ISLAMABAD: While the lawyer representing Hussain and Hassan, Salman Akram Raja faced tough queries from the judges, he raised at least ten pertinent questions or points that the justices will surely deal with in their conclusions.
The proceedings, in the words of Justice Asif Saeed Khosa who heads the five-judge panel, have entered the “make or break stage”, and are unlikely to take too long to close.
The judges’ focus was on seeking answer to the question as to how the bearer certificate regarding the ownership of London flats were transferred to Hussain by the Qatari prince. They remarked that there was no document on record which showed this aspect.
It was clear from the lawyer’s arguments that he would concentrate on whatever written proofs his clients have so far handed over to the court.
One point stressed by Salman Akram Raja was that no documentary evidence has been presented to the court by the petitioners against Hussain and Hassan and asked whether it has power to carry out investigations.
Whether the court can sentence a person or persons without trial was another question. Yet another query was whether the apex court can hold trial of an alleged corruption case under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
Raja also raised the question whether the court can reach a conclusion without seeking proofs in a matter requiring investigation.
The lawyer further asked whether the court can order inquiry into an alleged irregularity that is 45 years old. Another question was whether the Supreme Court can deprive someone from the right of appeal by holding trial itself.
Salman Akram Raja stated that although the court has powers to form a judicial commission, the question is whether such a forum can be a substitute for trial court in a criminal case.
Another point was whether the court under Article 184(3) can take away the powers of another judicial body.
The lawyers dilated on the points and questions that he emphasized articulating the view that the top court can’t hold investigations and can’t reach a conclusion without unimpeachable evidence. Moreover, the onus is on the petitioners to provide proofs and they totally failed to deliver any evidence to the court against the defendants.
The Supreme Court, he opined, has never held investigations into a criminal case, and the Constitution gives citizens the right to transparent inquiry.
To prove his point, the attorney cited the rulings of the apex court, which, instead of holding investigations, referred the matters to the relevant agencies. The court held in the Arsalan Iftikhar case that it can’t hold anyone guilty and it is the job of the appropriate forum to investigate the matter. Similarly, he stated, the cases relating to the National Insurance Corporation Limited and Haj corruption were sent to the concerned agencies for investigations. They carried out the probe.
The most telling remarks came from Justice Ejaz Afzal, who observed that no side is speaking the complete truth while we are asking several questions; it is a strange situation; how it will be possible to access real facts; how we should wind up this matter; who will at last provide the attested documents; who signed the mortgage papers and on whose desire; we are going deep in a quagmire; new assumptions are coming up; and when the petitioners expressed inability to furnish the reliable documents and defendants also say they have nothing to present, how we should dispose of the matter before us.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed sought evidence of property transfer to the Sharif family. Where are the proofs? Documentary evidence that Hussain is the beneficial owner of the London flats in accordance with the Sharif family’s claim is required.
As per the unseemly standard practice, the pressers were held by the leaders of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Jamaat-e-Islami to claim that their rival lost the case once again and his lies were exposed.
PTI Chairman Imran Khan claimed that the Sharif family failed to present to the court any documentary evidence about the purchase of London apartments while he has all the record about his foreign property bought in 1980. The nation is paying the cost of the Sharif family’s friendship with the Qatari prince, he alleged.
Minister of State for Information Maryam Aurangzeb claimed that Imran Khan was using the Panama case as political crutches. She stated that she was surprised over his statements and he only levels allegations but has no proofs to establish them. She pointed out that while Imran Khan attends daily hearings of the Supreme Court, he seeks exemption from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). He himself is not prepared to disclose facts about the foreign funding of the PTI before the ECP while he demands of others to divulge everything.