The ECL controversy
The federal
cabinet has decided to await receipt of written orders issued by the Supreme
Court (SC) on removal of names of Chairman Pakistan People’s Party Bilawal
Bhutto Zardari and Sindh Chief Minister (CM) Murad Ali Shah’s from the Exit
Control List (ECL). The SC has intervened to remove the anomaly in the Joint
Investigation Team’s (JIT’s) report in the fake bank accounts case and ordered
their names be struck off the ECL in which they had been included as part of a
wholesale tally of 172 persons. The court found it unacceptable that young
Bilawal, who Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar described as
carrying the legacy of his slain mother Benazir Bhutto, should have been
mentioned in the report without any proof. Similarly, the court castigated the
JIT counsel for including the name of the CM of the second largest province of
the country as though he would flee the country. The CJP also inquired whether
the authors of the report realised the implications of this action for the
solidarity of the federation. Farooq Naek, the counsel for Asif Zardari, one of
the 172 placed on the ECL despite he and his sister Fayal Talpur having
surrendered their passports when they appeared before a banking court hearing
the case, and Asim Mansoor, brother of Attorney General Anwar Mansoor, were
given similar relief. The court ordered the National Accountability Bureau
(NAB) to carry out its investigation independently into the case within two
months and only file references against the Sindh CM if needed after affording
him a hearing. The SC gave short shrift to the argument of the JIT counsel that
Bilawal’s name was included because he was a major shareholder and director of
Park Lane Private Limited, which had allegedly misappropriated Rs 1.5 billion. Now
the SC has remanded the case for NAB investigation with directions not to
impugn serious corruption charges against any individual unless warranted by
facts and evidence.
While the PPP
has heaved a sigh of relief at this turn of events in the SC, the government
refuses to let go of the bone between its teeth. Inevitably, it fell to
Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry to trot out the government’s usual rhetoric
against the opposition leadership, laced with colourful language that in any
discourse would be considered unparliamentary and insulting. The previous order
of the SC to the federal cabinet to review the list of 172 persons placed on
the ECL was avoided by setting up a special committee for the purpose under the
Interior Ministry headed by none other than Prime Minister Imran Khan. Now the
government has decided to await written orders of the court in this behalf. The
government’s reluctance stems from the way ex-finance minister Ishaq Dar fled
the country in the prime minister’s aircraft on the pretext of attending a
meeting abroad as a cabinet minister and was thus able to avoid accountability.
The government could well seek review of the court’s order after it has had the
opportunity to examine it.
While Asif
Zardari and Faryal Talpur’s interim bail has been extended till January 23, the
questions raised by the government’s approach to accountability generally, and
the drive against the PPP leadership in particular, go to the heart of the
issue. The accountability campaign has suffered from the perception, despite
constant denials by the government, that it is not independent. The PPP and the
PML-N have been describing it as politically motivated and a witch-hunt. Certainly
the discovery of the fake bank accounts scandal and allegations surrounding the
role of Asif Zardari and others, including the Omni group, is sufficiently
troubling to warrant investigation and charges if the evidence points in that
direction. But the essential principle of law that a suspect or even someone
charged with white collar crime be considered innocent until proved guilty,
cannot be dispensed with despite some of the draconian powers of arrest and
physical remand with which NAB is endowed. Guilt or innocence on the basis of
presumption cannot in any case provide a satisfactory outcome. Only due
process, with the defendants given a fair trial and opportunity to defend
themselves, conforms to the irreducible foundations of the rule of law. Seeking
‘shortcuts’, no matter how intense the temptation for reasons other than legal
soundness, can only serve to erode that rule of law without which any society
would fail to answer to the description of a modern, civilised entity.
No comments:
Post a Comment