The Panama Leaks case being heard in the Supreme Court of Pakistan is among a few most sensitive, consequential and high profile cases in the history of Pakistan. The moral question that has resulted in the country’s topmost judges to sit in judgment to give its far-reaching verdict is: “Can a person accused of theft hold the office of the Chief Executive of the Country?”
The role of the Plaintiff is being played not just by a few political parties, but also by the people of Pakistan who voted the Prime Minister into power, and in whose interest the honourable judges of the Supreme Court have admitted the case to be heard.
The defendant is the Prime Minister of Pakistan (alongwith his children).
The final verdict of the honourable judges in this case will decide whether one can get away with the consequences of his or her crime if he or she commits it in such a way that the law of the land is made to play deaf and blind.
This point can best be understood in the light of a statement that the Defendant (Prime Minster himself) made in a nationwide broadcast: “If one indulges in high corruption and massive theft, one is unlikely to keep one’s money, companies or properties in one’s own name”.
This is not to suggest that the Prime Minister did indulge in high corruption and massive theft, but the fact that he doesn’t have any money, any companies or any properties in his own name doesn’t PROVE he has not committed massive theft and indulged in high corruption.
Even though the Chief Justice has vowed to judge the case strictly in the light of the Constitution and the law, but the prevalent school of thought in the world says that the Supreme Court judgments eventually become the law. Thus the honourable court has not simply to go through the motions of delivering justice to the People in whose interest the case is being heard, but also has to ensure that Justice has actually and substantively been delivered, and this country’s wronged people have not been further wronged and are not cheated out of Justice on purely technical grounds (Because of the sheer expertise of the Lawyers).
The honourable judges I am sure will realize that in this Court Battle, the Plaintiff i.e the People are far less equipped than the Defendant i.e the Government.
The irony in this case is that it is not just the Prime Minister who is the Government, but also his children.
Let us hope the Eyes of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are not just on the Law Books, but on the Future of this Nation as well.
- Latest
- Trending
