ISLAMABAD: While the Supreme Court is considering forming a commission on Panamagate, other commissions constituted by the apex court in the recent past created much hype at the outset but their findings were somehow not in accordance with the expectations.

The SC has the power to constitute a judicial commission under Article 184/3 of the Constitution.

The federal government can also form an executive commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1956.

During the last a few years, the government constituted the Abbottabad commission which investigated the May 2011 US operation that killed Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a compound in Abbottabad. Similar executive commissions on the murder of journalist Saleem Shahzad and an attack on Hamid Mir also completed their tasks and submitted the reports to the federal governments which are yet to be made public.

According to legal experts, the difference between a judicialcommission and the one constituted by the federal government is that the finding of the former is binding in nature whereas the latter can recommend a certain course of action but its recommendations do not have the binding effect.

The SC bench, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, on Tuesday sought the terms of reference (ToRs) from the PTI and PML-N to form a commission to probe the Panama Papers leaks.

The famous judicial commissions the SC constituted in the recentpastincludedtheMemogate commission of 2012, Lal Masjid commission of 2013 and the elections rigging commission of 201s.

The reports of the Memogate and Lal Masjid commissions are still pending before the apex court as the proceedings in both the cases are yet to conclude.

The SC formed a three-member poll rigging commission in April 2015, headed by the then Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, after President Mamnoon Hussain issued an ordinance to investigate allegations of rigging in the 2013 elections. The demand was made by the PTI during its 126-day-long sit-in in 2014. Thecommission completed the probe in July the same year.

As per its findings, except some anomalies on part of the Election Commission of Pakistan, the polls were largely conducted and organised fairly.

The Memogate commission probed the allegations of writing a letter to the then US Admiral Mike Mullen in 2011, seeking US help to counter a possible military takeover in Pakistan. The commission, comprising the chief justices of three high courts, started proceedings in January 2012 and completed the probe in June 4. It found that Pakistan`s former ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, was behind the controversial memo.

Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry constituted the threejudge commission after the PML-N brought the matter to the apex court.

The Memogate issue is still pending adjudication before the SC as Mr Hggani remains abroad.

According to advocate Mohammad Al
He said the commission would be headed by the serving judge of the SC whereas the Memogate comprised judges of the high courts.

The SC commission would be more powerful, he said. After the finalisation of ToRs, the commission would start working. It would provide an opportunity ofhearing to both the parties and other relevantstakeholders.The partiescan produce evidence before the commission. Finally, the commission would submit its report to the larger bench hearing the Panamagate petitions, Mr Sheikh explained.

The Lal Masjid commission, headed by Justice Shehzado Sheikh of the Federal Shariat Court, started work at the end of December 2012 and continued its proceedings till April 2013.

The commission report held former president Pervez Musharraf, ex-prime minister Shaukat Aziz and their political allies responsible for the 2007 operation in which 103 people were killed.

Interestingly, advocate Tariq Asad, who was a counsel in theMemogate and Lal Masjid cases, is one of the petitioners in the Panamagate case.

Mr Tariq said the proposed SC commission would be as powerful as the Supreme Court. He said the Memogate and Lal Masjid commissions were asked to submit reports to the SC which may disagree with the findings. But the recommendations of the Panamagate commission may be more authoritative as the serving judge of the same court would be the author of the report.

`The head of this powerful commission can summon the authorities of NAB, Federal Board of Revenue and other organisations, he maintained.

Vice chairman Pakistan Bar Council Barrister Farogh Nasim said the SC commission would go beyond technicalities and apply all resources to probe the allegations leveled in the Panama leaks.

`Most probably, it would be result oriented however it depends upon what evidence would be laid before the commission.` Besides the PML-N and PTI as well as the investigation agency, the commission may seek evidence from the general public and other relevant quarters, he added.