SC poses 9 questions in Panama Papers case

Asks if an inquiry commissions can be formed in presence of statutory bodies

ISLAMABAD:

The top court has posed nine questions to the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) which is seeking investigation against 436 Pakistanis named in the Panama Papers, asking if the court can form an inquiry commission to probe the matter despite the presence of regulatory and investigation bodies.

“Whether in the presence of existing statutory bodies and institutions, a commission as sought [by the JI] should be constituted for inquiring into the matter in hand?

“Will the working of the said statutory bodies not be affected if the proposed commission opines otherwise?” said a three-page written order issued by a division bench comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Aminuddin Khan. The order dated June 9 was released on Thursday, June 15.

In April 2016, the Panama Papers, a treasure trove of leaked documents, disclosed how thousands of people across the world had stashed their wealth in tax havens through offshore companies. The papers included names of 436 Pakistanis including the family members of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

A number of petitioners including Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan and JI chief Sirajul Haq filed petitions in the Supreme Court which later in formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate the foreign assets of the family members of Nawaz Sharif, then the prime minister.

The JIT submitted its report to the SC whose five-judge bench on July 28, 2017 disqualified Nawaz for not disclosing the salary he had received from a company owned by one of his sons in his nomination papers submitted before July 2013 general elections.

The JI had, however, got its petition delinked from the main case before the July 2017 verdict.

At the last hearing of the case, on June 9, the division bench had taken exception to the apex court’s verdict in the Panama Papers case, saying that the five-judge bench had disqualified Nawaz on the basis of something which was not even related to the leaks.

“One family from among 436 people [named in the leaks] was singled out,” Justice Masood had noted, adding that “It is not a crime to create an offshore company.”

In the written order the bench questioned how and under what circumstances this petition was delinked from other petitions at the JI’s request.

“What was the purpose for requesting to detach these petitions from others? We note that this petition was filed much earlier than those petitions which were later decided by a 5-member bench of this court,” it said.

The order asked if the matter in hand is not covered by the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 (Ordinance 2001) with regard to the tax liability of the concerned persons.

“Whether the liability of tax is not within the purview of the officers of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) under the Ordinance 2001?

“Whether the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), directions of the SBP and the Foreign Exchange Manual are not relevant with regard to money sent abroad for purchase of said properties?

“Whether the FBR, the SBP and other relevant departments do not have their own hierarchy for deciding matters and their final orders may ultimately be challenged before high courts and this court?

“Whether the petitioner approached the SBP, the FBR, the FIA [Federal Board of Revenue], the Anti-Corruption Department, etc, against the persons named in Panama leaks?” it asked.

The court also asked if an order for the constitution of a commission can be passed without issuing notice to or hearing those 436 persons named in the Panama Papers leaks.

At the last hearing, JI counsel Muhammad Ishtiaq Ahmed Raja had said the matter concerned public money. He had informed the court that while the investigating agencies had issued notices to 436 individuals, no headway was made.

The court had reminded the counsel that when the JI delinked its petition from the main case, investigating agencies had submitted their replies to the court. Advocate Tariq Asad also filed a similar petition in 2017. However, his petition was disposed of after his demise.