Offshore account case: SC does not want to hang swords of Damocles over Parliament

PML-N lawyer wants Panama judgment applied as precedent in case against Jahangir Tareen

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court does not want to lay down a law dangling above the sovereign body that is Parliament like the Swords of Damocles.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar made this observation on Wednesday during the hearing of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hanif Abbasi’s plea seeking the disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Secretary General Jahangir Tareen.

The chief justice said that the basic purpose of the proceedings is to examine whether there is an element of corruption or deception in the representatives of the people. “Therefore, we are hearing the case with caution and calm,” he said.



A three-judge bench, headed by the CJP himself, discussed how a parliamentarian could be disqualified on the basis of a false declaration about his assets after the issuance of the July 28 Panama Papers case verdict. It also questioned whether the court has to consider the element of motive or intent in such matters after that judgment.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that there is now a precedent case, laid down by a larger bench in the Panama Papers case, wherein the court could disqualify public officials on the basis of inaccurate assets declarations.

“How you will reconcile that judgment in this case”, he asked Tareen’s attorney Sikandar Bashir Mohmand. The counsel contended that the court considered the aspect of intent in the Panama Papers verdict, adding that intention is required for dishonesty.

He also referred to Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh’s note in the July 28 verdict, wherein it is stated that Article 62 (1) (f) will be applied on the basis of breach of law or non-fulfilment of legal obligations.

Earlier, Akram Sheikh, the counsel for the petitioner, stated that the court is not required to examine the intentions of public office holders in view of the Panama Papers verdict. He said that there could not be two different judgments on two almost-identical issues.



During the hearing, the chief justice asked that when the disqualification case against the PTI leaders was similar to the Panama Papers case, why both matters were not heard by the same larger bench. He also said that there is no documentary evidence to establish that a federal minister had used his influence for bank loan write-offs.

Meanwhile, in his arguments, Tareen’s counsel Sikander Bashir raised objection to the petitioner’s legal standing to have filed the case. “The petitioner did not come to the Supreme Court with clean hands,” he stated. The counsel said that Tareen is not the beneficial owner of the alleged offshore company while claiming that Tareen has an excellent record of taxpaying as he never evaded taxes.

Earlier, Tareen, in his concise statement said he voluntarily and in good faith disclosed that his independent children are beneficiaries under a trust arrangement through an offshore company and all the funds, with income tax paid on them in Pakistan, for settlement and establishment of the trust were remitted through official banking channels in accordance with law.



He also submitted that the nomination form on the basis of which he was elected and is a member of the National Assembly is dated September 9, 2015 and does not contain any of the information, figures, or data which the petitioner alleges give rise to a discrepancy.

Tareen had stated that without prejudice to the foregoing, he made full and correct disclosure to both the Election Commission of Pakistan in the nomination form dated March 27, 2013, and the Federal Board of Revenue in tax returns for FY2010-11 dated October 7, 2010 and November 17, 2011, respectively.

While responding to the allegations of written-off loans from various financial institutions, Tareen submitted that the allegations and averments against him have been made mischievously. The hearing has been adjourned until Thursday (today).