JAC expresses distress over SC verdict in Panama case

• Committee calls upon parties to accept judgment despite disagreement with content, process

The Joint Action Committee (JAC) – which represents different political parties, activists and non-government organisations – has expressed distress over the Supreme Court verdict in the Panama Papers case, saying that the judgment will be added to the annals of history of the judgments which are read with horror and awe.

In a statement issued here on Saturday, the committee members said that the verdict may have devastating long-term effects. They noted with regret that the country would not have come to this pass had elected representatives kept their contact with the electorate, taken the people along with them and had confidence in the common wisdom of the people.

The celebrations and the remorse expressed over the judgment have both been highly distasteful. “The JAC is no defender of corrupt practices but it is of the view that corruption was not the issue. The basic issue is whether the country should remain a prisoner to the narrow-minded politics and legal interpretation of the Zia era or whether it should move forward in giving democracy a chance,” a statement said.

The civil-military tensions have been quite apparent since the new government took over and has been accepted as a fact by almost every political party, it said. The JAC believes that the Panama scandal did not erupt at the behest of the establishment but it was certainly manipulated by some unforeseen forces. The footprints of the establishment could easily be seen in the manner in which the drama unfolded and ultimately concluded.

Regrettably, the media trial and the manner in which the Panama case was fought, including through threats in the streets, had already undermined the image of the Supreme Court. This was not taken note of by the court themselves except in a few selected cases. The image of the court will not be enhanced through the vulgar praise that is being showered upon it particularly in view of statements that judges remained un-tempted by any monetary inducements.

The JAC members said that the courts must themselves take notice of this. The committee takes note of nefarious slogans like ‘accountability before elections’ which are deliberately designed to derail the democratic process. There is no doubt that there should have been accountability across the board and consistently so, but it cannot be done in spurts and selectively simply to weed out political leaders that may not agree with the establishment.

JAC and a large section of the disturbed population have taken note of the fact that while politicians are subjected to very strict standards of morality; this is not done in case of other institutions, in particular the judiciary itself which is an arbitration in accountability matters. JAC is of the opinion that the political parties should not depend on other institutions to rescue them but should take their fate into their own hands.

Past experience has shown that history has repeated itself because of the failure of political parties to take timely and mature action. The JAC demands that the political parties forge a consensus on the question of accountability particularly under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of 1973, the use of Article 184(3) by the Supreme Court in the most flexible manner as has been seen in recent years, the provision for appeal under the court’s inherent powers, to ensure the effective accountability of judges through their own mechanisms, and to put an end to institutional misappropriation of the public funds.

According to the statement, the JAC believes that no accountability system can be initiated without debating all expenditures in the parliament including the budget allocated for the armed forces, the amount spent on the public representatives and amount spent for the personal use of the members of the judiciary itself.

“While deeply concerned at the manner in which the Panama scandal has unfolded, the JAC calls upon all political parties to accept the judgment even though they have the inherent right, like every citizen, to disagree with its content and process,” the statement said.