All eyes set…
PML-N proudly claims of honouring the SC, and extending every possible support to the JIT in its investigation by presenting themselves before the investigation team whenever summoned
In wake of the Panama case hearing followed by verdict from the apex court, formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate further into the allegations on offshore assets against the Prime Minister Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, and his family, primarily the three children, Hussain, Hassan, and Maryam, was directed by the Supreme court.
The Supreme Court had assigned 60 days deadline to the formulated JIT to complete its investigation, and to submit reports on the progress of investigations to the court every fortnight.
On 6 May the bench had finalised the members of the designated JIT. The six member team comprised its head, Additional Director General FIA Wajid Zia, Amer Aziz from the State Bank of Pakistan, SECP’s Executive Director Communication Bilal Rasool, Irfan Naeem from National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Brigadier Nauman Saeed from Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and Brigadier Kamran Khurshid from Military Intelligence (MI).
The court also named the Federal Judicial Academy Islamabad to be the secretariat for JIT.
The mainstream political opposition, however, and a good majority of the general public, seemed less than convinced on the formation of JIT, given a possibility of the JIT being influenced by the power corridors of the existing PML-N government in the center. Under the stated concerns, an impartial probe into the allegations against the PM’s family remains questionable to the circles of wisdom in the country.
The positive intent and the will to establish a rule of law across the board, this time including the political circles of the country as well, through formation of an independent JIT must, nevertheless, be acknowledged and the opposing view point circles must remain abstinent of declaring the JIT as vulnerable to political influence, and hence distorting its credibility, and impartial outlook, as it is framed by the beacon of justice, the Supreme Court itself.
The JIT, since 22 May has been actively engaged in questioning the accused, and has summoned Hussain Nawaz, the elder son of PM Nawaz four times, while Hassan Nawaz, the younger, only once. PML-N proudly claims of honouring the SC, and extending every possible support to the JIT in its investigation by presenting themselves before the investigation team whenever summoned.
A letter from Qatari prince has also been received by the JIT via Pakistani Embassy in Qatar following continuous follow-ups. Former Senator Saifur Rehman — a close aide of the prime minister — has stated that “the Qatari prince has verified the contents of his letter to the JIT, and hence there is no need for him to come to Pakistan”. Speaking to a news channel, Rehman sounded confident while claiming that “Prince Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani has no restraints in recording his statement to the JIT, provided they visit Doha for the purpose”.
The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing of Panama Papers case for two weeks following the submission of initial report (in two parts) by the JIT.
Given the situation unfolding at present, what should prevail if both collide head on? Justice or democracy?
The controversies
The JIT, ever since its formation, has been surrounded by several controversies particularly amid the proceedings of its formal investigation.
The most significant to talk of remains the picture of Hussain Nawaz leaked from his visit to the Federal Judicial Academy for interrogation on 28 May raising concerns on the credibility of JIT and its conduct. The opposition parties slammed the PML-N government for leaking the image intentionally in order to gain sympathy of the public, claims denied by the ministry of interior later on.
The Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb termed the publication of the photograph as “a serious breach of investigation rules” while expressing the government’s concerns. Dr. Musadiq Malik, spokesperson for the prime minister, while talking to media stated,” We have already expressed our reservations before the Supreme Court in this regard, since the JIT is functioning under the supervision of the judiciary, it is the responsibility of the judges to take cognizance of such incidents which create doubts regarding the working of the JIT”.
Adding further fuel to the burning fire of controversies surrounding the JIT came the ruling party’s senator Nehal Hashmi threatening the members of the JIT for scrutinising the prime minister and his family and warned them of severe consequences. “Those scrutinising the PM and his family, be warned that you will not be spared, and we will arrange a day of judgment for you”, said Hashmi while addressing a gathering of PML-N workers. Hashmi’s statement was later on disowned by the ruling party as the information minister, Marriyum Aurangzeb, clarified that the remarks made by the senator were entirely his “personal opinion”, the PM and PML-N do not back his statements, and have suspended his party membership and asked the senator to submit his resignation from the senate.
Hashmi, after submitting his resignation, clarified his view point to the chairman senate stating that he did not target any institution, rather made general statements which were quoted out of context by the political opponents. On Tuesday, Hashmi surprisingly took a U-turn, and submitted an application to the chairman Senate’s chamber requesting not to accept his resignation.
Justice to prevail or democracy?
In a country like Pakistan, where political system is subject to uncertainty, and remains vulnerable to instability, a desperation and assertion is evident on part of the democratic forces to let the amateur democracy rule and mature, despite the shortcomings. The latter, however, ironically has also remained deprived of the rule of law and establishment of a just system of governance amid which the need for ensuring supremacy of law and judiciary has never been more urgent.
Given the situation unfolding at present, what should prevail if both collide head on? Justice or democracy?
In an ideal scenario one would definitely choose democracy, but in our society it is high time to pave way for supremacy of law, and delivery of justice at all levels. We must talk about judicialising our democracy. Without establishing a strong judicial foundation, democracy (will of the people) can never sustain.
The task being performed by JIT is dynamic, and an opportunity to serve the aforementioned purpose.
For democracy, justice must prevail, and for justice, JIT must.
