Justice Mandokhail questions legal basis of JIT in Panama Papers case

ISLAMABAD: During the hearing of Panama Papers case, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked under what law the JIT was formed and further asked if there is any provision in the NAB law for the formation of a JIT.

A five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan continued hearing in multiple cases. Other members of the bench were Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Musarat Hilali.

Justice Musarat Hilali observed that a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) was formed in a specific case in Panama, saying she does not know where the rest of the cases of Panama scandal have gone. Counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami told the bench that they wanted the remaining cases to be investigated.

Deputy Prosecutor General National Accountability Bureau (NAB) told the bench that no application has been filed before the anti-graft body in this regard. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked under what law the JIT was formed in Panama Papers case and further asked if there was any provision in NAB law for the formation of a JIT.

The counsel for the JI replied that the JIT was constituted by the Supreme Court. Justice Musarat Hilali observed that NAB’s authority has been reduced after the NAB amendments adding that now NAB can review the case according to the new amended law. The counsel for JI supported the court’s suggestion to approach the NAB for an investigation into the Panama Leaks.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail advised the counsel that in case of non-response from the NAB, he should go to the High Court instead of the Supreme Court. Later, the constitutional bench disposed of the petition of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) seeking an investigation into Panama Leaks.

Meanwhile, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, one of the members of the Constitutional Bench recused himself from hearing a case related to the hunting of Houbara Bustard. This led to the disbanding of the bench. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail excused to hear the case saying that he had already heard this case in Balochistan High Court. During the hearing, Additional Attorney General Amir Rahman submitted before the bench that the concept of hunting Houbara Bustard is like the official hunting of Markhor, adding that Markhor’s hunting has been given the status of trophy hunting. Justice Mandokhail, however, observed that there is a difference between the hunting of Houbara Bustard and ibex trophy hunting. Justice Musarat Hilali observed that Houbara Bustard are migratory birds.

During another hearing, the bench removed objections raised by the Registrar’s office on the petition seeking the revival of student unions and issued notices to the Attorney General, Advocate Generals of the four provinces as well as Advocate General, Islamabad, and adjourned the hearing.

The constitutional bench also took up the issue of appointments in the judiciary of Gilgit and Baltistan. Makhdom Ali Khan, counsel for the petitioner, appeared through a video link from the Karachi Registry and informed the bench that he could not come to Islamabad due to the prevailing situation in the capital and requested to fix the case on any date next week. Later, the court adjourned the instant hearing.