Business Recorder editorial Nov 22, 2017

Where are we going? The accountability court hearing Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s case regarding possession of assets beyond known sources of income has rejected his counsel’s plea to be exempted from appearance on medical grounds. This order followed the counsel’s submission of a fresh medical certificate that specifically barred him from travelling until the doctors in London had examined him on November 27. Further, he raised the issue of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) not having verified so far the two previous medical reports as per the court’s earlier direction. He pleaded with the court that an audio-visual arrangement could be set up to allow the court to see the medical condition of the accused. But the NAB prosecutor opposed the request on the grounds that the medical report did not fulfil the legal requirements of the UK’s Criminal Procedure Rules 2014, did not mention the expertise and qualifications of the doctor concerned, and that none of the material the doctor had relied on in his diagnosis had been attached. To add to the saga, a NAB investigation officer deposed that he had raided the residences of Dar in Lahore and Islamabad after non-bailable arrest warrants were issued for him but failed to find him there. The conclusion the sleuth drew from this was that Dar was deliberately concealing himself from legal proceedings and had reportedly absconded to England. He should therefore be declared a proclaimed offender. Sherlock Holmes would have been proud. The court in its wisdom then dismissed Dar’s application seeking exemption from appearance till his recovery. Further, it declared him an absconder and issued a notice to his guarantor asking why the Rs five million surety may not be considered forfeited. Mercifully, the court deferred any order to confiscate Dar’s, or rather a trust’s properties in Lahore that runs a children’s charity. The haste and hurry with which the accountability court is proceeding in this case is of a piece with the accountability cases against the Sharifs. Speedy justice may be a desirable goal, but not at the expense of normal due process. Of course the fire has been lit under NAB and the accountability courts by none other than the apex court, which has even appointed a monitoring judge of the Supreme Court to supervise the accountability courts’ proceedings and ensure its six month deadline to wrap up the cases is met. This continuing tale has aroused concerns amongst independent jurists. The courts increasingly are becoming the battleground for matters political. Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen are facing cases of disqualification in the Supreme Court. The Sharifs and Dar are arraigned before accountability courts. There are reports Asif Zardari and Faryal Talpur may soon have accountability cases against them reopened. Meanwhile the courts have found it necessary to issue orders that seem difficult to comply with. For example, the Islamabad High Court has issued contempt notices against the capital’s officers for not following its orders to clear the Faizabad sit-in. Now even the Supreme Court, hearing a separate case, has issued notices to administrative and police officials to submit reports on the same issue. The executive and parliament seem to be nowhere in the picture. Judicial activism seems to be peaking. The Supreme Court seems ready and willing to invoke its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) in matters that may or may not involve the fundamental rights (as opposed to inconvenience) of citizens. The country seems to be inexorably grinding towards a denouement that may be unforeseen and unintended, but may nevertheless throw the whole democratic edifice out of kilter. Surely this is not something anyone, let alone the honourable members of the higher judiciary, desire. Some modicum of judicial restraint therefore may not be a bad thing.