Sharif tried to fool the nation: SC

Perjury among infractions cited in detailed judgment on Sharif family’s rejected petitions

ISLAMABAD: The top court has declared that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tried to fool the people, parliament and the court in the Panama Papers case.

“He (Sharif) tried to fool the people inside and outside Parliament. He even tried to fool the court without realising that ‘you can fool all the people for some of the time, some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time’. Refuge in evasive, equivocal and non-committal replies does not always help,” says the 23-page judgment authored by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan on the dismissal of the review petitions filed by Nawaz Sharif, his children, and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

A five-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and comprising Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen on September 15 dismissed all the review petitions. The written order with reasons, however, was issued on Tuesday.

“The long and short of what has been said is that no error, much less patent on the face of the judgment under review, has been pointed out as could call for any change or modification,” says the order.

The order says that if fortune has bestowed the throne, crown and sceptre upon him to rule the country, his conduct should be above board and impeccable. Whatever he says or does must speak for itself. Resignation, rather than an ambiguous deviation from the truth, is more honourable an exit if and when anything secretly carried under the sanctimonious gown of leadership drops and gets seen, it adds.

The court also said that since the prime minister of the country is thought to be the ethos of that nation personified, denying an asset established or defending a trust deed written in 2006 in a font that had not become commercial till 2007 is below the dignity and decorum of the office he holds.

“We could not have shut our eyes when an asset of the petitioner arising out of a [work permit] that surfaced during the investigation of the case and he admitted was his in no uncertain terms, was not found to have been disclosed in his nomination papers... Nor could have we let him get away with it simply because he happened to be the prime minister. Much higher levels of integrity are expected of the holder of the highest elected office in the country. But to our dismay and disappointment, the petitioner has not been fair and forthright in answering any of the queries made during the course of the hearing. He never came forth with the whole truth”, says the order.



Regarding his salary issue, the court said that Nawaz Sharif’s entitlement to salary stems from a written employment contract.

“Salary, in this case, is not future salary which had yet to accrue. It was the salary of the past six-and-a-half years which had already accrued and accumulated. There is nothing in oral or written form, from July 2006 to January 2013 as could stop the accrual and accumulation of salary or prevent it from becoming an asset. There is also nothing in oral or written form in between July 2006 to January 2013 as could stop the withdrawal of the salary thus accrued and accumulated. Therefore, the argument that the salary, even if agreed upon under the employment contract, would not be an asset if not withdrawn is incorrect.”

The court also made it clear that had there been no admission, it would not have stepped in, giving the example of when Maryam Nawaz disputed Mossack Fonseca documents showing her to be the beneficial owner of the Avenfield apartments.

“We also did not step in when many other documents disclosing several other assets purportedly owned by the children of the petitioner were disputed, as is evident in the April 20 judgment.”

The order also said that non-disclosure of assets by a candidate could not be looked at with a casual eye and outlook. It is not only a legal duty but a qualifying test for candidates who, at later dates, preside over the destiny of the people.

“This duty has to be performed without the taint of misrepresentation. This test has to be qualified without resorting to unfair means. Any concession at this stage or any leniency to the candidates or the person elected would be a prelude to a catastrophe in politics, which has already had enough of it. Since it is already touching the extreme, extreme measures have to be taken. The culture of passing candidates by ‘granting grace marks’ has not delivered. It has corrupted the people and the system,” says the order.

Regarding the argument that the omission of the asset could possibly be unintentional, the order noted that the argument may have had validity for a new entrant to politics, but Sharif has been neck deep in business and politics ever since the early 80s’.



The order also said that Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar is the spouse of Maryam, who prima facie happens to be the beneficial owner of the Avenfield apartments.

The order says that arguments regarding directions to NAB to file references on the basis of the material collected and referred to by the JIT and other material be available with the FIA and NAB could have been given some weight had there been no institutional capture important state institutions including NAB, SECP, FBR, State Bank of Pakistan, National Bank of Pakistan and Intelligence Bureau through cronies and collaborators of the Sharif.

The court also said that supplementary references have to be filed if and when anything receivable in evidence pursuant to MLA requests sent by JIT to various jurisdictions are received.

“Else the leads revealed by Volume X and the outcome of the MLAs requests in respect of huge sums which have prima facie been dealt with by and on behalf of the petitioner, his sons and daughter through Montmarte Holdings, LZ Nominees, Fidex Registrar., Berryvale Limited, EMSI, Shamrock Consulting Corporation, and Ansbacher…would be thrown overboard.”

The argument that this direction implies unambiguous approval of the material collected by the JIT whose probative worth is yet to be established is also misconceived as none of the court’s observations projects any such impression. It adds that the trial court would also be at liberty to appraise evidence including the material collected by the JIT without being influenced by any of the SC’s observations.

The argument that the direction to the trial court to decide the references within six months is prejudicial is also misconceived as the purpose behind such directions is not to prejudice the trial, but to ensure a speedy trial, according to the judgement.

The order adds that the argument that the power to superintend Accountability Court proceedings has not been conferred on the Supreme Court, therefore nomination of one of the SC judges to superintend them would be violative of Article 175 of the Constitution, is also misconceived as this practice has been in vogue since long and the purpose is to guard against intrusion of casualness in proceedings before the trial court. “Such practice, by no stretch of the imagination, implies that the monitoring judge would in any way influence or interfere with the decision-making process of the trial court.”



“The argument that the petitioner could not be disqualified under Article 99(1)(f) of ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution for non-disclosure of unclaimed income from Capital FZE in his nomination papers for the 2013 elections when it was not specifically asserted in any of the constitutional petitions would not entail much when the proceedings before this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution were inquisitorial…and cannot debar the court from taking cognisance of a matter which is too obvious to lose sight of.”