Pakistan

Panamagate scandal: SC office rejects JI chief’s plea for probe

Says the petitioner has not approached any other appropriate forum for relief

Our Correspondent August 28, 2016

The petition further stated that the huge amounts of public money were invested abroad under the grab of ‘off shore companies’ but no action had been taken by the investigating agency. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The top court has refused to entertain a constitutional petition, filed by the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) Ameer Sirajul Haq for investigating the Panama Papers, which revealed that three scions of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s family had offshore companies in international tax havens.

The petition, filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, made Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Ministry of Law And Justice, Ministry of Finance, Cabinet Division and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as respondents.

Instead of requesting for the formation of a commission to probe into the Panama leaks, the JI chief through his counsel, Asad Manzoor Butt, had requested the top court to direct the respondents to initiate an inquiry into the scandal.

He said such investigation should be followed by trial proceedings under the law and “resultantly a direction be issued to arrest the culprits and to recover and bring the public money back to Pakistan.

Interestingly, the JI chief had not made the prime minister a respondent in his petition.

The JI chief stated that in the current situation when Pakistan is engaged in the war on terror, government officials, people and other entities were involved in illegal establishment of ‘offshore companies’ to make illegal money.

The petition further stated that the huge amounts of public money were invested abroad under the grab of ‘off shore companies’ but no action had been taken by the investigating agency. “Therefore, all such holders of public offices are liable to be disqualified ad also punished accordingly,” he said.

However, the SC registrar returned the petition after raising objections. He said the petitioner had not approached any other appropriate forum available to him under the law for the same relief, adding that he had not provided any justification for not doing so.

"This petition prima facie appears to be a frivolous petition within the contemplation of order XVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980,” he added.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 28^th, 2016.