THE belated action initiated by the FIA against some sugar mills and market speculators allegedly involved in the recent manipulation of the sweetener’s retail prices has spawned doubts about the actual intentions of the agency — and the government. The FIA claims to have recovered “humungous” digital and “other” evidence against the owners of certain sugar mills of actively conniving with speculators to rig the market and cheat consumers. In the summons sent to the CFOs and heads of sales of these mills, it also claims to have discovered ‘secret’ bank accounts and involvement in money laundering. But the question is: what is stopping the country’s premier anti-fraud agency from bringing those involved in such criminal activities to justice if it has collected incriminating evidence against them? Instead, their CFOs and sales executives have been summoned for further probe. Apparently, the investigators don’t have enough evidence to get them convicted in courts — or are they trying to put pressure on the industry players, as is being claimed by the sugar mill owners, to reduce their prices? Why else would they waste more time conducting forensic inquiries?
It has been months since a detailed inquiry by a special commission was conducted and its report released with a prime ministerial warning of stern action against sugar mill owners, speculators and others allegedly involved in market manipulation and tax evasion, besides the extortion of subsidies to the tune of billions of rupees from successive governments. Numerous inquiries and actions were announced in light of the report’s recommendations, including measures to overhaul the sugar market and plug the loopholes used by the powerful sugar mafia to fleece the consumers and government alike. Nothing concrete has come out of those inquiries until now and few expect any tangible progress going forward because of the involvement of powerful politicians in the scandal. That is not all. While the government has zealously used the report to malign the opposition, it has taken no action against its own federal and provincial ministers, whose families own the mills that benefited most from export subsidies. The premier recently sacked SAPM Nadeem Babar to ensure a transparent probe into last summer’s petrol shortages in the country. Why is he reluctant to treat the economic affairs minister and his younger brother, who is finance minister in Punjab, in the same way? Politics seems to always trump the larger interest of people in this country.
Finance minister’s removal
THE abrupt ouster of Hafeez Sheikh as the ruling PTI’s finance minister has triggered a greater level of uncertainty about the economic governance of the country. On Monday, Prime Minister Imran Khan relieved Mr Sheikh of his responsibilities and handed them over to Industries Minister Hammad Azhar. Mr Sheikh had been skating on thin ice ever since his shock defeat at the hands of the opposition candidate Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Senate elections.
This election, as it turned out, was a do-or-die one for Mr Sheikh. As adviser on finance, he had been barred by the decision of the Islamabad High Court to chair important forums such as the National Finance Commission and the Economic Coordination Committee. The court in its decision had declared that unelected advisers could not perform executive functions and head ministries. To bypass this restriction, the government had made Mr Sheikh a minister through an ordinance. However, the ordinance was set to lapse in June, which meant that either he had to get elected before that, or pack his bags. The government considered finding another way to get him into the Senate but, as is clear from his sacking, it decided it was not worth the cost. For PTI, the liabilities that Mr Sheikh now carried outweighed the assets he had brought to the job.
The government’s decision to replace him could have been explained quite reasonably. It was, therefore, strange, and a bit unfortunate, that it decided to — rather ungraciously — throw Mr Sheikh under the bus. Government spokespersons were tutored to say that Mr Sheikh had been sent packing because he could not control the spiralling inflation in the country. Had this been the case, the government would not have cashed its chips in a bid to get him elected. If Mr Sheikh won, it is reasonable to expect that he would have stayed on in the job regardless of the inflation rate. Hafeez Sheikh deserved a better send-off than the one he was given.
That said, Hammad Azhar is not a surprise choice. He has performed well in his responsibilities over the last two years and won praise from the prime minister. He has also displayed a fairly good understanding of the subject and brings with him the political heft of an elected politician. It would be interesting to see whether he is provided a good team to repair the economy before the next general elections. The cabinet reshuffle that appears to be in the offing will indicate the priorities of the prime minister for the rest of his term. If the reshuffle is confined to replacing one tried and tested person with another, it may not inspire too much confidence. However if the prime minister brings in a radical change by ushering in fresh blood, it could mean that he is prepared to come out of his crease for the final overs.
Miscarriage of justice
THE legal system in Pakistan leaves much to be desired, with cases at times dragging on for decades, while litigants endlessly wait for justice. However, when it comes to capital punishment — which is irreversible and which this newspaper does not support — the lacunae in the justice system become even more apparent, as they concern matters of life and death. One recent case has again highlighted the need for urgent reform of the justice system as a whole. As reported on Tuesday, convict Mohammad Anwar’s death sentence was commuted by the Supreme Court in a murder case after he had spent 28 years in jail as it found him to be a juvenile at the time the offence was committed. He was arrested in 1993 and sentenced by a lower court in 1998; thereafter, his case sluggishly made its way through the judicial system. In the meantime, a presidential order was notified in 2001 granting special remission in capital punishment cases to juveniles under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Though Anwar applied for his death sentence to be converted to a life term soon after the presidential order was issued, after a lengthy back and forth his juvenility has just been confirmed.
Though the man has been mercifully spared the gallows, a large chunk of his life has been spent behind bars when the law provided for remission. Anwar’s is not the only case of its kind and if Pakistan’s legal system is carefully examined, many more such grave miscarriages of justice may emerge. As this paper has argued before, juvenile justice laws need to be better implemented so youngsters are reformed and given another chance at life. Moreover, the case quoted above also highlights the need to speed up and improve the investigation and trial process. There can be no justification for keeping a person behind bars for nearly three decades only for the law to later realise that the statute books contained a remedy.
