Daily Times

Recent awakening of state institutions and national media against corruption and malpractice has thinned the lines between prosecution and persecution. Media, government and superior judiciary are not upholding the difference between the accused and the convicted. This regrettable tendency is making a mockery of the system of checks and balances which is the core of liberal democracy. Leaving behind their original responsibilities, almost all powerful institutions including judiciary and media have thoughtlessly assumed an anti-corruption role and started bashing the affluent and prominent persons facing investigations. Consequently, both quality of prosecution and the rights of the accused are seriously being compromised in Naya Pakistan.

Prime minister and his cabinet devote significant amount of time and energy to accuse opponents of dishonesty and fraud. In doing so, they sound more threatening and reactionary than firm and concerned. What premier Imran Khan is failing to understand is that corruption is only one of the many serious issues facing the country. His singular focus on anti corruption at home and abroad is doing more harm than service to his cause of welfare state. Today, firebrand information minister is famous for his unfeeling verbal attacks on opposition in the parliament and on TV talk shows. Similarly, ministers for railways and communications are also quite well-known for indulging in hard talk against opposition parties. Such activities generate a destructive competition among ministers that leaves little incentive for focused governance of ministerial portfolios.

In order to make Pakistan a welfare state in the true sense of the term, institutions such as the judiciary and accountability bodies must isolate themselves from the controversial world of media as much as possible. They should realize that popular sentiment is not a true indicator of accomplishment for non-elected state institutions

Superior judiciary, which is expected to protect human rights of all citizens including the accused, is more intimidating than governmental accountability bodies for those who are facing corruption charges. In Court Room Number 1, senior civil servants and public representatives are frequently being threatened with their likely disqualification if they tend to oppose observations of the honorable bench. In result, the burden of proof is effectively shifted to the defense from the prosecution. Therefore, legal acumen and validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution side evades focused attention. So, the accused faces prosecution in court on one hand, and persecution in media on the other.

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is also in the race to be the centre of gravity in current activism against financial embezzlement. NAB is counting on high-profile investigations and arrests instead of strong prosecution and convictions for its success. Therefore, the bureau makes sure that the information on investigations against business tycoons or politicians is duly shared with news media. Moreover, chairman NAB makes occasional media appearances and issues statements that occupy space in headlines and primetime. Resultantly, a media trial of the accused begins long before actual reference can be filed in court of competent jurisdiction by investigation agencies.

Seemingly, all state institutions including judiciary, NAB and government are battling to get maximum airtime in order to gain more prominence and public appreciation. Any cautious analysis of content of electronic media would reveal that most of the airtime is dedicated to corruption related debates and accusations. Surprisingly, statements of chief justice of Pakistan and information ministers of Punjab and Federation along with speeches of prime minister and chairman NAB constitute much of the usual content on electronic media.

Moreover, legal validity and relevance of the evidence available to anticorruption agencies against the accused is discussed from 6:00 to 12:00 on broadcast media every evening. In the morning, the debate is often replicated in the court of law and some more material is produced for subsequent discussion on media that afternoon. This new role of media has made it a Khuli Kachehri or public court in which analysts are judges and public at large is jury. In such parallel courts, persecution has replaced prosecution and justice is altered with rhetoric.

In order to make Pakistan a welfare state in true sense of the term, institutions such as the  judiciary and accountability bodies must isolate themselves from controversial world of media as much as possible. They should realize that popular sentiment is not a true indicator of accomplishment for non-elected state institutions. Similarly, prime minister is supposed to formulate policies to strengthen legal-justice system in the country that can ensure accountability without discrimination and maltreatment. He should further revisit his government’s obsession with persecuting accountability.

The writer teaches Political Science at GC University Lahore and can be reached at aamir9465@gmail.com

Published in Daily Times, December 25^th 2018.