Pakistan: Suddle Commission

The Supreme Court’s decision of dissolving the judicial commission, headed by Dr Shoaib Suddle, that partially investigated a Rs342 million business deal between Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, son of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chuaudhry, and real-estate magnate Malik Riaz Husain, after it had only submitted an interim report, comes as a big surprise particularly when the SC took the plea that this is an issue between two individuals and they can take it up at any forum. The decision gives rise to a valid question as to how and why the country’s apex court had admitted for hearing the case at the filing stage when the two litigant parties have, of late, in one voice, contended that the SC should dispose the matter of. The commission has been dissolved at a time when it had only submitted an interim report and approached authorities in London to secure additional evidence. It seems pertinent to mention here that Malik Riaz did not appear before the Suddle Commission and moved the SC in an attempt to get its proceedings stayed; the court rejected this plea. The Chief Justice of Pakistan himself, on June 5, took a notice of the alleged business deal between his son and Malik Riaz. On June 14 the court ordered the attorney general of Pakistan to take strict action against the main characters of the case – Dr Arsalan Iftikhar, Malik Riaz and his son-in-law Salman Ahmed. In its order the court had noted, “Nonetheless, attempts by individuals to obstruct the course of justice are indeed a matter of serious and grave concern and imperil the reputation of the justice system at large. This is why such exchange of bribes with the attempt, even a failed one, to influence the course of justice, has been declared illegal and punishable under various laws. If proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties involved are liable to be punished.” The attorney-general referred the matter to NAB for a probe, but Dr Arsalan raised questions over the impartiality of NAB’s Joint Investigation Team and filed a review petition against it which was accepted by the SC. On August 30, the court formed the judicial commission comprising former police officer Dr Shoiab Suddle to probe the alleged business deal which was aimed at influencing the judicial process. The Suddle Commission, in the preliminary report, said the CJP’s son has admitted that he had availed two of the three foreign visits alleged by Malik Riaz and also confessed that he had received ‘favours’from Malik Riaz, his friend or his son-in-law. But it does not answer why he had accepted these and the businessman’s claim is that he had ‘favoured’Arsalan in order to get court cases settled in his favour. The commission also alleged Malik Riaz of a ‘plan’ to defame the chief justice and bring the highest court of the country into disrepute and also accused him of shady business deals, including the Bhria Town project. Yet, the report is silent about how Arsalan Iftikhar became a millionaire in no time and entered into telecom contracts worth Rs900 million. The commission has also implicated Dr Arsalan Iftikhar and Malik Riaz in massive tax evasion of Rs 51.3 million and 119.4 billion, respectively, and recommended imposition of a penalty for concealment of assets in wealth statements filed with income tax returns. However, the matter boils down to the amount of money paid to Arsalan. Malik Riaz says he paid Rs342 million but provide the evidence of paying Rs5.58 million and the son of CJP also accepts this. It is certainly not the issue of how much was paid; it is the matter that Arsalan received the amount, no matter how big or small it may be. This is a fit case of illegal transaction and an offence cognizable by police. Arsalan must not only stand trial for this but also for the fact that he has maligned the name of the top most judge of the country in this scandalous affair. It is also not understandable why the commission itself not suggested the criminal proceedings against the two although this was part of the terms of reference. It is not an ordinary matter but involves the country’s chief justice and superior judiciary. It is, therefore, absolutely critical that highest standards of integrity of the judiciary are not compromised under any circumstances.