son’s Dubai-based company, which, however, is disputed by leading lawyers as a valid ground for disqualification.
But in any case it will certainly be the court’s judgment how to view the non-declaration by Imran Khan and Tareen. The Panama decision was frequently referred by the lawyers, representing the petitioner, Hanif Abbasi, during the proceedings against the PTI leaders. In his fresh rejoinder, Abbasi has argued that Tareen’s trust deed should be considered as an asset as defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary, which was relied by the Panama bench in disqualifying Nawaz Sharif.
What will be utmost important and instructive for all and sundry specifically the legal community is whether the Panama judgment is relied upon in the new ruling and how far the previous ruling will be considered binding. Obviously, the earlier bench consisted of five judges while the present panel had three justices.
Whatever the judgment of the chief justice’s bench will be, it will be as animatedly debated and commented upon as the Panama ruling is being talked about in the political and other circles. The verdict against Nawaz Sharif is being consistently rejected by the ex-premier and his party leaders since day one for being “partisan and biased”.
Had the decision favoured Nawaz Sharif, the PTI leaders would have denounced it in their usual harsh language. Same will happen when the verdict regarding Imran Khan and Tareen will be announced. One party will shower lavish praise on it while the other will deprecate it. This is the downside of the adjudication of cases of political nature. Saying that Imran Khan will go home, quitting politics if he was hurt by the judgment, is just a tall political slogan, and his reaction will not be any different from that of Nawaz Sharif.
A primary point that would be noteworthy in case of an adverse judgment against the PTI leaders or any one of them will be whether their qualifications will be judged on the touchstone of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution or the formerly Representation of People's Act (now merged in the Elections Act 2017). The difference between the two provisions is that if one is declared ineligible under Article 62(1)(f), one is disqualified for life while in case of other option, one will attract only one-time unseating and the one so affected can immediately contest an election. It will also be seen whether the law will be so strictly and narrowly applied as was done in Nawaz Sharif’s case.
For obvious reasons, Nawaz Sharif is eager to see an early judgment against Imran Khan and Tareen, and he expressed this desire when he said: verdicts against us are pronounced hastily; when will decisions against the corruption of these two PTI leaders and Aleem Khan come?
His urgency to have Imran Khan and Tareen punished quickly apart, the chief justice had remarked while reserving the ruling in this case: “The judgment should not be expected tomorrow.”
Obviously, the three judges will have to go through voluminous papers before reaching a conclusive finding in this high profile case.
The five-member Panama bench had taken 58 days to make public its judgment after reserving it. It had wrapped up its lengthy proceedings on February 23 and made public its verdict on April 20. It had to keep before it 26,000 documents presented by the two sides.
However, the three-judge implementation panel led by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan had taken just a week to release its decision. It had reserved its decision on July 21 and announced it on July 28. Only a week back, the chief justice-led bench reserved its judgment on November 14. It is not known when it will be released.