The common man’s perspective
“It is surely the responsibility of the entire political leadership, particularly those who are engaged in reckless mud-slinging on the state institutions and damaging their credibility, to revisit their positions and realise the far-reaching debilitating impact of their irresponsible political conduct.”
A commoner’s view of the Panama verdict, to put it into nutshell, is that it has neither granted the prayers of the petitioners nor held the Prime Minister liable to be disqualified on the basis of the available evidence, prompting the bench to form the JIT to ferret out the truth and also meet the demands of justice as enshrined in different statues promulgated to dispense justice. And commonsense really makes sense. The matter is sub-judice till the time a final verdict is given by the SC. Therefore all the stakeholders should have shown utmost restraint in giving spin to the verdict, reading too much between the lines and using the dissenting notes to create ambience of uncertainty and mistrust against the judiciary.
But unfortunately that has not been the case. The reactions coming from media, intellectual circles, legal fraternity and from the political parties there is hardly any doubt left in the fact that we are a fractured and divided nation, which to its own peril, is losing faith in the sanctimonious institutions like the judiciary. The reaction of the parties which petitioned for the disqualification of the Prime Minister is particularly very regrettable, more so the PTI led by Imran Khan which has been vying to have the Prime Minisrer removed from his office for the last three and half years and was mainly responsible for taking the Panama Leaks issue to the court expressing full confidence in it. Instead of waiting for the SC to deliver a final verdict in the case Imran khan in a way has express no-confidence in the judiciary by raising doubts about the efficacy of JIT, using the dissenting opinions of the two judges as an indictment of the Prime Minister and the justification for launching a campaign to pressurise the Prime Minister to resign. The PPP also out rightly rejected the formation of JIT and one of its stalwart also thought it fit to challenge the credentials ISI in playing an impartial role in the JIT proceedings, which invoked a rebuttal from the ISPR.
It was in the backdrop of the foregoing untrammeled course of action adopted by these political parties that the Chief Justice Saqib Nisar had to tell Imran Khan during the hearing of a case regarding encroachments in Bani gala that dissenting notes by judges was a normal phenomenon the world-over and nowhere they provoked the kind of reaction that has been witnessed in Pakistan. He also asked him to help in removing the ambience of mistrust in the judiciary. Since the PML (N) government and the Prime Minister have accepted the verdict of the court and expressed their resolve to cooperate with the JIT, the political analyst and intelligentsia believe that the remarks by the CJ constituted a snub to the PTI and the opposition parties who were interpreting the dissenting notes as an indictment of the Prime Minister. The remarks are also being interpreted as a suggestion by the CJ to Imran Khan to refrain from precipitating the ambience of mistrust in the judiciary.
“The fact is that in the legal parlance a person is innocent till proven guilty in the court of law. The Panama case is still under adjudication by the apex court and it has yet to deliver its final verdict. In the light of the established principles of jurisprudence it would be unfair for the parties involved to jump to the conclusion without the court having decided the case.”
The fact is that in the legal parlance a person is innocent till proven guilty in the court of law. The Panama case is still under adjudication by the apex court and it has yet to deliver its final verdict. In the light of the established principles of jurisprudence it would be unfair for the parties involved to jump to the conclusion without the court having decided the case. Like the CJ said dissenting notes are a usual phenomenon in the judicial proceedings. It is the verdict of the majority of judges in a situation where a matter is being adjudicated by a bench comprising more than one judges, which is taken as the decision of the bench as a whole and the dissenting notes have no relevance to the final outcome. In the Panama case the three judges out of five have not agreed with the views of the dissenting judges and unequivocally held that the Prime Minister could not be disqualified on the basis of the available evidence and therefore there was an imperative need to have the matter properly investigated through JIT. That actually is the interim decision of the bench.
The PTI and other political parties should desist from building pressure against JIT by challenging its credentials and the ability to conduct an impartial probe. By doing so they are setting a very dangerous precedent of mistrust in the state institutions and the judiciary. The JIT represents the Judiciary and would be working under its close scrutiny. The highest forum of the armed forces, the Corps commanders have also made it abundantly clear that the Army through its representative in the JIT as per the order of the court would play its role in the proceedings of JIT.That assurance should be more than enough for the agitating parties to hold their horses, repose their confidence in the state institutions, especially the judiciary. They need to be reminded that JITs are less vulnerable to government pressure as is evident from the outcome of different JITs formed in Sind which have come out with impartial and authenticated findings against the sitting government and its stalwarts. The revelations made by Uzair Baloch against the PPP leadership including its co-chairman Asif Zardari amply testify to the fact that JITs have operated free of government influence. In the case of JIT regarding Panama case, there is no cause for expressing pre-mature apprehensions and orchestrating an ambience of mistrust in the state institutions.
It is surely the responsibility of the entire political leadership, particularly those who are engaged in reckless mud-slinging on the state institutions and damaging their credibility, to revisit their positions and realise the far-reaching debilitating impact of their irresponsible political conduct. The contentious national issues cannot be settled on the streets as it leads to chaos and instability in the country to the detriment of the national interests. There are state institutions to resolve them provided they are strengthened and given support to discharge their responsibilities in a free and fair manner. The judiciary is the most sanctimonious institution of the state and deserves to be given due respect by accepting its verdict on the issues presented before it. Therefore the PTI and other political parties are better advised to wait for the culmination of the Panama case, forgetting their political compulsions in the national interests and justice.
