Panama Papers — Season Two
Panama Papers presented Imran with yet another opportunity to overturn the incumbency of the Prime Ministe
. PHOTO: REUTERS
Season One of the political melodrama that is the Panama Papers affair ended with something of a cliffhanger. With a new Chief Justice in the driving seat — though he has recused himself for the sittings he it was that chose the new bench hearing the case — the Honourable Justices have the pedal to the metal with daily hearings until the matter comes to a resolution. Daily hearings are ordered. Season Two is is the decider, the clincher, and much hangs on the outcome. Political futures are at stake, and there is the potential for the unseating of party leader who holds a substantial parliamentary majority. Rarely in the history of Pakistan has there been a more important legal case and it all hinges on the purchase and ownership of several upmarket flats in London, UK.
The prime mover in this battle of wills is the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf led by Imran Khan. The case has to be viewed in the context of Mr Khan’s belief that he was somehow cheated of victory in the last General Election whether by rigging on a monumental scale or some other less obvious means. Having failed to prove that he was cheated of victory via rigging the arrival of the Panama Papers presented him with another opportunity to overturn the incumbency of the Prime Minister. Perhaps unfortunately for Mr Khan he has a tendency, Quixotic to a fault, to take a tilt at windmills. The rigging tale was never much of a runner and even members of his own party professed doubts. The Panama Papers were something quite different — for one thing they were an undeniable reality not a piece of aery-faery nonsense. Equally unfortunately the aforesaid papers nowhere mentioned the Prime Minister.
Thus it is that we find ourselves today at the start of Season Two embroiled in the complexities of money trails that prove the ownership of the properties in London, who the actual owners were, when that ownership commenced and whence came the money to make the purchases. Much of this predates the Prime Ministership of Nawaz Sharif by some years.
Despite the submission of copious documentation by the PTI none of it thus far is adjudged to have been a killer blow, indeed a lot of it has been dismissed as circumstantial and irrelevant. All the principal parties in the case have changed their legal teams more than once.
Day One of Season Two saw an attempt to rope in Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif, brother of Nawaz which the Bench promptly tossed as the CM Punjab was not a party to the case. Where the PTI team is scoring, and possibly scoring heavily, is in the possibility of the PM having given conflicting evidence to Parliament, that is making a speech to parliament that was at variance with the evidence given to the court. This is a serious matter if proven. Lying to parliament is a criminal offence.
As for the money trails that would prove ownership of the flats there were three, all quite different and the Bench observed that it was going to be essential to establish which of the three was a true record of the path to ownership. The apex court also challenged the veracity of a letter from a former Qatari Prime Minister that the flats were owned by the Al Thani family before being sold to members of the Sharif family. No record has been presented to prove the truth of this.
With the PM not named in the Panama Papers a fundamental underpinning of the case is to what extent a politician, any politician, is to be judged on alleged events that are relating to their family rather than any political dealings, and that prior to their holding office. The dealings of the Sharif family may have been shady and do bear examination, whether their dealings are of sufficient shadiness to unseat a Prime Minister is yet to be revealed.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2017.
The prime mover in this battle of wills is the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf led by Imran Khan. The case has to be viewed in the context of Mr Khan’s belief that he was somehow cheated of victory in the last General Election whether by rigging on a monumental scale or some other less obvious means. Having failed to prove that he was cheated of victory via rigging the arrival of the Panama Papers presented him with another opportunity to overturn the incumbency of the Prime Minister. Perhaps unfortunately for Mr Khan he has a tendency, Quixotic to a fault, to take a tilt at windmills. The rigging tale was never much of a runner and even members of his own party professed doubts. The Panama Papers were something quite different — for one thing they were an undeniable reality not a piece of aery-faery nonsense. Equally unfortunately the aforesaid papers nowhere mentioned the Prime Minister.
Thus it is that we find ourselves today at the start of Season Two embroiled in the complexities of money trails that prove the ownership of the properties in London, who the actual owners were, when that ownership commenced and whence came the money to make the purchases. Much of this predates the Prime Ministership of Nawaz Sharif by some years.
Despite the submission of copious documentation by the PTI none of it thus far is adjudged to have been a killer blow, indeed a lot of it has been dismissed as circumstantial and irrelevant. All the principal parties in the case have changed their legal teams more than once.
Day One of Season Two saw an attempt to rope in Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif, brother of Nawaz which the Bench promptly tossed as the CM Punjab was not a party to the case. Where the PTI team is scoring, and possibly scoring heavily, is in the possibility of the PM having given conflicting evidence to Parliament, that is making a speech to parliament that was at variance with the evidence given to the court. This is a serious matter if proven. Lying to parliament is a criminal offence.
As for the money trails that would prove ownership of the flats there were three, all quite different and the Bench observed that it was going to be essential to establish which of the three was a true record of the path to ownership. The apex court also challenged the veracity of a letter from a former Qatari Prime Minister that the flats were owned by the Al Thani family before being sold to members of the Sharif family. No record has been presented to prove the truth of this.
With the PM not named in the Panama Papers a fundamental underpinning of the case is to what extent a politician, any politician, is to be judged on alleged events that are relating to their family rather than any political dealings, and that prior to their holding office. The dealings of the Sharif family may have been shady and do bear examination, whether their dealings are of sufficient shadiness to unseat a Prime Minister is yet to be revealed.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2017.