THE significance of the Panama Papers hearings in the Supreme Court is enormous. Potentially at stake is nothing less than the political future of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the strengthening of the democratic order in the country. The court is moving ahead sensibly and determinedly, the cacophony of competing political interests being expressed before it notwithstanding. Regrettably, sections of the media are compounding the challenges for the court with a kind of coverage of the Panama Papers hearings that in some cases can be seen as attempting to influence the court and prejudging the outcome of the hearing. Freedom of speech, especially in the news media, is a critical part of a democratic order — no state or society can plausibly lay claim to being democratic if speech itself is curtailed. This newspaper has and will continue to robustly defend the interests and rights of a free media.

But there is a difference between media censorship — whether imposed from the outside or done internally — and what are reasonable expectations of how the judicial process must be covered. To be clear, the judicial process is an exceptional case. When what is at stake is the liberty and rights of an individual and, in the present case, the broader political and institutional process, the media has a great deal of responsibility. Unhappily, few in the media, especially among the large tribe of TV anchors, appear interested in the more subtle though vitally important distinctions of the profession. Instead, a circus-like atmosphere has been created and TV studios have been seemingly converted into faux courtrooms where anchors, analysts and politicians appear to be playing the role of judge, jury and, yes, executioner. In several instances, the coverage has amounted to a thinly veiled attempt to influence the court and prejudge the outcome of the hearings. That ought to be a red line that should never be crossed.

That Prime Minister Sharif and his family have serious questions to answer since the Panama Papers were revealed to the world is more than obvious. Also true is that every step of the way, with each new revelation by the first family to try and explain the creation of offshore companies and the use and acquisition of foreign property, the claims and court submissions have raised further questions. But it is precisely the job of the court to separate fact from fiction and to apply the law to the information that it is able to establish. No less a bench than one headed by the chief justice of Pakistan is seized of the matter at the moment. There has not been even a trace of partiality or unfairness so far. All parties have been invited to make their case before the court. The media must refrain from interfering in the judicial process and creating the appearance of undue pressure on the court.

Published in Dawn, November 18th, 2016