The consequences of taking up a highly politicised case
When the three member Supreme Court bench constituted the JIT, the opposition questioned if a handful of government officials could conduct the accountability of a sitting Prime Minister and his scions. The government felt confident and welcomed the JIT’s formation without raising any objection. Here and there media raised questions about the propriety of inducting two army officers into the JIT.
As the JIT started its proceedings objections were raised about the ties of the relatives of two JIT members’ with the opposition. The Prime Minister House accused the JIT of phone tapping and monitoring of witnesses. The leakage of Hussain Nawaz’s photo and the unusual reluctance in naming the man responsible turned into another issue. The use of Whatsapp for seeking names was also questioned. The SC however turned down the objections and directed the JIT to move apace to complete the probe on time.
Meanwhile there was a lot of a mudslinging by the political opponents and some of it was bound to stick to the JIT also. At times it created the perception of a contest between two categories of security agencies. The JIT’s task however does not go beyond conducting an investigation and submitting the report to the apex court’s bench. It is for the court to determine whether the report is fair and objective and the evidence collected credible and sufficient to incriminate those being accused.
The three member bench comprises judges who were unwilling to send home the Prime Minister on the basis of the material presented in the petitions. They were equally dissatisfied with the money trail presented by Nawaz Sharif and his scions. They wanted the Sharifs deserved to be given an opportunity to present the evidence at their disposal and to reconcile the statements given by them at different times. The bench would therefore be reluctant to pass a judgment against the Prime Minister and his scions till it is provided solid proof of misdemeanour. Will the JIT succeed in collecting the substantial evidence in two months?
