ISLAMABAD: What the possible judgment of the Supreme Court in the Panama case could be in the opinion of keen watchers of the protracted judicial proceedings though their assessment could be totally wrong.
Renowned journalist and anchorperson Hamid Mir, on being asked by The News, said that for the first time in Pakistan’s history, the Supreme Court would pen down a verdict which would be against the aspirations of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Editor Investigation ‘The News’ Ansar Abbasi, while giving his input, responded in writing about the possible judgment: “In my view, the Supreme Court in the Panama case will neither dismiss the petitions nor the prime minister. Decision will be somewhere between these two extremes. I don’t see any judicial commission in the making. However, an inquiry committee comprising members of NAB, FIA and FBR could be set up to inquire into the matter relating to offshore companies belonging to PM’s children. The setting up of such an inquiry committee will be necessitated by the unanswered questions raised before the SC in the Panama case and relating to money trail for the purchase of Sharifs’ London properties. I, however, doubt the apex court will order the re-opening of Hudaybia case.
“The SC may direct the government to reform NAB, FIA and FBR, within a stipulated time-frame so that these institutions in future could independently inquire into the matters of corruption, tax evasion and fraud without any fear and favour even if those involved are from the ruling elite. Regarding the five judges on the bench, my opinion is that all these judges are known for deciding cases within the parameters of law and the Constitution. Hopefully, this judgment would not be an exception," commented Mr Abbasi.
Senior journalist and columnist Tariq Butt, while commenting on the possible judgment in the Panama case, believes, “Nawaz Sharif could remain safe, unhurt and qualified as prime minister, but serious questions could be raised about certain contents of his National Assembly speech and two addresses to nation on London apartments/money trail. His assertions could be comprehensively analysed and evaluated. A lot of other remarks (not judgment) could also be made about him. Hussain’s position could be considerably impaired on account of money trail respecting London properties. Maryam’s position as trustee and ‘dependent’ or ‘independent’ could be questioned. Re-investigations into/filing of an appeal against LHC decision on Hudaibiya Paper Mills could be ordered. Severe observations against NAB chairman could be made, making it difficult for him to stay. A mechanism, specifying time-frame, could be provided for inquiry into offshore companies and London apartments under court supervision with such method remaining valid for times to come. A panel/committee could be ordered to be formed to implement this mechanism. It could be noted that both sides were unable to prove their case and could not provide requisite proofs. Interpretation of the premier’s privileges/rights/immunity as per Constitution could be done. So could happen about invoked articles 62 and 63. Judgment could be split. 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' could be interpreted”.
Senior investigative reporter who broke the PanamaLeaks in Pakistan Umar Cheema predicted the possible SC verdict in Panama case by saying that there would neither be a clean chit for the Sharif family nor any conviction. Further investigations would be ordered. A team of independent investigators supervised by the SC might be a way forward as the court had expressed no-confidence on FIA and NAB.
“The verdict is likely to devise a mechanism of how to deal with such cases in future. Reform in NAB, FIA and FBR may be ordered. This is how I interpret the judges’ remarks that verdict will be remembered for years, nay centuries, to come. The decision will focus on the contradictions between the speech of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in parliament and the statements he and his children submitted before the SC bench about money trail. This is likely to have serious repercussions. Any remark suggesting that PM had misstated the facts can land him in trouble. Concealment of facts on the part of prime minister’s children is yet another important factor. The children’s counsel had told the bench he was under instruction from his clients not to make public certain information. It could be interpreted as an obstruction of justice is tantamount to a crime. A proceeding may be ordered against the NAB chairman for refusing to file an appeal against Sharif family on Hudaibya Papers Mills case. How the court deals with the question of its reopening remains a question. Re-investigation may be ordered," predicted Mr Cheema.
The News Investigative journalist Usman Manzoor believes, “The court could possibly order the relevant departments to investigate and sort out the instruments, Qatari letters and other documents submitted in the court by the Sharif family regarding the money trails. The court could order NAB to file an appeal in the Hudaibya Papers Mills case. The decision could be adverse about the NAB chairman. Opposition is likely to go into subsequent litigation against the PM based on the Panama judgment."