Justice Zaheer Anwar Jamali’s most memorable moment as the Chief Justice of Pakistan arguably is his prompt refusal to form a commission to investigate the Panama papers scandal when it just broke surface. His justifiable position - that the current commission powers were inadequate - and his obvious distaste for embroiling himself in a political tussle, led to a protracted battle between the political parties for the better part of 2016, which came to a head when Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) marched on Islamabad.
Seeing the unrest his hesitation had caused, Justice Jamali decided to finally head the bench looking into the matter, defusing the political tension, but once more it seems that the Chief Justice has no stomach to pass a judgement that can make or break a government. Citing the winter vacations and his upcoming retirement, the Chief Justice adjourned the case till next year, virtually dissolving it and instructing all arguments to be presented anew, and hinting that even still the court will form a commission to investigate the claims rather than pass a judgment as is.
The Panama scandal hearings are back at square one - and this time because of the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice’s upcoming retirement was a known fact, at a set date, as was the knowledge that the bench will be reconstituted if the case is unresolved till then. Why then, did Justice Jamali decide to form a bench under his own leadership? Had he constituted another bench without his personal participation, this debacle could have been avoided - an action that the Supreme Court should have expected.
Of course a newly constituted bench can hear this case just as well, but the off-shoot of this reset and delay is a political atmosphere that is decrying the Supreme Court, whereas it had put complete confidence in it’s abilities before. Who will be the new bench member? What will be his stance on the issue? Will the new Chief Justice - who is viewed by the PTI as being sympathetic to the government - have any effect on the proceedings? These questions now taint the Supreme Court’s actions, and will continue to do so regardless of its decision.
The decision also increasingly seems to point to the formation of a one-judge commission to probe the documents presented, another step backwards in terms of legal proceedings. The court is essentially divesting itself of responsibility to come to a definitive conclusion and putting it into the hands of a commission. While it is well within it’s rights to do so and the complexity of the case require extensive examination, the obvious implication is a damaging one. Once more the apex court has hesitated to make politicians accountable.