|
Panama Papers verdict
[DAWN] IT had all the makings of a landmark judicial case: a serving prime minister and his family accused of corruption; the petitioners representing an array of political opposition; the hearings initiated by a chief justice of Pakistain, who intervened to prevent a potentially catastrophic political confrontation in Islamabad; and an evidentiary trail rooted in the explosive Panama Papers, which caused ripples across the globe. In the end, and in a split decision, the court has found that it does not have enough evidence to give the opposition what it wants, but it does have enough doubts to demand a joint investigation team probe Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... and his family. The verdict was immediately hailed by the government as a victory; and, perhaps half-heartedly, used by the PTI to demand yet again that the prime minister temporarily step aside. Both reactions were predictable. In the hours after a lengthy judgement is delivered, a full examination of its contents is unlikely; the days ahead will yield more details and informed opinion, supportive and critical of the judgement. Yet, there is an anomaly that can be immediately identified and that perhaps the court has not thought through the implications of. The JIT itself is effectively a dead end. The record of JITs in other politically charged matters make it clear that no great surprises ought to be expected. But the inclusion of military-run intelligence agencies in a probe against a serving prime minister in matters of finance and the law is remarkable -- and a precedent that should not be established. It is not a question of who the prime minister is or civilians being above the law. There is absolutely no doubt that as prime minister, Mr Sharif must be held to a greater level of scrutiny than the average citizen. What is concerning about the composition of the JIT, especially with the inclusion of a Military Intelligence representative, is the signal it sends about the lack of institutional trust. Civilian matters should be probed, adjudicated and resolved in the civilian domain. And if the court has little faith in civilian institutions, as it indicated in its verdict, it could have put its trust in a judicial commission. Posted by: Fred 2017-04-21 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=486275 |