Inside the Supreme Court’s Panama Leaks verdict
“Consider this most likely scenario: If the court’s intent is to salvage its own standing than expect a verdict whose pivot is focused on walking a fine line between impartiality and compromise where the accused are not handed over ruthless punishments while the appellants are offered necessary face-saving.”
The debate over the Panama leaks issue which has revitalised Pakistan’s politics for a year is nearing its logical end with the country’s top court all set to release the final verdict on the case.
The case’s fast and furious trial that the Supreme Court has undertaken apparently been supervised by the country’s top lawyers. The intent which symbolises the quick closure of the case deals with the circumstances and stakes that are attached with the mega implications of the issue.
For the judiciary, the Panama Leaks case has been building for over a year with the only difference that it has remained outside the court’s jurisdiction. Now that it has arrived inside the court, the political pressures which are part of it have the potential to dampen or reverberate the court’s own standing.
The following considerations are likely to have remained an essential part of Supreme Court’s final verdict: Even if the Prime Minister is found guilty based on the evidence leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the veracity of the released documents would remain a contentious issue. If one is to recall the court’s proceedings, the evidence presented by the opposition – particularly the PTI – was termed as “news clippings” and “rumours.” However, it doesn’t mean that the accused party which in the present case is the PML-N’s leadership has been successful in presenting authentic, logical and convincing evidence that can ascertain their innocence and invalidate the other party’s case altogether.
While the PTI has not been able to bring forth reliable evidence against Nawaz Sharif, the PML-N’s case in its defence weakens in two scenarios. First, while the court has reprimanded the opposition’s council for presenting evidence which in legal terms amounts to hearsays, Nawaz Sharif’s council has been unable to establish that the properties under debate were not purchased through shady means and resources. This infect, indirectly favours the opposition’s case despite the fact that their evidence remains as weak as the Sharif’s council’s defence. Second, while the court has termed most of the evidence presented by the PTI as inconvincible – at one point Justice Khawaja said, “we cannot send home a sitting Prime Minister based on hearsays” – the Supreme Court cannot just brush away all evidence regardless of its authenticity. If one is to go by the Western Concepts of Jurisprudence, Pakistan’s post colonial legal system –albeit in theory – follows similar standards and precedents. In that sense, there are precedents where globally head of the states have either resigned or were put to question by the courts due to the evidence that was part of the Panama papers release.
The abovementioned precedent, however, is unlikely to work in Pakistan’s politico-legal environment, for the role of the Judiciary as an institution in Pakistan has seldom worked inside the constitutional bonds and extrajudicial precedents in this regard have remained part of the country’s history where either political stakeholders or the military establishment compromised the court system for their own advantage in connivance with the courts.
“…while the court has termed most of the evidence presented by the PTI as inconvincible – at one point Justice Khawaja said “we cannot send home a sitting Prime Minister based on hearsays” – the Supreme Court cannot just brush away all evidence regardless of its authenticity.”
If the court is to impeach a sitting Prime Minister based on the evidence that it has termed “hearsays” than it should take a “suo-moto” action against the scores of other people whose names have also emerged in the leaks, including Imran Khan.
Consider this most likely scenario: If the court’s intent is to salvage its own standing than expect a verdict whose pivot is focused on walking a fine line between impartiality and compromise where the accused are not handed over ruthless punishments while the appellants are offered necessary face-saving.
Anything above and beyond such possibility would mean political and legal crisis. For instance, if Nawaz Sharif’s role that has been pinned as central in the case is found altogether “above suspicion” than expect a new phase of agitation led by Imran Khan and cohorts which might lead to a new political crisis and that too when the country is inching closer to the next parliamentary polls with security issues again raising their heads. On the other hand, Nawaz Sharif indictment in the case would further hamper the government’s credibility and might prove fatal for the country’s democratic setup: In the case of Sharif’s impeachment, not only the government would fall into crisis mode but would also give away more space to the military establishment which it has apparently regained in the wake of the military’s change of command a few months ago.
Lastly, for the court, there is no confusion about who should be penalised and what the evidence points towards. However, the sheer marked plainness of the case holds a deeper implication where a one sided verdict can potentially open new political fault lines where one party can have absolute advantage over the other. All in all, we are heading towards a compromise rather than a brutal verdict.