On May 5, the Supreme Court of Pakistan constituted a six-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT) as ordained in its verdict in the Panama Papers case. The members of the JIT are: Brigadier Nauman Saeed from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Brigadier Kamran Khurshid from the Military Intelligence (MI), Aamer Aziz from the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), Bilal Rasool from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), Irfan Naeem Mangi from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and Wajid Zia from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The JIT shall have all powers given by the law relating to investigation including those available in the Code of Criminal Procedures of 1898; NAB Ordinance of 1999; and the FIA Act of 1975. In 2011, the Supreme Court of India had constituted a JIT that included a senior officer of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) to probe white colour crimes and stashing of black money abroad (in Ram Jethmalani & Others vs Union of Indian & Other). The critics in Pakistan objecting to the inclusion of personnel from ISI and the MI should read the verdict delivered by the Apex court of the largest democracy of the world in that case. In its Panama Papers verdict, the SCP has observed that all executive authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the JIT. It has made it clear that if and when any person fails or refuses to associate with or appear before the JIT or refuses to cooperate or provide oral or documentary information required by it, the matter shall be immediately brought to the notice of the court for taking appropriate action. The entire record of offshore companies belonging to the first family can easily be obtained by the JIT by seeking assistance of the International Union for Counteraction of Criminality (www.iucc.eu). The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) may take a plea that old tax record of late Mian Muhammad Sharif is not available so it is not possible to verify the family’s assets and incomes earned in Qatar. However, tax declarations of the Sharif family during the period under probe are available with the Lahore High Court (in Mian Muhammad Sharif vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lahore 2015). The record reveals that Mian Muhammad Sharif had never declared any investment in Qatar or disclosed any income earned from there, as claimed in two Qatari letters. The evidence relating to money laundering in Hudabiya Papers Mills Ltd and Hudabiya Engineering Ltd is also available with the court. The job of the JIT will be further made easy by the FIA’s comprehensive report, prepared under the supervision of Mr Rehman Malik. The report was presented in the SC during the hearing of the Panama Papers case and it contains documents establishing illegal transfer of funds and use of fake accounts for money laundering. There is a silver lining in court cases involving concealment of assets and liabilities and tax avoidance and non-compliance by the Sharif family and PTI leaders Imran Khan and Jahangir Tareen. These cases can lead to purging of our national politics of tax evaders, beneficiaries of loan write-offs and plunderers of national wealth — no matter which political party they belong to. This issue was highlighted by SC in Rai Hassan Nawaz v Haji Muhammad Ayub & others (2017 PLD 70 SC) in the following words: “An honest and truthful declaration of assets and liabilities by a returned candidate in his nomination papers furnishes a benchmark for reviewing his integrity and probity in the discharge of his duties and functions as an elected legislator. His statement of assets and liabilities along with other financial disclosures contemplated by Section 12 (2) of the Representation of People Act (ROPA) of 1976 provide the Election Commission of Pakistan and the general public with a picture of both his wealth and income. Such disclosures are crucial for demonstrating the legitimacy and bona fides of the accrual and the accumulation of economic resources by such a candidate. In other words, the said disclosures show the returns received from his economic activities and can indicate if these activities may be tainted with illegality, corruption or misuse of office and authority. This important aspect of the financial disclosures by a contesting candidate has been noticed by this Court in Muhammad Yousaf Kaselia vs Peer Ghulam (PLD 2016 SC 689).” The court has further aptly observed: “where assets, liabilities, earnings and income of an elected or contesting candidate are camouflaged or concealed by resort to different legal devices including benami, trustee, nominee, etc. arrangements for constituting holders of title, it would be appropriate for a learned Election Tribunal to probe whether the beneficial interest in such assets or income resides in the elected or contesting candidate in order to ascertain if his false or incorrect statement of declaration under Section 12 (2) of the ROPA is intentional or otherwise.” It is a universally accepted principle that democracy and rule of law go hand in hand but both remain mere clichés without transparency and accountability. It is a constitutional obligation for persons aspiring for membership of legislatures to be honest and sagacious. Since elected members are custodians of public trust, if they commit any lapse in respect of declarations of their assets, liabilities, and tax obligations — while contesting elections or thereafter as members of legislatures — exemplary punishment should be awarded. The writer is Advocate Supreme Court and Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Email: ikram@huzaimaikram.com; Twitter: @drikramulhaq