Higher ethos and foreign funding

Beyond comprehension for a common man as to why a party that preaches accountability, avoids conclusion of the issue

Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan has vehemently criticised current coalition government on the ground that upon being accused of corruption or maladministration they, instead of clearing their own name, tend to cast an equally heinous, if not worse, allegation on the accuser. In all honesty, his criticism seemed valid as it was, and still is, indeed a rampant practice in all of our prime-time political talk shows.

The peculiarity of his argument, however, comes to light when the deposed Khan — who, all along, has placed himself at a much higher moral pedestal than his political rivals — succumbs to the very same defence mechanism; he had been vilifying since his political inception. What adds insult to injury is the fact that this strategy is not only being carried out for the political mileage alone, but had also been adopted before Election Commission of Pakistan.

A formal request by PTI has been turned down by ECP wherein it was prayed that the issue regarding alleged foreign funding of PTI should not proceed unless similar complaints against PML-N and PPPP are simultaneously heard and concluded with those of PTI. To check the legality of such request, a common man may deny to pay his traffic violation fine unless all other vehicles in the no-parking zone are issued challans before him. Surely, that ordinary citizen will learn his lesson in no time.

The irony is aggravated when PTI’s voters, who distinguish themselves from patwaris and jialas for not being a blind follower, actually support this mediocre defence and bring in constitutional right of equal treatment before law. It needs to be understood that Article 25 of the Constitution does not give us a right to stop a legal proceeding until some other proceedings — even on the same question of law — are concurrently concluded. Article 25 only mandates that, if and when, a similar issue is brought before legal forum, it must be dealt with the same yardstick. Equal treatment before law does not make conviction of a felon contingent to punishing of another one. If this interpretation is perpetuated, then where will the buck stop? The system will be stuck in an infinite loop; there are already enough issues with system, let’s not infect it with yet another pathogen.

This issue of alleged foreign funding emerged in November 2014, when a complaint was filed by PTI’s founding member, Mr Akber Sher Baber. Although his membership is now contentious for both parties, there can be no denial that Mr Baber not only contested election on PTI’s ticket but also held various prominent positions within the party till September 2011.

Just when the wheels were turning for PTI, Mr Baber raised concerns whether the party funds were collected and accounted for in transparent and legal manner. To be precise, his allegations fall within the ambit of Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the then governing law, in essence, Political Parties Order, 2002.

The 2002 Order has, however, been replaced by the Elections Act, 2017. The most important addition in the 2017 Act is the inclusion of ‘individual’ in ‘foreign source’, whereas, the 2002 Order did not prohibit any contribution or donation from individuals. Conversely, it is worth mentioning that a common ground for reference of dissolution of a political party, amongst others, is that it received any portion of its funds from foreign national.

The best defence PTI’s lawyers can put up is that it only received funds from Pakistani nationals, however, due to lack of record keeping they are unable to account for a certain portion of funds which is alleged to have been received from foreign nationals. In the event this defence is accepted, the unaccounted disputed portion of funds can be forfeited from PTI. The worst-case scenario, of course, could be failing to convince the ECP, which will innately result in a reference to Supreme Court of Pakistan for dissolution of the party.

Given the fact that Mr Khan severely suffers from self-righteousness and has been in a habit of accusing anyone and everyone of being morally reprehensible creatures, it seems likely that PTI is not expecting any mitigating outcome, thus, the delays of nearly eight years has been caused under one pretext or another.

So far, PTI has taken several stances before ECP and the superior courts, perhaps with the sole objective of delaying the inevitable outcome. In hindsight, all those stances and petition did not bring any desirous result for PTI except to delay the final outcome.

To start with, the membership status of the complainant was challenged by PTI. Personal vendetta between the complainant and Mr Khan was also argued. The fact that multiple cases have been filed against Mr Baber manifestly establishes bad blood to the extent of one party. All of those cases have either been withdrawn or dismissed. This history of tainted past between PTI and the complainant is also part of record in the proceedings before ECP.

It has also been emphasised that the complaint may be dismissed on the ground of lack of verifiable or actionable material. Bear in mind, the complaint was actually filed for violation of Article 5 of the 2002 Order which mandates that party members are to be given access to party records. If anything, this defence indirectly supports the assertions made by the complainant. Moreover, sharing of documents under scrutiny by ECP with the complainant was objected.

So much so that jurisdiction of ECP to actually take cognizance of instant complaint was questioned. The status of ECP being an administrative body or tribunal or court was also taken up to higher courts. With all this water under the bridge, no favourable outcome has yet been achieved by PTI except to delay the final decision.

It is beyond comprehension for a common man as to why a party that preaches accountability as gospel to all of us is leaving no stone unturned to avoid conclusion of this issue. People vividly remember the Panama times when Mr Khan repeatedly said that only a thief would run away from accountability. Inevitably, the tables have turned and prudent minds are wondering whether Mr Khan will stand up to high standards set by himself or will he be a reflection of the devil he abhorred the most.

 

Published in The Express Tribune, June 4^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.