Daily Times

From disqualification for life to punishment of 10 years and fine of £8 million in a criminal case of having assets beyond means, the saga of the rise and fall of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif — three-times elected prime minister — is bound to generate heated debates, controversies and doubts. There are now two distinct camps in the country — one supporting Nawaz, irrespective of his proven corrupt practices, and other supporting his manoeuvred ouster from politics.

The unanimous judgement (PLD 2017 SC 265) by a five-member bench of Supreme Court of July 28, 2018 was a warning for Nawaz, once protégé of the military establishment, and pawn to counter pro-people forces opposing Gen. Zia, to be ready for “more”, if not ready to quit politics. Since he decided to “resist” his and his daughter’s conviction, the powers that be proceeded with the arrest of one of close aides (Fawad Hassan Fawad) — a man who represents a breed of bureaucrats that go for “gains”, showing loyalty to politicians in power but remain ever ready to become an “approver”  when needed.

The ouster/conviction of Nawaz, as per his claim, is the result of challenging the indomitable militro-judicial complex. However, critics say it is for betraying the people and democracy. He tried his best to control and weaken the two powerful institutions — military and judiciary—by creating “loyalists” therein, as he successfully did in civil bureaucracy. However, he miserably failed. He was never serious to take pro-people decisions, establish rule of law and good governance, but was there only to work for self-aggrandisement.

After the judgement in the Panama Case against Nawaz Sharif, there was legitimate demand from all that the apex court should apply the same yardstick to all politicians, businesspersons and mighty members of militro-judicial-civil complex. However, the cases of Imran Khan and Sheikh Rashid proved otherwise. Jahangir Tareen was an exception but his review application stands delayed whereas that of Nawaz Sharif was swiftly taken up and rejected [PLD 2018 SC 1]. Proponents of Nawaz say that it proves that process of accountability has been selective, and is politically motivated.

Much before the verdict against Nawaz Sharif, a division bench of Lahore High Court in its order of March 2, 2017 observed that, “sugar mills owned by the ruling family have brazenly flouted court orders and disregarded the ban imposed by the government on the establishment of new mills… so, what precedent are they setting for others in the country?”As per order of the Lahore High Court in 2017 PLD Lahore 68, ousted premier Nawaz Sharif, his would-be successor younger brother, Shahbaz Sharif, and other family members, were “flouting with impunity the laws of the land”. Even in the wake of this order, they had the cheek to claim, “We are innocent and have been victimised.”

The claim of Nawaz et al of fighting for the “sanctity of vote” is thus hollow. They have been using state machinery and resources for self-aggrandisement. Since Lahore High Court in the sugar mills case did not oblige as in the past, Nawaz and Shehbaz became worried. Their efforts to capture judiciary through friends in establishment also failed. This time message was clear: no more “foul play”, follow the law!

How the “House of Sharif” blatantly violated rule of law is highlighted in Para 6 of JDW Sugar Mills Ltd etc Versus Province of Punjab etc 2017 PLD Lahore 68, revealing their enormous interest in the sugar business:

“One of the main arguments raised by the Petitioners was that Respondent sugar mills are owned by the Chief Minister, Punjab and the Prime Minister of Pakistan along with close family relatives. Hence the Impugned Notification has been issued to benefit their business interest. Further that the Impugned Notification has been issued simply to facilitate and legalize the establishment of new sugar mills owned by the families of the Chief Minister, Punjab as well as the Prime Minister given the ban on establishing sugar mills in the Province. In this regard, it is specifically alleged that Ittefaq Sugar Mills Limited and Chaudhary Sugar Mills Limited are owned by Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Hassan Nawaz Sharif, Hussain Nawaz Sharif, Mrs. Marriyam Nawaz, Mrs. Kalsoom Nawaz and Hamza Shahbaz along with other family members. Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited is owned by Haseeb Ilyas, Zakia Ilyas, Mrs Shahzadi Ilyas and other family members. Abdullah Sugar Mills Limited is owned by Mian Mohammad Ejaz Miraj, Yasmin Riaz and other family members”.

Pakistan under the rule of Sharifs presents a classic model of sham democracy where the rulers flagrantly violate laws to expand their business empires

The above judgement confirmed that Nawaz’s offspring had business interests in Pakistan. However, while explaining their position regarding offshore companies and properties in London, in his two addresses to the nation and speech before the National Assembly as well as in concise statements in Supreme Court, Nawaz categorically said: “My sons have no business links in Pakistan”. Later it was proven that Nawaz had direct links with Capital FZE, and numerous bank accounts that he concealed. Nawaz created assets in the name of his offspring, for which no known sources were explained at any forum, including the Accountability Court. His conviction is thus strictly as per law.

Pakistan under the rule of Sharifs presents a classic model of sham democracy where the rulers flagrantly violate laws to expand their business empires. Democracy is no doubt a system of choice, to represent the will of people, but devious and disingenuous leaders like Nawaz et al are instrumental in discrediting it. Anyone dreaming for “controlled democracy” should also remember that it not a solution but a bigger problem.

Democracy — if truly practiced — embodies some vital elements that are: fair and just electoral process, sovereignty of parliament, separation of powers and independence of judiciary, public accountability and rule of law. Elections alone cannot guarantee these elements. Those at the helm of affairs must realise that democracy is not electioneering per se.

The rule of law embraces at least three principles. The first principle is that the law is supreme over officials of the government as well as private individuals, and thereby preclusive of the influence of arbitrary power. The second principle requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws, which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order. The third principle requires that the relationship between the state and the individual be regulated by law. The new government after elections of July 25, 2018 will have to implement rule of law if it wants to avoid the mistakes committed by earlier regimes that led to their downfall.

The writer is Advocate Supreme Court and Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Email: ikram@huzaimaikram.com; Twitter: @drikramulhaq

Published in Daily Times, July 8^th 2018.