Mohammad Jamil
Though the prime minister’s name is not directly mentioned in the Panama documents, his twice addressing the nation explaining his own position followed by PML-N top leaders’ outpourings have further complicated the situation. The PML-N needs to tackle the matter wisely and not to go into confrontational mode, as it is unlikely that the impact of the Panama leaks will fade away. The current situation is different from what it was when the PTI had launched its 2014 sit-in. Then, all the political parties except PTI and PTA were on the side of the PML-N; but now all political parties except JUI-F have rejected the Terms of Reference framed by the government. The joint opposition on Monday staged walkout from both National Assembly and Senate, demanded debate in parliament over Panama leaks and called for the prime minister to come to clarify his position in the aftermath of Panama leaks.
Opposition leader in National Assembly Syed Khurshid Shah told the Lower House that they will continue boycott of the National Assembly proceedings until Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appears and takes the House into confidence over the Panama investigation. The onus to resolve the issue of Panama leaks overwhelmingly lies on the Prime Minister, and time is the key factor to the outcome of the current political imbroglio – the longer it persists, more intense it becomes. If opposition parties’ point of view is not given a serious consideration, the government will face an extremely difficult situation. Opposition’s current stance towards the form and function of the proposed inquiry commission and its ToRs are rather reasonable and pragmatic. Judicial Commission under the Act VI of 1956 doesn’t adequately empower an inquiry commission to thoroughly probe and conclusively determine any complex question or an issue like Panama leaks probe.
The government should form an inquiry commission on lines of General Elections-2013 Inquiry Commission Ordinance, 2015, after finalizing its ToRs in consultation with the opposition with a view to averting the crisis. The problem is that in case of confrontation between the government and opposition, efforts to address the issues of internal security would be compromised. Some ruling party’s leaders tried to convey an impression that Army Chief’s statement regarding across the board accountability, and punitive action taken against 6 army officers, was part of propaganda to exert pressure on the government. COAS General Raheel Sharif had said: “Across-the-board accountability is necessary for the solidarity, integrity and prosperity of Pakistan; and war against terror cannot be won unless the menace of corruption is uprooted.” Six military officers were dismissed from service after a court of inquiry found them at fault. But it is not the first time that inquiry was held and punitive action taken by the army.
Accountability in the armed forces is an ongoing process; and coincidentally the punitive action was taken when the Panama Papers stories were unfolded. Last year, General Raheel Sharif had also given go ahead to National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for inquiry into DHA scam involving brothers of former COAS Ashfaq Pervez Kayani. In August 2015, two retired generals were punished for corruption amounting to Rs.4.3 billion in the National Logistic Cell (NLC), forfeiting their ranks, decorations, medals, honors, awards, seizure of pension, recovery of personal gains, cancellation of service benefits and all other allied facilities. Yet some politicos and commentriat criticize army, which appears to all intents and purposes intended to run the military down in the popular eye, and not to help improve its act. The constructive criticism however is absent from the whole of the current discourse. Of course, military would not like to see chaos and anarchy in the country.
According to government ToRs, in addition to examining information related to the involvement of Pakistani citizens, persons of Pakistan origin and legal entities in offshore companies in Panama or in any other country, it would also look into the involvement of former and present holders of public office in getting their bank loans or those of their immediate family members written off using political influence. The opposition leaders have rejected the terms of reference and formation of the commission under Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 1956, which they believe has been done for ulterior motives. They believe that instead of confining to the probe to the present and past rulers, the commission has been assigned many tasks such as probing thousands of persons and entities who got their loans written off. The opposition parties also demand of the government to include the investigations by international auditors and forensic experts in the TORs.
Leader of the Opposition Khursheed Shah, Chairman PTI Imran Khan and other leaders have rejected the terms of reference, which they say, should have been decided with the consent of the opposition parties. According to renowned legal and constitutional expert Salman Akram Raja, the process of probing 220 people whose names have been mentioned in Panama Papers may take 50 years. Instead of confining the probe to the present and past rulers, the commission has been assigned many tasks such as probing thousands of persons and entities who got their loans written off using their clout with the rulers. Though information minister Pervaiz Rashid and other PML-N leaders say that proposed Judicial Commission has been mandated to appoint international auditors and forensic experts, but it has not been included in the terms of reference issued by the government. Hence, this clause should be incorporated in the ToRs.
Meanwhile, PML-N has started holding public meetings stating that it is taking the matter to the people of Pakistan. It has to be mentioned that in 1977 the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) had taken out rallies against the polls rigging; and in retaliation the PPP also started staging rallies, which led to confrontation and loss of life. The PPP had agreed to hold reelection on 35 seats, but due to procrastination in talks the law and order situation had become serious, and the country was facing anarchy. It was in this backdrop that late Zia-ul-Haq had promulgated Martial Law in the country. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif can salvage the situation and avert the crises that could lead to undesirable consequences.
