close
Thursday March 28, 2024

What can we do?

By our correspondents
June 22, 2017

Ever since the Panama Papers came to light, and particularly after the matter was taken up by the Supreme Court, we have been urging the various actors in the ensuing affair to be sparing in making public statements and remarks that could be difficult to back up with proof, reasoning or argumentation.

Unsubstantiated speculation does nothing to enlighten the public and lowers the esteem in which important institutions are held. There already exists in our society a tendency towards idle and ill-informed gossip, especially on matters political.

Rumours spread quickly and, before you know it, the entire country is awash in conspiracy theories in which everyone is anyone’s agent.

We have always pointed to the social dangers inherent in this propensity because, if encouraged, hostile speculation does not spare even those institutions which should be above the fray and beyond blemish.

This is especially true in the case of the judiciary, given the status and the dignity that it commands. Judgments on legal grounds here are understood to speak louder than anyone else and proceedings and their outcome are trusted to deliver a way out of the crisis and not become a source of further controversy.

This must be the idea so that those who are called to account for their deeds or misdeeds are in no position to allege victimisation.

The Panama case is one of the most important cases in our recent history and, like any other case, its conclusion must be based on merit and transparency.

So it is incomparably better to clear the air of any talk of bias and for comments to be made with utmost care. The suggestions that have emerged from the highest judicial quarters about certain articles and stories in the media are a cause of concern against this wider backdrop.

The SC bench on the Panama case seems to have taken issue with some stories and reports and, in doing so, implied that they have been printed to benefit the current government and the ruling party.

Nothing in the way of reasoning, argument and substantiation was added to the observation. We believe a more measured approach would have been better.

There will always be those who will use anything said by anybody for political ends and to attack those who are seen by them as not doing their bidding.

When the PTI announced yet another boycott of the Jang Group, its primary motive was clear: it wants the media to toe its line.

It wants to attack and harm those who have stayed independent. Unfortunately, the PTI is always looking to pounce on any such opportunity no matter what the moral, political and social cost.

This is why it wouldn’t be amiss to assume that the remarks of the bench were seen by the party as substantiation for what it has been ‘claiming’, and certainly as further fodder for vendetta.

Since it is politicians hankering after power that we are talking about, this is unsurprising – still it is wrong and without foundation in truth.

Our simple and straight reporting on the Panama Papers scandal and the JIT issue, be it that WhatsApp call or the leaked photograph of Hussain Nawaz’s interrogation, is something the PTI and the likes cannot stand – even if they cannot prove wrong one word of what has been reported.

As a media group we have striven only to publish stories which can be backed up professionally. We pride ourselves on our commitment to breaking stories without any bias.

The Jang Group has published stories from all perspectives. It was this newspaper that collaborated with the ICIJ to help discover and reveal the large number of Pakistanis who have stashed money in offshore accounts.

It was, after all, us who broke the story here in the first place, giving rise to all that has taken place since then.

This is where the PTI gained its platform to launch its campaign. In past years too, the reports we have carried have supported the judiciary, but also pointed out problems where they have arisen.

We have also been critical of the current government and the ruling party and have, in fact, been accused of being part of a conspiracy against them.

For us, the path ahead in this matter is clear. We offer ourselves up for investigation and accountability. If we are wrong, we deserve to be punished. Can we do anything beyond this? Or are we expected to stop doing our job? Our credibility is important to us as it should be to every other institution involved.

Openly answering any questions that have been raised is the only way to clear up issues that have now been made contentious. But, everyone needs to retain their credibility and clarify whatever issues have been confused.

We must make no mistake about this. The credibility of the judiciary, the JIT, the media and the political parties is at stake and each one of them should be mindful of protecting it.

The questions that have followed in the wake of the stories published by us have yet to be answered. Before the Panama judgment, we were told that history was in the making.

We welcomed the possibility. But we must remember that, in a country with as chequered a history as ours, making the right kind of history could prove to be a bit more difficult than is thought.

Historically, proceedings initially hailed as impeccable later came under close scrutiny and grave question, and judgments delivered on the basis of those proceedings have come back to haunt this country again and again.

History always speaks in the end. We need to ensure that it will give a verdict we can be proud of, on the basis of proceedings that are above political passion and in accordance with the law.