Three key questions
+Supreme Court hearing into the Panama Papers affair has been adjourned until 7th December
The PTI legal team’s head, Hamid Khan, revealed to The Express Tribune that he has summoned a special meeting to consider the option of filing a constitutional plea seeking the premier’s disqualification in view of the revelations in the Panama Papers. PHOTO: ICIJ
The Supreme Court hearing into the Panama Papers affair has been adjourned until 7th December and may — or may not — be reconvening daily thereafter in view of the imminent retirement of Chief Justice Jamali. Although there was much legal to-and-fro it was Justice Saeed Khosa who got to the heart of several matters with three questions. How did the children of PM Nawaz Sharif establish the offshore companies they are listed as owning? Who is dependent on whom? And lastly were the facts in the Prime Minister’s speeches to parliament relevant to the Panama Papers affair true or not? It would now appear that the SC is placing the burden of proof in all these matters on the PM, and there is much cloudy water to clear before clarity emerges.
The SC arrived at this position after it was submitted by the lawyer for the PM that the petitioners — primarily the Pakistan-Tehreek-e-Insaaf led by Imran Khan — had failed to provide any evidence that the offshore companies were formed illegally, with Justice Khosa retorting that once the ownership of the companies was accepted then the burden of proof (as to how they were capitalised) lies upon the PM. The Honourable Justices were somewhat testy in respect of the supposed watchdogs over corruption, remarking that if the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and the Federal Investigation Agency (FBR) were unable to perform their duties adequately then why not close them down — a question of more than merely rhetorical weight. As far as any commission of investigation was concerned the CJ was of the view that if the bench comes to the conclusion that such a commission was necessary then it, the apex bench, would constitute one.
With claim and counter-claim batting back and forth both in and out of the court there seems little likelihood of an early resolution either way. Thus far there has been nothing that suggests that the PM committed any crime in Pakistan though there is justifiable doubt and suspicion around his family financial dealings. This may be the hinge on which all eventually turns, and in the time-honoured manner we will await developments.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 7th, 2016.
The SC arrived at this position after it was submitted by the lawyer for the PM that the petitioners — primarily the Pakistan-Tehreek-e-Insaaf led by Imran Khan — had failed to provide any evidence that the offshore companies were formed illegally, with Justice Khosa retorting that once the ownership of the companies was accepted then the burden of proof (as to how they were capitalised) lies upon the PM. The Honourable Justices were somewhat testy in respect of the supposed watchdogs over corruption, remarking that if the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and the Federal Investigation Agency (FBR) were unable to perform their duties adequately then why not close them down — a question of more than merely rhetorical weight. As far as any commission of investigation was concerned the CJ was of the view that if the bench comes to the conclusion that such a commission was necessary then it, the apex bench, would constitute one.
With claim and counter-claim batting back and forth both in and out of the court there seems little likelihood of an early resolution either way. Thus far there has been nothing that suggests that the PM committed any crime in Pakistan though there is justifiable doubt and suspicion around his family financial dealings. This may be the hinge on which all eventually turns, and in the time-honoured manner we will await developments.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 7th, 2016.