some among them. These parties need to examine such people within their ranks. But it seems that avoidance of this is exactly what is aimed at by first limiting the investigations to only the 200 names on the Panama Leaks and then actually targeting one man.

The Panama Papers are the tip of the iceberg, representing only the files of a single firm involved in setting up offshore companies. There are more names to be released next week from these papers alone. We can also be certain that other politicians – from various political parties – have used different firms. It is curious that the opposition parties do not seem to see other cases involving offshore companies as important. Rather than relying on leaks, any commission should be empowered to be proactive and investigate all or any such cases. It should also be allowed to try and stop Pakistanis from taking advantage of loopholes and stashing their money abroad. But the opposition parties have vacated any moral ground they may once have occupied and have replaced rationality with rhetoric. The time limit they want to set for the commission is three months, and yet they also want international auditing firms involved who will work at their own deliberate pace. We should also keep in mind that, apart from sundry other complications, Pakistan does not have tax treaties with Panama and other offshore havens and it will be extremely difficult to get them to disclose relevant details, particularly in the light of security issues and laws put in place after 9/11. The attitude of the opposition parties is sure to raise doubts about its motives. Do they want to solve the issue at hand at all or are they – or at least some within them – bent on using the issue to create a situation of instability and chaos for their own myopic ends? Why do the opposition parties want such a specific and unreal deadline? Analysts will wonder about any possible significance of this hurry.

A wise way out of a potentially chaotic situation is for the saner voices on all sides to speak up now and forge a consensus. Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar has said the government is open to talks. We can take it to mean that we do not have an impasse here and there is still time for a proper way to investigate corruption and the system which perpetuates it. We hope that there doesn’t come a time when we are forced to look back with regret. The Supreme Court may be reluctant to be drawn into what is being seen as a political mess. This would be understandable when we think about the abusive disrespect shown in the not-too-distant past to commissions and judges even after trust had been reposed in them and commitments made to accept their verdicts. Still, we hope that the judiciary will rise above these immediate concerns and play its role in setting the country on the right path.