Admittedly, the ongoing Panama case is a momentous development with implications for the country. This is why it dominates the Pakistani mediascape. Television channels and their popular anchorpersons have had field evenings through their talk shows predicting the outcome of the case. Every day, after hours-long hearing in the apex court, media persons dissect each and every remark made by honorable judges and support (or demolish) the arguments presented by lawyers of both parties. In effect, this has led to a parallel faux-legal proceeding on prime time TV and the newspapers. Such parallel proceedings on a sub judice case is simply worrying, and sometimes bordering on the unlawful. But most importantly, it gives way to dispensing with the media ethics of objective reporting and discussion in larger public interest. The sad reality is that many of the private television channels and associated newspapers have been reporting Panama case proceedings in a partisan manner. A particular media house wants the immediate resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Another large media group is supporting the government and critically examining the proceedings to exert pressure on judges, rivals of the ruling leadership and lawyers. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) however, has been conspicuous by its silence. Even though the Supreme Court hearing has ended, there is a lesson to be learnt here. PEMRA must step ahead and discharge its duties to regulate this madness and ill-informed, agenda-laden noise in the media. The Supreme Court in the past has taken notice of over-the-top coverage by news channels of judicial proceedings. This time it has been rather lax from reporting that is prejudicial to the ends of justice and the necessity of a fair trial. For several days now, television programming has debated what the Supreme Court will do in the following morning. In an effort to sensationalise the question becomes: will the Prime Minister be disqualified tomorrow? Many such mornings have passed and the questions raised have been simply at variance with the dictates of laws, procedures and norms that courts follow. Unfortunately, such media coverage is tantamount to the undermining of judicial process and fair trial, which is the right of all parties involved in the case. Even though it is late for the Panama case — the Supreme Court needs to intervene and set guidelines that, without undermining the freedom of expression, must not subvert an untainted judicial process. It’s a tricky balance but it needs to be achieved for the future stability of the country. Meanwhile, the political class across the spectrum also needs to introspect. The PML-N, PTI and other parties are competing intensely within both legal and political arenas. Such competition is part of the democratic contest but must not come at the expense of twisting legal processes and pressurising judges. Political parties provide ample ammunition to the media through their daily press talks outside the Supreme Court and via press conferences. It is time that better sense prevail and outlandish media adjudication with prime time prosecutors and judges give way to informed reporting and analyses. Media houses need to think beyond their immediate profit motive while political parties should remember that media trials are akin to spectacles of mob justice. This is neither good for the democracy nor the health of the media. * Published in Daily Times, July 22nd , 2017.