Parties asked to choose between commission or SC decision

 PanamaLeaks case

CJ says benefit of doubt in any case goes to accused; incomplete evidence submitted in court; parties’ evidence needs probe

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that an investigation of the evidence is needed in the PanamaLeaks case after questions were raised on the genuineness of the documents submitted before the court and asked the parties whether a commission should be formed first or the apex court should decide the matter itself.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Ameer Hani Muslim, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen, resumed hearing in the petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and others seeking a probe in the Panama Papers as well as disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Continuing his arguments, Salman Aslam Butt, counsel for Nawaz Sharif, expressed his inability to produce before the court the documentary record on the money trail through which the Sharif family had purchased the London properties.

The court the other day had asked the counsel to answer three important questions i.e. as to how the prime minister’s children formed the companies, from where the money came and how it was transferred besides explaining the issue of dependency as well as whether the speeches made by the prime minister were true or not.

Salman Aslam Butt contended that the prime minister had not been named directly in the Panama Papers, therefore, he is not responsible for every action a member of the Sharif family takes. The counsel contended that the records are 40 years old and it is difficult for him to find the documents.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that to serve justice, the instant matter needs to be investigated as the counsel for the prime minister had not answered the questions they had asked the other day.

Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali asked the counsel whether on the documents submitted by both the parties, the court can give its decision, adding that the petitioners were also levelling allegations of corruption and claiming that four of the London apartments were the properties of the prime minister.

The chief justice further asked Salman Aslam Butt that when the court also didn’t know about the trail of money, Slaman Aslam Butt replied in negative at which the chief justice said that than there is a need of investigation in the instant mater as questions have been raised on the genuineness of the documents. 

Salman Aslam Butt contended that on grounds given by the petitioners, can Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution be applied, at which the chief justice said the petitioners have also raised other grounds, questioning about London properties as well as how the money was transferred from Pakistan.

Salman Aslam Butt submitted that so far the replies submitted by the petitioners did not implicate the prime minister, so his name should be separated from the matter in hand. Justice Asif Khosa observed that a ruler of the day was brought to the court and an ample example in this regard is available, adding that sessions of events have taken place in number of years.

“This is not going to be end of proceedings and we want to ascertain the facts, otherwise this will become a precedent for future disqualification,” Justice Khosa remarked, adding, “The burden is on our shoulders and we want to decide this case to our satisfaction and not the satisfaction to the parties in the matter in hand.”

Justice Jamali observed that the case pertaining to criminal liability needs strong evidence and little benefit of doubt in any case goes in favour of the accused.

The chief justice said incomplete evidences had been submitted before the court, adding, "Naeem Bukhari has submitted documents downloaded from the internet and such documents are not admissible evidence.”

Naeem Bukhari, counsel for PTI, contended that they have sought disqualification of the prime minister under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution as the PM remained no more Sadiq and Ameen while giving contradicting statements.

The chief justice asked Naeem Bukhari that he had already availed this opportunity at the relevant forum, adding that the apex court is hearing the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in view of PanamaLeaks, not on the speeches of the prime minister.

Meanwhile, the court asked all the parties to deliberate upon and seek instructions on the formation of commission and appear before it after a short while.  Later, when the court reassembled, Naeem Bukhari sought a little time until December 9 as they want to make consultations. He said that they would like to know terms of reference (TORs) as well as the powers to be granted to the said commission.

The chief justice recalled to the learned counsel that they had already stated that it would be a one-judge commission led by a judge of the Supreme Court and it can acquire the services of any agency and independent source and both the parties in the matter would have complete opportunity to produce the documents before the commission and plead their cases and after the findings of the commission, the apex court will hear the case.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed expressed the wish that the case should have been decided in the presence of Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.  “Don’t you trust us,” Justice Asif Saeed Khosa in a lighter tone asked Sheikh Rashid.  The chief justice told Sheikh Rashid that if he trusts the court, the court will give justice on merit.

Meanwhile, Additional Attorney General Rana Waqar informed the apex court that both Attorney General Ashter Ausaf and Salman Aslam Butt went to the Prime Minister’s House to seek the PM’s instructions. Later, the court adjourned the hearing until tomorrow (Friday).