- To be or not to be?
The commission in normal circumstances is bound to be appointed by the government and the terms or questions set in too are also to be set by the government
There is no previous precedent when a chief executive of a province under investigation could be asked to step down, however, there could be other repercussions
It was a delayed decision however the case which has been the center of political and legal debate seems to be reaching its end. The report on the commission, formed under the supervision of Honourable Justice Baqir Najfi, was supposed to report its findings on the causes, and responsible for the Model Town carnage and according to some it did so, but the government did not publish the report on its own account. A tragic and painful memory, the Model Town incident which took place around two years ago, saw over a dozen lives lost and many seriously injured in an unprecedented incident whereby the police opened fire on hundreds of protestors. The publication or release of the report has been challenged in the honourable Lahore High court which was decided in favour of the petitioner to release the content of the report, however the government decided to challenge the decision in front of a larger bench.
It seems that the decision has finally come and it is likely to come out soon. The million dollar question is what is a likely scenario? As a practicing lawyer, there are signals, signs, arguments, and trends which help gauge the mood of the courts (with some error), and also how the things are mostly likely going to follow, but as the decision is still sub judice it is therefore best not to comment or commit on the decision. However, the article is going to discuss the political and legal implications keeping in view both scenarios, if the decision is in favour or if it is not in favour of the Punjab government.
Legal damage and repercussions
The commission in normal circumstances is bound to be appointed by the government and the terms or questions set in too are also to be set by the government. This means that the terms of reference or the boundaries which are set forth will determine the outcome too. It would not be far-fetched to assume that questions or boundaries which were set in by the government to determine were not comprehensive or conclusive in nature. In short the government did not want the commission to probe too deep or areas which could later be “fatal” for it. However one reason many analysts feel the government is worried over the outcome of the commission report is that the report conclusion travels well into the domain of determining the link, and into the chain of command.
Let us make a hypothetical situation or case. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the report has determined with some certainty the chain of command and understood that the chief executive knew the consequences of the orders which went out, if so then the report may totally change its role and impact. This, if true, may have serious consequences on the FIR and investigation and may quite easily rope in the chief executive of the province into a long and detailed investigation. However, investigation is different from judicial proceeding or the case. This is where discretion is advised because investigation and judicial proceedings are two different and distinct process in a trial. In short, the report can have serious implications up to investigations and can shift the blame on to the chief executive. Of course all this is hypothetical.
Report may be fatal from other angles
There is a larger legal lacuna than this which being that the inquiry commission’s finding cannot be presented in the court as evidence. In order to do so, the honourable judge of the High Court who headed the commission himself has to be put up in the stand and has to face cross examination something which is seldom done in the past. Henceforth the important aspect of the debate rests with the fact that what is the legal weightage of the commission report then? The issue does not end here.
There is another aspect of the report which could have legal repercussions for the Punjab Muslim League-N which being that the report may seek to remove the chief minister from the office. There is no previous precedent when a chief executive of a province under investigation could be asked to step down, however there could be other repercussions. Firstly, from a political angle, this could have devastating impact for the Sharifs. Secondly, the report if adverse for the Sharif, may result into an ineffective structure in Punjab. Needless to say that the moral ground to influence the bureaucracy and policies will be reduced to a level which may also leave the chief executive “ineffective”. This means that many who were in the government or bureaucracy witness to the event may actually decide to speak up or decide not to interfere with the investigations at all. Thirdly, the outcome of the report and its content may most likely be relied upon in the trial court proceedings. This means that evidence which was collected will be shared by a report which was composed and construed by an honourable judge of the high court not by a investigation officer of a lower rank. This also means that Punjab political machinery or police may not be able to “meddle” much during the investigation process. This has high connation to the entire episode as well. Because a commission report has yet to be presented as evidence in a trial proceeding, this could be fatal for the Sharif.
This article is not meant to demeanor or discredit a popular chief minister but is meant to highlight the possible risks and outcomes of Model Town inquiry. The interesting point being that the role of a commission report is yet to be determined as to what role it will lead in the trial proceeding and how significant courts feel this report is all going to determine fate of the chief minister.
Is the report going to make a political impact more than the legal impact, the above arguments in the article are suggesting bit of both. The most important point being that a commission, as comprehensive it may or its report could be politically damaging for Sharif, is not a substitute for a proper legal trial. As a jurist and legal expert, it is unfair to hold media trials, or conclude that a commission’s findings can sentence someone. In short, the Model Town case is far from over and the commission report however politically damaging or perhaps not damaging for the Sharif may legally implicate, and carry beyond the investigation process.
The writer is a lawyer, Chevening Scholar, with experience in policy framework, litigation, judicial interpretation and legal matters. You can reach him on hyshah1@gmail.com or you can follow him on twitter hyshah1