- Notable jurists say if SC orders a commission in its judgment, it will fully empower it to investigate all aspects of the case
On December 7, 2016, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali hearing the plethora of petitions in Panama leaks case asked the parties involved to submit their suggestions pertaining to the formation of a commission for a probe into the matter. However, with a reluctant PTI, retirement of Justice Jamali, and formation of a new Bench, the idea of a commission couldn’t materialise and hearings began.
The new Bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa heard the Panamagate case from January 4 till February 23 and reserved its judgment to be issued later. During the hearing, Justice Khosa remarked that the Court doesn’t need consent from any of the parties to form a probing commission if it deems necessary.
Pakistan Today asked the notable jurists about the nature of the commission, its powers and area of influence if formed in Panamagate verdict.
‘Since the judgment has not arrived yet. We don’t know what decision will come,’ said senior jurist and lawyer SM Zafar. “The past history of commissions must not affect the present one. There will be a strict judicial oversight by the Bench this time,” he said when asked if the Supreme Court goes ahead and orders formation of a commission in its verdict, will the fate of the Commission be any different from various previous commissions.
Human Rights lawyer Asma Jahangir said that the very Constitutional jurisdiction of Supreme Court is of appellate nature and can hear petitions that pertain to fundamental rights or of issues of public importance. “The Panamagate cases, whose very nature is of criminal offence, need thorough probing and extensive investigation by institutions, which have relevant expertise to investigate such matters. It is not befitting of courts to become interrogators and investigators,” she said.
“If Bench forms a judicial commission in its judgment, it will be a fully empowered, fact-finding commission that will exert the facts and check the veracity of the statements made by both parties,” said former Additional District and Sessions Judge and Advocate Supreme Court Majid Bashir.
Bashir was of the view that the report or findings of the case will then be looked into by the Bench and a final decision will be made accordingly. “The TORs of the Commission will be set by the SC and not by the parties. It will lay out the powers, restrictions, and limitations in entirety,’ he concluded.
The speculations about the Panamagate verdict are gaining momentum every passing day. While social media is rife with rumours about the date when the verdict will come and its nature, as reported by this paper a few days back, the legal fraternity, too, is divided on the contents of the possible judgment.
One is a public perception of the cases. Day after day we have been been exposed to the so called "facts".The other is the legal perception and learned lawyers have confused us by using legalistic Language. If the learned supreme Court judgjes cannot reach a verdict and appoint a Commission that would amount to washing the case off their hands.Passing on the buck would amount would lead to endless bickering amongst the parties concerned. The Public expects deliverance and not endless postponement!
Comments are closed.