SC Panama verdict offers no solution to check corruption

ISLAMABAD: The SC’s Panama verdict, including the dissenting notes, has fueled political bickering in the country but gave no solution to check corruption.

The verdict contains variety of stuff for use in bits and pieces by different parties as it suits their political agenda. The ruling PML-N refers to the main judgment in its defence whereas the opposition generally focuses on judges’ notes to demand resignation from the prime minister.

Interestingly, what the Supreme Court could not conclude after six months of hearing the Panama case despite all its authority has been referred to a benign JIT with the direction that the team has to complete its probe within sixty days. 

As a matter of discussion even if the JIT comprises independent minds, it is hard for a set of few individuals to probe a white collared crime involving allegations of money laundering and corruption without institutional support of anti-corruption state institutions. In our case, such institutions are wholly tamed.

Some argue that a Supreme Court bench to be constituted by the chief justice of Pakistan will monitor the implementation of the SC’s verdict in the Panama case besides ensuring the independent working of the JIT. The irony is that what the SC has suggested now has been tested before and failed to deliver. 

In the NRO judgment, the SC, while reopening all corruption cases, had devised a monitoring mechanism and involved the Supreme Court as well as High Courts to ensure that these corruption cases are fairly pursued by the NAB to punish the corrupt. However, despite all this almost all corruption cases got decided in favour of the accused because of the tamed NAB.

The relevant part of the NRO judgment reads as: “A Monitoring Cell shall be established in the Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising of the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by him to monitor the progress and the proceedings in respect of Court cases in the above noticed and other cases under the NAO, 1999. Likewise similar Monitoring Cells shall be set up in the High Courts of all the Provinces comprising the Chief Justice of the respective Province or Judges of the concerned High Courts to be nominated by them to monitor the progress and the proceedings in respect of Court cases in which the accused persons had been acquitted or discharged under Section 2 of the NRO, 2007.”

In the presence of the above mentioned high-powered superior judiciary’s monitoring mechanism, the NRO corruption cases despite having been re-opened got settled one by one in favour of the influential accused.

Mockingly, these cases included acquittal of the influential accused through scandalous judgments of two different accountability courts carrying unbelievable similarities of words, expressions and even paragraphs. The monitoring system could not take notice of this but after The News highlighted these scandalous judgments in 2011, the-then CJ SC referred the matter to LHC for inquiry.

The Lahore High Court’s inquiry into these scandalous judgments proved the points highlighted by this newspaper, which led to initiation of inquiry against concerned judges. However, the inquiry was later closed because of the retirement of the concerned judges whereas the relevant judgments were also not reopened for fresh trial.

Now in the Panama case, the SC verdict ordered, “We would request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a Special Bench to ensure implementation of this judgment so that the investigation into the allegations may not be left in a blind alley.” 

It means now the Supreme Court’s bench will act both as a monitor and a judge. However, the ground realities remain the same as has been the case in the past during the last PPP government. 

The Panama verdict showed its no confidence on the NAB chairman, FIA, etc, for not showing any interest to probe the PanamaLeaks. In a strange contradiction, the Supreme Court seeks names for the JIT from the same chairman NAB, the DG FIA, chairman SECP and Governor State Bank besides involving the ISI and MI in this politically highly sensitive matter.

There are no quick fixes available to check corruption and eradicate this menace from the society. Institution building is the only answer but for this neither the judiciary nor parliament or executive appear serious. 

In most of the cases, corruption allegations here are used to politically damage the opponent. The overall environment is such that the government functionaries become targets.  Lawfully, no corrupt is punished here. Instead, with favourable investigation and friendly prosecution, every corrupt is given a clean chit through the court of law.