…the JIT surely has made a blunder. In fact it never made a serious attempt to verify the contents of the Qatari letter as is evident in the correspondence between the JIT and the Qatari Prince.
The much awaited JIT report was submitted in the Supreme Court on 10th of July which recommends filing of a reference against the Prime Minister and his sons, maintaining that they had failed to satisfy the committee in regards to the questions that were framed by the SC to be probed and some of the documents presented by the Sharif family in their defence were fabricated. In drawing its conclusions the committee has relied on some documentary evidence collected by it that negated the claims of the Sharif family as well as on some assumptions and conjectures which have been extensively reported in the media and need not be detailed here. The report as also pointed out by the committee is not conclusive and further investigations might also be required. It is now the prerogative of the apex court either to accept the contents of the reports in toto, some of its conclusions or even reject it or accept the recommendations made in the report for the filing of the reference against the Prime Minister and his sons.
In the meantime however the government has out rightly rejected the JIT report and indications are that a petition against the report will be filed in the SC before the next hearing date in which a legal challenge will be mounted by the defendants against some of the conclusions and assumptions made in the report. It is their legal right to exhaust all legal avenues available to them to defend themselves. Even before the report was presented the position taken by the defendants was that the letter of the Qatari prince was their major defence in regards to the money trail and therefore his evidence and confirmation in regards to the contents of his letters was indispensable to meet the demands of justice.
Without contesting the conclusions drawn by the JIT, which will surely be taken care of by the defendants, it is pertinent to point out that the position taken by the defendants had great merit since their entire defence depended on the Qatari letters. But the JIT in its report has maintained that in view of the other evidence collected by the committee the letter of the Qatari prince had become irrelevant. I am afraid the position taken by the JIT is against the order of the SC itself. The SC in its order regarding the formation of JIT had pinpointed out the issues that it thought needed to be further probed including the authenticity of the Qatari letter in these words “whether sudden appearance of the letters of Hammad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani is a myth or a reality” As is evident the apex court wanted the JIT to confirm whether the letters had actually been written by the one to whom they were ascribed or not. In view of the fact that the Sharif family had presented those letters as their defence in the Panama case, it assumed great significance as to the ultimate outcome of the case and the right of the defendants expecting fair trial.
By not considering the need to verify the contents of the Qatari letters even in writing as per JIT’s own options given to the prince, like it has done in case of getting information from Virgin Island regarding the ownership of off-shore companies, the JIT surely has made a blunder. In fact it never made a serious attempt to verify the contents of the Qatari letter as is evident in the correspondence between the JIT and the Qatari Prince.
Apart from the conundrum of Qatari letters a number of other developments like leakage of Hussain Nawaz’s picture, tapping of telephones of the Prime Minister House, Whatsapp calls in regards to selection of the members of JIT, allegations by JIT against government institutions regarding tampering of the record and forceful denials by the concerned departments, allegations of harassment against JIT by family members of the Prime Minister and the reservations expressed about some members of the JIT, also created doubts about credibility of the JIT. These issues will have to be addressed by the SC before further proceedings in the case in the interest of justice.
I am sure that the apex court would keep all the factors in view while giving its final verdict on the case because the decision one way or the other is going to impact future political landscape in the country besides legal implications. Whatever verdict the SC delivers all the parties will be bound to accept it and there can be no two opinions about it.
Unfortunately the Panama Leaks has become a highly politicised case and the petitioners have been trying to reap political advantage out of it and even have been accusing the government of targeting the Judiciary and the Army, a card that they played to pit these institutions against the government. I have been writing in columns that in view of the political nature of the case, the SC should not have in the first place entertained the petitions of the political parties against only one family. Panama Leaks had names of 450 people. As a matter of principle and in the interest of justice and rule of law all those named in the Panama papers should have been probed though a judicial commission. Targeting only the Sharif family has given the impression of a witch-hunt rather than accountability. The petitioners also have a myriad of skeletons in their cupboards and their motive to petition the SC on the Panama Leaks is not seeking justice or the setting up a fool-proof mechanism for across the board accountability. It actually stems from political vendetta.
The SC even now can contribute to the beginning of the process of across the board accountability by ordering a wider probe against all those named in the Panama Leaks and also give directions to the government to bring in a comprehensive legislation to check illegal flight of money from the country and putting in place a mechanism that ensures across the board accountability.
The judges must remember that the nation has already suffered enormously by some decisions given by the judges of the apex court like the doctrine of necessity which set up an example for validation of the unconstitutional acts of the dictators with all the disastrous consequences. In the current case they are also going to set a precedent with implications for the future. Their decisions and actions will also be judged by the people of Pakistan as well as the history. Through their decision they will be creating history and therefore they need to create a worth emulating history that contributes to the strengthening of the state structures and establishment of rule of law in the real sense.
