The Panama Papers riddle

Get ready. Get set. Go

“The contradictions in the past and the present statements of the prime minister, and his children with respect to the ownership of the offshore companies, and the London flats, and the legitimacy of money provided for acquiring their ownerships, the crazy maze of money trails, and the desperate means being adopted by the accusing to prove the defendant guilty of the accusations made, altogether make the Panama Papers hearing nothing less than a riddle to guess for the designated bench.”

Apparently, in wake of the Panama Papers hearing, the Supreme Court has rolled up its sleeves to reach a meaningful end to the probe. The five member bench, led by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and comprising of Justice Azmat Saeed, Justice Ijaz Afzal, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, and Justice Ijaz-ul-Hasan, has accelerated the hearings on the case in order to cut down on unnecessary delays. The Supreme Court has instructed the legal counsels of both parties i.e. PML-N and PTI to present their view points, along with the required evidences before the court for deciding on the subject matter, and the legal counsels of the two sides are actively proceeding on presenting their cases.

The contradictions in the past and the present statements of the prime minister and his children with respect to the ownership of the offshore companies, and the London flats, and the legitimacy of money provided for acquiring their ownerships, the crazy maze of money trails, and the desperate means being adopted by the accusing to prove the defendant guilty of the accusations made, altogether make the Panama Papers hearing nothing less than a riddle to guess for the designated bench.

Challenges, however, bring the best out of people and institutions, as in them lie great opportunities.

With this challenge at hand, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to establish itself as an impartial, independent, and supreme institution, adhering to and upholding the constitution, capable of ensuring the supremacy of law at all levels of the state.

With the Panama Papers’ hearing under way, all eyes are set on the proceedings in the Supreme Court as the stakes have rarely been this high.

The just justice

In addition to upholding the law, and the constitution, it is not only an obligation of the Supreme Court to just provide justice to all, but to provide the just justice. The provision of the latter has always remained questionable in the past, and till date remains an un-established, yet a necessary element for the establishment of judicial supremacy.

There has been a long lasting perception across the board in Pakistan, particularly when cases like Panama leaks are sub-judice in the courts of law where the government or elite political, bureaucratic, or military officials are questionable, that the courts are pressurised, and thus influenced by the power corridors to pass judgments in their favour. Whether true or not, this perception has kept our judiciary from establishing itself as an impartial flag bearer of the law and the constitution.

With the new Chief Justice (CJ Saqib Nisar) sworn in in the midst of Panama Paper leaks case being heard by the Supreme Court, speculations arose again (especially in the opposition parties) that the impartiality of the decision on the sub-judice matter would stand compromised.

The newly sworn in Chief Justice’s decision to separate himself from the five member bench formed to hear the Panama-Gate case and delegate it to other reputed judges is, however, an encouraging aberration, and will certainly prove to be a stepping stone towards establishing impartiality, and will pave the way for its acceptance. The expectations and claims of the two primary parties in the Panama leaks hearing from the Supreme Court to pass a ruling in their favor itself symbolises the acceptance of impartiality of the court.

“The newly sworn in Chief Justice’s decision to separate himself from the five member bench formed to hear the Panama-Gate case and delegate it to other reputed judges … will certainly prove to be a stepping stone towards establishing impartiality, and will pave the way for its acceptance.”

Political day-dreamers

The political entities other than the two primary stakeholders i.e. PML -N and PTI in the Panama Papers’ hearing, that had apparently been sleeping for quite a while, finally seem to have woken up, and now have found something to stand up for. Ever since the Panama Papers’ leak, all the major political parties have demanded both the prime minister’s resignation, and a just inquiry into the matter by the Supreme Court — certainly a step towards political maturity, and the eradication of long standing tales of corruption from the political system.

With the Apex Court’s five member bench hearing the case, now on a daily basis, the political Sheikh Chillis have already started daydreaming of what verdict the court would pass at the end of the hearing, which ultimately adds to the pressure of maintaining an unbiased outlook on the Supreme Court. The expectations, and claims of political parties from the Supreme Court to pass a judgment supporting their political opinion are on a high rise, and the consequences of the judgment being otherwise are being foretold, primarily being a national distrust on the country’s judicial system, it’s to-be unbiased outlook, and its ability to uphold the law and constitution and provide justice at all levels.

Whatever the verdict given by the apex court in the Panama leaks’ hearing, the reaction of our political daydreamers will be the next big thing in the proceedings to follow.

The enlightened path ahead

One (whether a politician, a journalist, an analyst, or even from amongst the general public) must refrain from passing judgment on the Panama papers, as the matter is sub judice in the Supreme Court. The beacon of justice must be given due respect and space to perform its duties and impartially decide on the matter. As a nation we must put our faith in our judicial system, and its capability to deliver and prevail. The determined resolve of the Apex Court in probing into the Panama leaks is an encouraging breath of fresh air for the state.

It is imperative to remind ourselves here that the decisions in the courts are made on the basis of concrete evidence, not mere emotions, and expectations. The judgment passed by the SC must, therefore, be treated as absolute, and must be accepted by all political parties.