Respecting the court
The Supreme Court is not a circus. It is the highest court in the land and it must be respected as such — no matter what kind of political theatre some are determined to create.
The Panama Papers issue is now a matter before the Supreme Court, and the various positions of litigants and respondents are being heard by a bench led by no less than the chief justice of Pakistan.
The court has indicated its seriousness of purpose and the politicians and respondents embroiled in the matter have publicly declared their willingness to submit to the court’s adjudication on it.
There must rest the issue until the court delivers its decision — and certainly the circus-like atmosphere created by competing political statements made to the media on the steps of the court needs to end forthwith.
If the court itself is rightly reluctant to be seen to be casting a chilling effect on free speech, especially of the political variety, perhaps the politicians themselves should reconsider their behaviour on the sacred space that is the Supreme Court.
Inside the Supreme Court, on its premises generally and in the immediate vicinity outside, politicians should refrain from bickering and making unseemly political statements. It may not be their intention but the net effect is creating a perception that the Supreme Court is being politically influenced and coming under undue pressure.
To be sure, the decision of the court could be career-altering, and perhaps life-changing, for some of the country’s political leaders. But it is firm tradition and the sound institutional practice of the Supreme Court that litigants and respondents speak through their lawyers alone.
When the court wants to hear directly from political leaders, the court will ask them to speak. What applies inside the court should also apply immediately outside it.
Hard-hitting political statements, exchange of barbs and jibes, and political banter with the Supreme Court building up in the immediate background of politicians making such statements, unacceptably drags the court into the political realm.
Where politicians are failing, it could have been expected that the country’s senior legal fraternity would behave in a more dignified manner. But there too there is a spectacle being created as senior office holders of apex legal associations trade barbs and attack each other for alleged political affiliations and politicisation of the superior judiciary.
Where lawyers are representing political clients, they can and should forcefully defend their clients’ legal position. However, legal associations and regulatory bodies must not be run as political parties.
Much like politicians contest politics, but must respect the sanctity of parliament, elected leaders of the legal community can take rival positions but must show regard for the sanctity of the judicial process. Let the Supreme Court continue its work in an environment free of undue pressure, threat or intimidation.
Khanani’s arrest
THE arrest and subsequent guilty plea submitted by what was once one of Pakistan’s biggest currency dealers raises important questions about the abilities of the country’s law enforcers. Many members of the Khanani and Kalia families were involved in their currency business and arrested back in 2008 for involvement in hundi/ hawala transactions that allegedly led huge sums of money to be ferried out of the country. Estimates provided by the FIA at the time suggested that almost 40pc of all currency transfers from Pakistan were managed by Khanani and Kalia International, and in the months leading up to the arrest of some senior company officials, including owners and employees, in November 2008, billions of dollars had been flown out of the country. Even though the FIA raided their premises and confiscated their computers, meticulously going through the records, and filed multiple cases against the company and its owners and directors, there was not a single conviction.
Yet, within two years, the US authorities not only carried out a simple sting operation but were able to arrest and persuade Altaf Khanani to plead guilty in one of their courts. How did the Pakistani authorities lose this case so badly and the US act on it so fast? The answer is not simple, and the manner in which the cases were mishandled reveals a lot. Across the board, a series of simple and difficult-to believe errors of this sort added up to acquittals for all accused and their eventual release. We could attribute this to incompetence, but it would take a very methodical sort of incompetence to achieve such a feat. Clearly, there were powerful forces at play to thwart the course of justice, and those forces apparently operated the machinery of the law very deftly through a series of interventions that were small enough to be invisible yet sufficiently meaningful to kill the case. It is difficult to point a finger at the political government of the time considering it had itself ordered the raids and investigation. The whole case presents an abiding mystery, and the recent arrest and guilty plea tell us that there was a fair amount of wrongdoing at work. It is imperative that the case be revisited in this country, and the government make a renewed attempt to seek justice in the matter in light of all the facts that have been revealed in the US court.
Nighat Dad’s award
WHEN campaigning for democracy, digital governance and security, Pakistan needs determined individuals to lead from the front. In this respect, the achievements of Nighat Dad, a lawyer and digital rights activist, are valuable. Her Digital Rights Foundation supports women victims of online violence and educates the public about online privacy settings — especially significant as information is misused online. Over the weekend, Ms Dad was awarded the Dutch government’s Human Rights Tulip Award 2016 — a well-deserved honour for upholding the right to internet expression and promoting women’s rights. Founded in 2012, Ms Dad’s not-for-profit organisation teaches women how to respond to online harassment; it has also campaigned against cybercrime legislation that gives the state powers of online surveillance. The citation explains how Ms Dad, despite receiving threats, has fought to improve adherence to human rights in a “unique and innovative way”.
In 2012, when she started talking about online privacy, women and technology were perceived an uneasy fit in Pakistan. Since then, not much has changed for women internet users who are repeatedly harassed and trolled. Given societal conservatism, shame and ‘honour’ stop women from reporting trolls. With some 23m Facebook accounts registered in Pakistan, it is primarily women, especially those in the public domain, who are subjected to cyber bullying — for instance, journalists in unpoliced spaces. With cases of online sexual harassment increasing and the FIA investigating hundreds each year, online insecurity is reflective of misogynistic offline behaviour and can contribute to a culture of real-world fear. Uncovering the identity of trolls will not always stop the abuse, although naming and shaming them often works. In the longer term, the state will need to consider, in partnership with digital rights groups, how social media can create proper online protections and a safe environment without focusing on censorship. Meanwhile, when determination drives innovation and human rights protection, it calls for praise. So does Ms Dad’s promise of realising her next project — Pakistan’s first cyber harassment helpline.
Published in Dawn November 8th, 2016