The highest forum of justice and wisdom, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, has handed down a really historical verdict in the Panama papers case which can be described as a landmark judicial decision in legal, moral and logical terms as it has rejected political adventure and thoroughly kept into consideration all the necessary laws and provisions of the Constitution and decided the matter on the basis of facts admitted and established on the record. Moreover, it has arrived at the conclusion that the question of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s ineligibility has not arisen. Equal reliance has been made on nationally and internationally recognized legal precedents which PTI chief Imran Khan and company wanted to be overlooked just for fulfilling Khan’s cherished desire of “instant justice” that meant PM’s hasty disqualification.
The most important ingredient of justice is moving with caution and in accordance with the Constitution and law and not according to the desires and whims of any individual, politician or any lobby. The same has been done in the verdict announced the other day by the apex court in which the Lordships have given a clear framework of justice and investigation which has — and which should — put an end to all kinds of wild guesses, speculation and controversies.
The five-member bench led by the learned judge, Mr Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, has concluded its proceedings with the handing down of its judgments, one by the three judges, and the other by two justices giving their notes of dissent. In line with the requirements of transparent justice, the matter has now been referred to the most appropriate forum that is Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for further investigation which, for all practical purposes and by all legal standards, will be much more empowered a body than any other JIT established so far, given the fact that it will work under the framework and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court which would further evaluate the JIT’s progress on a fortnightly basis.
The most noteworthy feature of the verdict is the seriousness of purpose shown towards implementation and follow-up which was the need of the hour as in many instances in the past, people had been complaining against lack of an effective follow-up system in matters requiring timely and effective implementation. The five-member bench has requested Chief Justice, Mr Justice Saqib Nisar, to constitute a special bench to ensure implementation of this judgment, so that the investigation into the allegations may be carried out.
For the detractors, the message is loud and clear that nothing will be left undecided and it is also a message for avoiding chaos as it has been noted that any deviation from the recognized course would be a recipe for chaos.
It has also been noted that “any departure from the recognized course, however well-intentioned it may be, would be a precursor of doom and disaster for the society. It, as such, would not be a solution to the problem nor would it be a step forward. It would, indeed, be a giant stride, nay a long leap backward. The solution lies not in bypassing but in activating the institutions by having recourse to article 190”.
The judgment further said political excitement, political adventure or even popular sentiments, real or contrived, may drive any or many to an aberrant course but “We have to go by the law and the book. Let us stay and act within the parameters of the Constitution and the law as they stand, till the time they are changed or altered through an amendment.”
“Consider a deviation of such type; tomorrow, an accountability court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and a trigger-happy investigation officer, while probing the case, could do away with the life of an accused if convinced that the latter is guilty of a heinous crime and that his trial in the court of competent jurisdiction might result in delay or denial of justice”.
The honourable superior court has also put an end to political adventurism as the judgment said: “About the plea seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif under articles 62 and 63, the bench would have sent this case to the speaker or the Election Commission but it does not think a question of such ineligibility has arisen, as the premier has been alleged to be disqualified even on the nomination day on account of having failed to disclose his assets and those of his dependants”.
The verdict said that the Constitution has provided relevant forums and the law to deal with the questions emerging from articles 62 and 63. “A careful reading of these provisions would reveal that the one deals with qualifications of a person to be elected or chosen as an MP while the other with disqualifications of a person not only from being elected or chosen but also from being an MP.
If a candidate is not qualified or is disqualified from being elected or chosen as an MP, his nomination could be rejected by the returning officer (RO) or any other forum functioning in the hierarchy. But where the returned candidate was not, on the nomination day, qualified for or disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member, his election could be declared void by the Election Tribunal. While election of a member whose disqualification was overlooked, illegally condoned or went unquestioned on the nomination day before the RO or before the Election Tribunal, could still be challenged under the Constitution”.
The verdict further said the expression “a court of law” has not been defined in Article 62 or any other provision of the constitution but it essentially means a court of plenary jurisdiction, which has the power to record evidence and give a declaration on the basis of the proof.
It would include a court exercising original, appellate or revisional jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases. But in any case, a court or a forum lacking plenary jurisdiction cannot decide questions of this nature at least when disputed. When any question arises whether an MP has become disqualified, it shall be dealt with only by the EC on a reference from the speaker”.
Without doubt, the Panama papers verdict handed down by the Supreme Court can be adjudged as one of the best judgments in the country’s judicial history as it addresses all the pertinent questions of fact and law. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his political associates are reported to have accorded wholehearted acceptance to the verdict in order to show their respect for the highest institution of justice and in order to prove the PM’s innocence on merit by facing further investigations as directed by the Supreme Court. PTI chief Imran Khan and others of his ilk should also honour the SC verdict as it doesn’t favour or disfavor any politician or dignitary except that it honours the law of the land and the Constitution.
