Business Recorder Column July 31, 2017

A strange jurisprudence Rashed Rahman The almost one year old saga of the Panama case before the Supreme Court (SC) finally ended with the disqualification of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on a technicality, not the plethora of charges of corruption, money laundering, obfuscation regarding properties abroad and offshore companies, enjoying wealth beyond known sources of income and being unable to satisfactorily explain the money trail of his and his family’s businesses. The technicality involved not declaring his chairmanship of an offshore company owned by his son and an accrued, but not received, salary thereof. The trajectory of the whole Panama case leaves many questions unanswered and a host of reservations, not the least regarding the jurisprudential precedent set by the SC. The case owed its origins to the Panama leaks, which named many global prominent individuals and families as using offshore companies to hide their wealth stashed abroad. The Sharif family’s names also appeared in the list. Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) attempted to stage a lockdown of Islamabad in November 2016 soon after the Panama leaks in an attempt to reproduce the 2014 sit-in. Both times the demand was for the resignation of Nawaz Sharif, underlined the second time round by the Panama papers revelations. When the lockdown did not take off, the party decided to approach the SC. Imran Khan, in his inimitable style of shooting from the lip, claimed recently that a sitting judge of the SC advised him to abandon street agitation and file a petition before the SC. The court has yet to take notice of the statement, which could amount to contempt. Similarly, Sheikh Rashid’s allegation that Nawaz Sharif offered billions to the SC members of the bench hearing the Panama case in an attempt to save himself has not been taken up by the apex court. These and similar wild statements, some violating precepts of no comment on matters sub judice, others bordering on contempt of court, have been flying about ever since the case began, without inviting any sanctions on their authors, who belong to both the opposition and the ruling PML-N. This liberal attitude of the SC regarding much inappropriate comment on the case during its pendency is nothing if not unprecedented. The petition moved by Imran Khan was originally rejected by then Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Jamali. But the CJP reversed himself later, after the proposed commission of inquiry was also rejected by him as the 1956 law under which it would be set up was toothless. In between, the government and opposition failed to agree on the terms of reference of such a commission of inquiry even under a modified and strengthened law. CJP Jamali privately expressed his intent to dispose of the petition before he retired, but then failed to do so and left the matter in the lap of his successor. The next CJP Saqib Nisar set up a five-member bench to hear the case. This bench produced a split 3-2 decision in April 2017 whereby the minority found Nawaz Sharif not sadiq and ameen (truthful and honest) and therefore liable to be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f). The other three members of the bench sought instead an investigation into the charges by a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). This JIT suffered from the inherent difficulty of obtaining mutual legal assistance from the relevant countries involved in the matter in the absence of bilateral treaties allowing this course. The hurried (60 days) report submitted to the SC’s three-member implementation bench set up to oversee the JIT’s investigations had many loopholes, not the least being reliance on a Pakistani-owned private law firm in the UK to obtain whatever information could be gleaned regarding the Sharifs’ properties abroad, particularly the four Park Lane apartments in London. All the documents thus obtained reportedly are not verified or attested by competent authorities. If so, they would be inadmissible as evidence. When the implementation bench was ready to deliver its verdict after digesting the findings of the JIT report, the night before, the three-member bench was expanded to five judges, including the two honourable judges of the original bench. This manner of changing the composition of the implementation bench that heard the case and examined the JIT report to include two judges who did not is unprecedented in our jurisprudence, and arguably the civilized world’s. Another problem with the admission of the original petition was that it was filed (and heard) under Article 184(3), which gives the SC the power to hear directly a matter of public importance in which the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution may have been violated. Not only did the final verdict of the SC ignore the list of charges against the Sharifs in the petition, there was no explanation how anyone’s fundamental rights (including the petitioner’s) had been violated. The judgement disqualifying Nawaz Sharif has ordered the reopening of cases involving the Sharifs by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). As in the case of the implementation bench monitoring and overseeing the investigation process of the JIT, the verdict recommends to the CJP to nominate a judge of the SC to oversee the NAB investigations and cases in the accountability courts. While both decisions reflect perhaps the SC’s lack of confidence in our investigative and prosecution system, it places the SC in the uncomfortable position of judge, investigator and executioner. This is a radical departure from our traditional jurisprudence, in which subordinate courts are independent of such monitoring by the apex court, which remains the last resort for filing appeals against any verdict by the lower courts. In the case of Article 184(3), no appeal lies beyond the SC, save a review petition before the same bench that pronounced the final verdict. In the present course advocated by the SC, the apex court arguably has gone beyond its traditional mandate and donned the mantle of investigator/prosecutor. With the greatest respect, this is a departure that has grave implications for the future of our jurisprudence. Comment on the case in the mainstream and social media has further muddied an already murky stream. The main protagonists are bogged down in a debate about whether the verdict represents a new dawn of accountability or a political witch-hunt. The former will only become clear if the process of accountability is continued to deal with all the cases of this nature before the SC or Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). If Articles 62 and 63 continue to provide the bedrock of the court’s view as in the Panama case final verdict, there may be few amongst the political class who would survive such an onslaught. The vacuum of leadership that would be opened up thereby may have grave implications for the running of the country. Whether one subscribes to the urban legend of the establishment being behind the ouster of Nawaz Sharif through the Panama case or not, the vacuum of leadership looming if the Articles 62 and 63 broom sweeps clean the Augean stables of our political class promises more power permeating to the military, which may then be in a position to determine which pliable leader/party best suits its strategy in the light of its security and defence priorities. Without stretching the point therefore, niggling thoughts about a ‘judicial coup’ replacing the virtually ruled out traditional takeovers by the military may be evolving into the new norm. This expansion of judicial power by the SC is, and is bound to in times to come, raise serious concerns at this new turn in our jurisprudence. rashed.rahman1@gmail.com rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder editorial July 29, 2017

Game of thrones Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by the Supreme Court (SC) in the Panama case under the Representation of the People Act 1976 for failing to declare his chairmanship of an offshore company belonging to his son, particularly that he did not declare the salary receivable, but not drawn, for this post. This, according to the SC, attracted the provisions of Article 62(1)(f), meaning he was not sadiq and ameen (truthful and honest). The verdict implies that the mountain of charges of Nawaz Sharif and his family living beyond their known sources of income, owning offshore companies and properties abroad that could not be justified through a legitimate money trail (implying money laundering), could not be proved through clinching evidence, despite the backbreaking (and controversial) efforts of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) set up by the SC to investigate the matter. Some commentators have likened the reliance on a relatively minor misdemeanour to arrive at the disqualification to making a mountain out of a molehill. The charges referred to above have been ordered by the SC to be investigated and cases instituted against Nawaz Sharif and his near and dear ones by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). A great deal of comment, complimentary and critical, has already appeared on the media regarding the verdict. From the tone and tenor of the protagonists, it would not be unrealistic to expect this to continue, rendering the SC verdict itself potentially controversial, rather than the ‘historic’ judgement promised by the SC when the case was still ongoing. Briefly, it would not be inaccurate to describe the verdict welcoming party as the opposition and the naysayers and critics as the PML-N and its allies, with a sprinkling of a divided legal community and civil society thrown in for good measure. The whole case and the two verdicts, April 2017 and now July 2017, the composition and manner of investigation by the JIT, the formation and functioning of the (three) benches of the SC and the final grounds for disqualification have all engendered a great deal of controversy and to and fro for the last year or so. The distraction has brought the business of governance virtually to a halt. For a country beset with serious security, economic and political problems, this was a hiatus scarcely affordable. Nevertheless, now that the marathon case has run its course and the final verdict has been accepted with as much grace as the PML-N could muster, it would not be inappropriate to glance at another potential fallout of the case. If the chorus of cries across the political and social divide for across the board accountability and putting the high, mighty and wealthy in the dock for corruption and like misdemeanours is taken note of, it may be an appropriate moment to caution those who are celebrating the case’s outcome as their victory that the verdict may turn out to be a double edged sword. Cases of a similar type are in the courts and before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding sources of income and wealth against Imran Khan, Jahangir Tareen and other Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) leaders. The party’s ranks have expressed concerns that the principle laid down by the SC in the Panama case may come back to haunt them. The closed cases against former president Asif Ali Zardari could potentially be reopened if the demand for across the board accountability acquires more momentum. In short, controversial or not, the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 could come back to haunt the political class entire. Imran Khan, who has led the charge against Nawaz Sharif and his family since the 2013 election, could conceivably end up being hoist by his own petard if he is unable to satisfy the SC and the ECP regarding his own money trail for the London flat he owned and other property matters. Whether, as he claims, everything is kosher in his cupboard or not, the Panama case verdict could well end up opening a Pandora’s box of such cases against the members of the political class. If that were indeed to transpire, it will become increasingly difficult to retain as an exception the traditional self-accountability of powerful state institutions, particularly the judiciary and the military. That would indeed be a change.

Business Recorder editorial July 26, 2017

Oil tankers’ strike The oil tankers’ strike mercifully ended on July 26 after three days of disruption of supplies, which caused long queues of customers at filling stations. The panic buying caused some cities to almost exhaust their stocks, leading to many filling stations shutting down. In other cities, fear of shortages caused filling stations to impose limits on the amount of fuel that could be purchased. In Karachi on the morning of July 26, before the strike was called off, there were incidents of attacks on tankers, including at least one incident of firing in which a Pakistan State Oil tanker driver was wounded. The calling off of the strike ended three days of anxiety, panic and disruption, pointing to the criticality of the fuel supply network for citizens’ and commuters’ normal life to continue and avoid economic hardship and disruption. Although at one point during the strike on July 25, the railways offered to step in and help move fuel around the country, which could have in turn burdened the normal functioning of the railways themselves, it never came to that. The Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) had been pressing for new safety regulations for oil tankers after the devastating accident in Ahmedpur East on June 25, when an oil tanker overturned on a highway and people gathered to harvest leaking fuel from the tanker. In the process, the leaking fuel exploded in a fireball, killing 216 people and injuring 61. In the wake of the tragic accident, OGRA suddenly woke up to the fact that many tankers plying our highways are nor roadworthy. Safety rules have existed for years in this regard, but only on paper. The accident lit a fire under OGRA, which then attempted to overcome its neglect of the implementation of the existing safety rules over the years by insisting on the immediate implementation of new, more stringent safety regulations without bothering to take the stakeholders on board. This arbitrary and hasty style of problem solving and management can be considered the sole reason for a totally unnecessary provocation to strike, as the solution now arrived at shows. The oil tankers association’s demand that the new safety regulations be implemented at a slower pace (and hopefully by overcoming the lacunae in the existing safety and inspection regime) has now been accepted as rational and the only practicable way to move forward. Did this not occur to the high and mighty of OGRA earlier? Far from it, they derided the tankers association as indulging in blackmail and even hinted they thought some oil marketing companies were behind the strike and would be ‘exposed’. The other long standing complaint of the oil tankers association that extortion of bribes by the motorway, traffic and excise police placed a crippling burden on the sector appears to have been ‘accepted’ by the authorities without any indication how they intend to tackle this criminal enterprise. The government’s approach to handling issues appears more reactive than proactive. If the oil tankers issue is not proof enough, consider the recent train drivers’ short-lived strike. The train drivers had a case. They have been ignored amidst the welcome raise in most other railways employees’ wages. Also, the train drivers demanded that their colleagues suspended after accidents and in limbo because of long running inquiries to apportion blame that never seem to reach a conclusion should be reinstated unless their culpability is proved in timely fashion. Not unreasonable demands, but the railway authorities chose to ignore them until the train drivers threatened and then went on strike, leaving many trains stranded nowhere. The authorities responded by arresting the train drivers’ leaders, inducting retired drivers to rescue the stranded trains and passengers and taking a threatening attitude towards this category of railways employees. Whether train drivers or oil tankers, the handling of such issues by the government smacks of neglect until a crisis hits, and then taking arbitrary, harsh and unjust measures to break strikes or, as in the latter case, giving in to perfectly acceptable demands but only after the damage is done. Modern industrial relations handling and approach to critical sectors to avoid disruption is wisdom that appears to have escaped the authorities.

Business Recorder editorial July 22, 2017

Trump administration disintegrating? US President Donald Trump and his administration, barely six months in office, seem entangled in so many webs as to suggest it is on the verge of disintegrating or at the very least becoming increasingly dysfunctional and losing whatever remains of its credibility. The one issue that has put the president and his administration in the dock is the ongoing investigation into the Trump election campaign’s alleged ties to Russia, in the midst of further allegations of Russian attempts last year to influence the election in Trump’s favour. The latest developments in the matter concern the resignation of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, ostensibly in protest at the appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as Communications Director. Similarly, a member of Trump’s legal team dealing with the investigation into his and his camp’s ties with Russia, Mark Corallo, has also resigned. This one-two punch has left the Trump administration looking like it is reeling. The reset in the White House team that Trump seems to have initiated reflects mounting pressure from a broadening investigation into the Russia connection, which could potentially include Trump and his family’s finances. In typically combative style, Trump has stumbled into potentially perilous legal territory by trying to draw a red line for Special Counsel Robert Mueller not to venture into areas beyond the scope of the original inquiry into the Russia connection. Analogies are being drawn between the present investigation and that conducted by independent counsel Kenneth W Starr into President Bill Clinton, which began by reviewing an Arkansas land deal and concluded several years later with the president’s impeachment over a lie about a sexual affair. This underlines the mandate of such special counsel to follow any leads that indicate grey areas or potentially wrong behaviour by incumbent presidents. The Clinton administration saw the investigation as a political witch-hunt and openly challenged Starr. Trump and his team seem to be treading the same path in seeking ‘conflicts of interest’ in Mueller and his team’s efforts. Alarmingly, if Trump’s daily barrage of tweets are anything to go by, the president seems indifferent to constitutional, legal and ethical boundaries, except if they serve his own interests. Trump’s track record of six months in office has raised a great deal of alarm at home and abroad. His demeanour points to what has emerged as the pattern of Trump’s behaviour vis-à-vis real and imagined detractors, including hitherto known allies, backers and loyalists. What Trump seems to want is total personal loyalty, and anyone perceived not to be fully on board in this requirement soon earns either a sacking, supersession, or at the very least a verbal assault that makes the target’s position potentially fragile. What Trump in his inflated ego bubble seems unable to understand is that the US has long established constitutional, legal and ethical norms. For example he seems unable to see clearly that officials in the US system swore allegiance to the constitution, not the person of the president whose team they are on. The separation of powers and checks and balances in the US constitutional construct do not spare even the high and the mighty. The US system has incrementally evolved away from tacitly turning a blind eye to presidents’ faults and not shrinking from impeaching incumbents if warranted. Examples of this from recent years are Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. But Trump seems oblivious of this history, or if he is aware, trumps it by the calculations of what lies in his interest alone. Abroad and at home, critics are ruing the apparent loss of US leadership of the world, an established fact since WWII. Retreat from climate change agreements, unguarded, indiscreet and undiplomatic pronouncements about NATO, Europe and other allies, not to mention China, North Korea, Cuba, etc, paint Trump and his administration as whimsical, incompetent and positively dangerous for the peace and welfare of the globe. Trump may have been elected on the wave of the backlash and resentment against globalisation and other contemporary trends in the world, but the signs of even his diehard supporters starting to have doubts about his fitness for the most powerful office may be pointers to an ignominious end for President Donald Trump’s tenure.

Business Recorder Column July 24, 2017

A century of revolution and counter-revolution – III Rashed Rahman Guerilla movements in the Third World virtually ceased to exist in the 1990s, notwithstanding some notable examples such as Colombia (that long running insurgency is currently in the process of a turn from civil war to a negotiated peace settlement). And in 1991, the Soviet Union imploded and re-emerged as the Commonwealth of (15) Independent States. That construct, aimed at keeping close ties between the newly independent countries that hitherto constituted the USSR, did not prove long lasting and withered on the vine. The factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union are complex and multi-layered, but if one overriding one can be identified it is the inherent difficulties and problems of constructing socialism in a comparatively underdeveloped country, and that too in the face of unremitting hostility and sabotage by the imperialist powers. That inevitably leads the revolution and its leadership into a siege mentality, where survival against imperialist subversion and attempts at restoring the ancien regime dominates over all other considerations. The war communism imposed on the USSR during the life-and-death struggle against the monarchist White Guards and their imperialist supporters soon after the 1917 revolution inevitably produced great hardship for the Soviet people, including hunger and in some areas, starvation. The victory of the revolution in this conflict was therefore achieved at great human cost and suffering. Immediately after the end of the civil war, the Bolsheviks introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) to stimulate a revival of the economy, offering concessions to the rich peasantry (kulaks). Lenin predicted that after its overthrow, the resistance of the expropriated capitalist and large landowning classes increases ten-fold. The class struggle, therefore, could only intensify, despite the revolution’s victory. This perceptive view re-emerged in Stalin’s work, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, after the victory in WWII. His prediction about the need to intensify the struggle against the class enemies of the revolution reflected what hindsight reveals was the growth of capitalist restoration forces that had quietly gathered force as a result of the devastating losses, human and material, in WWII, which fed into a resurgence of silent resentment against the deprivations experienced since the revolution. Stalin’s repression of ‘counter-revolutionary’ dissent, both outside and inside the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), led to his denunciation by new leader Nikita Kruschev in a secret speech to the CPSU Congress in 1956. The leak of the speech (allegedly by the US CIA) evoked unrest in Hungary that year, aimed at an overthrow of the communist regime that had emerged there and in many countries of eastern Europe after the Soviet Red Army liberated them from the Nazi yoke on its way to the final defeat of Hitler in 1945. The Hungarian uprising was crushed, but the questions and issues it threw up were never satisfactorily resolved. These included the nature, not only of the eastern European communist regimes, but even the Soviet Union itself. The ravages of war, the needs of survival of the revolution in the face of awesome internal and external odds, the unwise and unfettered repression of any and all dissent within the CPSU, even if it was not necessarily counter-revolutionary, had alienated the party and government from the people. The 1968 crushing of the Czechoslovakian experiment at reform in the direction of ‘Socialism with a human face’ proved that the Hungarian example was not an isolated phenomenon. Both countries’ developments exposed serious contradictions within the communist system. If the crushing of movements that appeared to Moscow to reflect counter-revolutionary tendencies in eastern Europe was problematic, the adventure in Afghanistan (1979-89) proved the last straw. This invasion and occupation ostensibly was mounted to save the Afghan revolution, being led astray, it was argued, by Hafizullah Amin, who had overthrown and killed Nur Mohammad Tarakai, the leader of the 1978 revolution in Afghanistan. In the process, time has revealed, it killed off the Afghan revolution and, in the process, accelerated the process of collapse of the Soviet Union itself under the weight of its internal contradictions. The backdrop to the 1991 collapse was the attempt by Mikhail Gorbachev, elevated to leader of the Soviet union in 1985, to reform the Soviet system under the rubric perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness). What Gorbachev and the Soviet Union learnt to their cost is that an arguably stagnant, bureaucratised and alienated-from-the-people system is at greatest risk when it tries to reform. The rest is history. The collapse of the Soviet Union provoked unabashed triumphalism in the capitalist west, with British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously declaring: There is no alternative (to free market capitalism). In the wake of the capitalist west’s victory in the Cold War, unbridled capitalism expanded horizontally into the former communist countries as well as the rest of the world (globalisation). It appeared that the bourgeoisie’s victory was so complete that Marxism and socialism were declared passé or even dead. But the Red Mole (Revolution) has a peculiar tendency to prove the reports of its demise as premature again and again after every defeat and retreat. The 1999 Seattle protests against the world’s grouping of pre-eminent capitalist countries (G-7), the Occupy Wall Street movement, the focus on the one percent filthy rich of today’s world in sharp contrast with the inequality and immiseration inflicted on the rest of the 99 percent, the resurgence of the Left in Latin America and Europe, all indicate that capitalism’s claims of final victory (the ‘End of History’ thesis, amongst others) is once again flying in the face of history’s lessons. The human aspiration for a just and equitable society, an idea with which this series began, remains alive and kicking in the contemporary context. The struggles against capitalist-imperialist domination will no doubt adopt different forms and paths (as they are already embryonically indicating), not perhaps the classical forms of the revolutions of the 20th century. But for all its undoubted development of the modern world, capitalism in its moment of greatest triumph still faces the spectre of the peoples of the world challenging the system and, if history is any guide, overcoming or changing it in the direction of a just and equitable society. (Concluded) rashed.rahman1@gmail.com rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder editorial July 19, 2017

India-China border tensions China has briefed foreign diplomats in Beijing, particularly the representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, that its troops have been waiting patiently at the Doklam plateau on the border between China and Bhutan in a standoff with Indian troops but will not wait for an indefinite period. This has the diplomatic community in Beijing worried and some have conveyed their concern to their Indian counterparts in Beijing and Bhutanese counterparts in New Delhi. The issue erupted last month when Indian troops blocked Chinese road works in Doklam in an unarmed confrontation involving bumping chests against each other. China says the Doklam plateau is its territory and whatever its dispute in the area with Bhutan, Indian troops have unnecessarily butted in. Indian media reports say Bhutan asked New Delhi for help in the matter. As it is, Bhutan is dependent on its big neighbour India strategically, politically and economically. The Doklam plateau lies in close proximity to the meeting point of the borders of three countries, China, Bhutan and Sikkim, India having annexed the last named in 1975. China says the Indian troops have trespassed into Chinese territory in the area and attempted to change the status quo dating back to an 1890 agreement between China and the then British colonial authorities in India, which delineated the border in this area. India on the other hand has objected that the Chinese road building activity in the area represents a significant change in the status quo with serious security implications for India. China insists the Indian troops must pull back to avoid an escalation and before a meaningful dialogue on the dispute can be initiated. The ruckus has stirred memories of the 1962 Sino-Indian war over the disputed border stretching from Kashmir to NEFA, which India lost. The Chinese side withdrew its troops from Indian territory once the fighting stopped and offered talks on the border dispute. The matter has seen sputtering talks between the two sides ever since, without a definitive solution in sight. Once again the Chinese have shown exemplary restraint in Doklam and this should encourage steps to defuse the situation and open discussions at the negotiating table. China and India are both emerging powers, with the former poised to enter the superpower club, based on the rapid advances in its economy over the last three decades. This economic clout has translated into military might through a modernisation of the huge People’s Liberation Army. India on the other hand is also an aspirant for entry into the big international boys’ club. It harbours fears about China’s outreach in its periphery to the west (Pakistan), south (Sri Lanka and the Seychelles) and southeast (Myanmar, etc), characterising increasing Chinese influence in these countries as Beijing’s strategy of stringing together a ‘necklace of pearls’ to ring India and contain it. Given this rivalry and jockeying for space and influence at a regional and global level, it should perhaps come as no surprise that the smallest incident on the long and sensitive Sino-Indian border can quickly cause bristling on both sides. But it is not in the interests of either side, nor the region nor the world, for such ‘misunderstandings’ and their subsequent frictions to be allowed to come to a pass where military conflict looms. A peaceful competition for global clout is one thing, attempting to do the other side down through military muscle is quite another. Both sides must exercise restraint on the China-Bhutan border ruction, withdraw their troops to positions to restore the status quo ante, and make sincere efforts to sort things out peacefully. Friendly countries could and perhaps should play whatever facilitating role they can to defuse tensions and initiate negotiations.

Business Recorder editorial July 18, 2017

Three-ring circus Ever since the Panama case started, there has been an unseemly cacophony of comment and even ‘advice’ to the Supreme Court what verdict to give, coloured of course by the particular political bent of the commentator. Whereas the media, especially electronic, has gone to town with such discussions and pronouncements, perhaps the most unsavoury has been the ‘circus’ put on by supporters and opponents of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family outside the Supreme Court after every hearing of the case. Here the rostrum to address a media eager to lap up and reproduce every last syllable and word of the heavyweight spokesmen of the government and the opposition has often become a bone of contention, with the two sides vying for, and sometimes pushing for, ‘capture’ of the platform. Unseemly as all this seems, it is what has been on offer in all these pronouncements that is the most concerning. Not only has this rowdiness and free-for-all commentary been unprecedented in a matter that is sub judice, it has not done the respect and dignity of the Supreme Court any good. Superior courts in the past have not shown the extreme patience with this three-ring circus that the Supreme Court bench has displayed. Whether its hesitation to intervene and stop this show has been motivated by a reluctance to be seen as placing curbs on freedom of expression or some other consideration, arguably the restraint has not done the apex court’s reputation and respect much good. The media, especially TV, has in any case given free rein to unrestrained comment on the case and its outcome to both government ministers and opposition leaders. This is bad enough, but the vituperation on display before the Supreme Court by rival spokesmen has been a stunningly unprecedented media circus. With the rise in the political temperature because of the increasingly shriller vituperation by both sides, it was perhaps inevitable that push came to shove between the workers of both sides of the political divide before the Supreme Court on July 17, the day the court started hearing the case in the light of the Joint Investigation Team’s report. Mercifully, the situation was saved from deteriorating into a physical clash by the timely intervention of the police. But the incident shows how the fraught situation in the country because of the weight of expectations from the Supreme Court in the Panama case could so easily lead to physical clashes and even violence between the protagonists of both sides. It would perhaps be in the fitness of things for the Supreme Court bench to take notice of this potentially explosive scenario and forbid the holding of these public addresses to the media outside the courtroom after every hearing. To the objections of the defenders of freedom of expression it can be argued that it is the venue that is sensitive and loaded with implications for the respect and dignity of the Supreme Court. The warriors of both sides can and are welcome to take their diatribes elsewhere and onto the already available TV screens to satisfy their unbridled keenness to steal a march on their rivals after every hearing. The three-ring circus before the Supreme Court is only one of, and perhaps the most visible manifestation of the effects of the case. In the country as a whole meantime, the situation resembles nothing better than a paralysis of governance by a ruling PML-N seemingly fighting for its continued grip on power and to fend off adverse interpretations of the outcome of the case. With the massive distraction of the Panama case, it seems the government has been rendered virtually dysfunctional. The damage to the interests of the country may be unquantifiable, but promise to be massive once the shouting and dust kicked up dies down. The case, if the pronouncements of the two contending sides are taken into account, has taken on the hues of a ‘do or die’ effort by the incumbents and their would-be topplers. With hindsight, we may come to rue the invisible damage wrought by the all too highly visible war of words swirling around the Panama case.