Top court says it will continue to adjudicate the matter if PTI, PML-N do not agree. PHOTO: INP
However, the court clarified that if the major parties in the case did not favour the proposal, the same bench of the apex court would continue to adjudicate the case, adding that a direct judgment on available evidence might amaze both the parties.
PML-N unlikely to back inquiry commission
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a number of petitions filed in the wake of the Panama Papers revelations about the offshore companies of the family members of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
A five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, made it clear that the commission, if formed, would confine its probe only to the money trail of the Sharif family to acquire their London properties.
The government counsel said they had no objection to the idea but he requested that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should be exempted from the commission’s probe.
However, the PTI sought time for deliberation. Upon this, the bench accepted the party’s lead counsel Naeem Bukhari’s plea and adjourned the hearing till Friday (tomorrow).
Legal experts believe that acceptance of the court’s suggestion is a big test for both the PML-N and the PTI as both have some reservations over the proposed commission.
Justice Jamali is set to retire in Dec 31 and a full-court reference and farewell dinner will be hosted in his honour on December 15 due to winter recess in the apex court. In this scenario, if both the parties do not agree on a commission then the bench will have only two days for hearing in the next week.
PTI wants top court to decide Panamagate case
If Justice Jamali retires before giving any decision in the case, then a new bench will be constituted by his successor Justice Mian Saqib Nisar.
Earlier, the chief justice asked whether it was possible to verify the authenticity of the documents of both the parties during the summary proceedings. Later, he sought both parties’ consent for the formation of commission.
He also told PTI’s counsel Naeem Bukhari that they had already exhausted the forum regarding the disqualification of prime minister, adding that the forum of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was available to adjudicate the matter.
The CJ said there was no pressure from the court to accept its proposal regarding formation of a commission, adding that the commission will comprise a serving SC judge, who could get assistance from any state agency as well as private individuals.
He also made it clear to the PTI counsel that the accused always gets benefit of doubt in criminal nature of proceedings, adding that both the parties were not admitting each other’s documents.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that justice could not be compromised. He asked whether the court could disqualify anyone on sketchy documents. He also observed that ruler of the day was before the court and there were glorious examples in Islamic tradition.
“Should we decide case on the basis of someone’s anxiety? If he proves his innocence then it’s okay but if he fails then we will not be hesitant to give judgment against him,” he said.
SC dampens PTI’s excitement
The bench’s recommendation dampened erstwhile excitement of the PTI leadership, which was present in the courtroom and was earlier getting amused to see the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s counsel being grilled by the judges.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the PM’s counsel Salman Aslam Butt continued his arguments before the bench but expressed his inability to submit supportive documentary evidence regarding the clearance of Dirham 36 million liability as well an investment of Dirham 12 million in Qatar.
Butt said it was 40-year-old record, which was not easily available as there were no fax and email facilities at the time, adding that even banks in Dubai did not possess record older than five years.
SC asks PTI, govt for ToRs to form Panamagate commission
He also revealed that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had taken possession of record of the Sharif family’s companies after 1999.
Despite the clear direction of the Lahore High Court in 2012, the entire record had yet to be retrieved by NAB to Sharif family, adding that the SC was not a trial court to examine all documents.
Butt further stated that Mian Sharif [the PM’s father] was known as a strongman as he used to handle all family affairs. The counsel contended that earlier there was no concept of monetary transaction through banks as businesses were running on manual system.
However, the bench was not impressed with his arguments regarding the money trail for acquiring London flats. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that this was dangerous line of argument as the moral standard of public officeholders should be different from others.
“We are a court of law. If we accept your arguments then what precedent we will set?” he asked the counsel. Justice Khosa also referred the premier’s speeches, wherein he claimed that everything is available and that they were ready to produce entire record related to the money trail of London flats before relevant forum. “But now you are saying that record is missing or you forgot,” he observed.
Salman replied that the PM never said he forgot. Upon this, Justice Khosa asked him to explain the money transaction from Dubai to other foreign countries.
“The respondent is an elected prime minister as he is our prime minister as well. He is respectable and honourable until allegations against him are not established. However, we will keep on asking questions about him in this matter,” he observed.
Justice Amir Hani Muslim also observed that the PM should have presented this stance before in his public speeches.
Another judge, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, observed that the PM did not refer to his family’s investment in Qatar. He asked the counsel to explain how the money was transferred from Dubai to Qatar and other foreign countries.
“What was the investment and how the settlement took place with the Qatari royal family, when they acquired London flats?” he asked. Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh also asked the counsel about the regular source of income of the PM’s daughter, Maryam Nawaz.
Butt replied that Maryam earned more than Rs2 million, which is generated from agriculture sources. The judge, however, observed that her traveling expenditure was around Rs3.5 million. Justice Ijaz also observed that she did not do any job and her only source of income was agriculture.
Salman Butt said a similar type of case was also pending before the ECP. He said there was no need to register a Trust Deed under the UK law.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 8th, 2016.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ