Six points of JIT plea taken up, six against it ignored

ISLAMABAD: Six basic issues raised by the Panama Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in its complaint were taken up but six other serious complaints against the JIT were simply ignored by the Panama Case verdict Implementation Bench during its so far proceedings.

JIT raised following six complaints:

1- SECP tempering some record, 

2- IB harassing by hacking Facebook accounts and gathering ground information of JIT member, 

3- NAB harassing JIT member from the bureau by issuing him a show cause notice for removal from service, 

4- Law ministry delaying Implementation on requests from JIT, 

5- Print and electronic media stories and analysis including Supreme Court registrar’s secret WhatsApp call story 

6- Social Media posts about JIT members and the bench.   

After departments submitted replies, interestingly, the bench simply ignored and did not even discuss the last four important allegations, and moved forward with only two. The bench ordered FIA (a department functioning directly under the government) to probe allegation of tempering of record by the SECP. Also bench showed it intention to proceed against IB.

On the other hand the complaints against JIT highlighted and raised before SC Implementation Bench but not entertained so far are: —

1- Secret WhatsApp call story to get specific persons appointed in JIT, 

2- Who gave ‘negative reports’ about the members initially recommended by the heads of the organizations and who gave ‘positive reports’ about the members finally selected after secret WhatsApp call? 

3- Disclosure of the name of the institution of the person who leaked picture of Hussain Nawaz from the record of proceedings of the JIT, 

4- Who is actually controlling whole proceedings of JIT at the National Judicial Academy? 

5- If JIT, according to its written response, had submitted report of picture leakage to the court on June, then why Implementation Bench hasn’t mentioned the same during hearing on June 7 and instead asked JIT to submit reply on this issue? 

6- JIT admitted tapping calls, monitoring physical movements of the witnesses just before their appearance as witness before it. Prime Minister House specifically raised this issue in its response but it was not heard. Overall language used in the JIT complaint clearly shows a bias against the government and those under investigation before it. How JIT can complete its fact finding job impartially now?

We don’t know why the Implementation Bench ignored most of JIT allegations. The allegation that NAB was harassing JIT member from the bureau was termed as wrong by NAB by presenting copy of show-cause notice to SC Implementation Bench. In its surprising response, NAB informed the bench that the show cause notice was issued to the officer on directions of the Supreme Court in a case on April 24. The NAB added that the recommendation for the officer for JIT was made on April 27 and JIT was only constituted on May 5. NAB maintained that how could issuance of a notice to the officer in compliance with a Supreme Court order, that too much before his recommendation for JIT, be termed his harassment? 

However, despite the obvious facts, some non-journalist anchors conducted programs to criticize The News questioning how a ‘judgement’ can be given in a report while the case is still pending. The question arises, which case is pending? When the response is so strong and substantiated with documentary evidences what else can be reported? 

Similarly, in case of the IB, the bureau maintained that it has never hacked any social media account of wife of any JIT member. The wife of the said JIT member is a PTI activist and her page was full of pro-PTI and anti-PMLN sloganeering. Had that page been still available, it would have been a great evidence to support the allegation of partiality and partisanship of the JIT members. Has IB supported the JIT by doing so? But, IB, a respected national institution, has denied this in categorical terms and also openly informed the apex court that ground check of the JIT members was a routine exercise which it always does for all important cases. Some of IB reports were annexed with an application filed before SC. The apex court, instead of ordering disclosure of the name of the organization whose officer leaked the picture of Hussain Nawaz ahead of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s appearance before the JIT, is insisting on action against IB as its report was annexed with the application of a private citizen. Why the first crucial leak is not important and why the second is? 

The allegation against the SECP regarding record tempering was based on statement of an anonymous officer. Intriguingly, the JIT levelled this allegation simply on basis of statement of the officer without examination of record of even summoning the said record from The SECP. 

The SECP, on the other hand, not only denies the allegation but also presented complete official data to rebut the same. Had the JIT levelled the allegation after examination of official files and conducting forensic of record, it could have been said that the issue needs thorough investigations. But when the bias is floating on the surface and the allegation is levelled merely on basis of heresy, which even changed the attention of court and people from the real issue of Panama Papers, nobody will trust JIT. 

The allegations regarding print and electronic media stories and analysis about JIT and the bench and regarding Twitter and Facebook posts were something beyond being ridiculous. May be the bench also realized the same and avoided even discussing these allegations, though they comprised 110 pages out of 120 pages complaint filed by the JIT.