Defendants’ lawyers have to answer plethora of questions

ISLAMABAD: A great test of the professional dexterity of distinguished lawyers of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children starts in the unprecedentedly high-profile case at the Supreme Court.

This set of attorneys has a gigantic task to perform and questions thrown up by the other side’s lawyer are abundant that they will have to answer to the satisfaction of the five judges forming the bench. Besides, they will face a number of pertinent queries from the justices as well so that the judges are able to dig out the truth. No smooth sailing is expected for them as was evident from a plethora of questions posed by the justices.

Enough has been heard from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman’s advocate Naeem Bokhari for many days. His submissions have at times been too dragging to the extent that even Sheikh Rashid, who wants Nawaz Sharif out of coveted office come what may, was quite irritated over his presentation.

For the first time since the launch of proceedings against the premier and his children some two and a half months ago, the defendants have got the opportunity to offer their side of the story through their advocates.

In over a dozen hearings since Nov 1 last, Imran Khan’s lead lawyer had been dominating the show with his arguments with the other side’s lawyers just confining themselves to taking notes of his assertions in a bid to brace up for the legal scramble.

To start with, Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer, Makhdoom Al Khan, tried hard to disentangle his client from the case altogether, stressing that the premier was not answerable to anyone for his son’s business; no law can hold him questionable for it; he was not a shareholder in the Gulf Steel Dubai; and he was neither a director nor a shareholder or beneficial owner of any offshore company, having anything to do with London flats. He thus attempted to totally delink the prime minister from the business of his children.

Justice Ejaz Afzal raised a very important point by asking whether article 66 of the Constitution can be a hindrance to the top court’s review of the premier’s speeches made in the parliament. What implication will this article have, which states parliamentary proceedings cannot be challenged by any court of law, he questioned.

This provision says that subject to the Constitution and the rules of procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament and no member shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in it and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

The article thus gives immunity to the MPs about anything they say or do or votes cast by them in the parliament as all such acts can’t be called into question in any court.

The two speeches of the prime minister on the allegations against him relating to the Panama Papers disclosures have been exhaustively discussed by Naeem Bokhari, by pointing out what, he claimed, contradictions in them. In fact, he based most of his arguments on these addresses and sought the premier’s disqualification on their basis.

But Makhdoom Ali Khan had a different view to tell to the judges by saying that Nawaz Sharif was not giving oath or answering a specific question during his speeches and his addresses were not a statement in the court.

As per the Constitution, a reference can be filed against the prime minister or any other MP with the speaker, who, if he is satisfied that a question of the disqualification of the concerned MP has arisen, will refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for its determination. The premier can also be disqualified if he is convicted by a court of law and such a judgment becomes conclusive. This precisely happened in the case of Yousuf Raza Gilani, who was convicted for contempt of court by the highest judicial forum. The then speaker had refused to send a reference to the ECP for his unseating. The matter was again raised before the top court, which got Gilani ousted from the office of the prime minister.

Naeem Bokhari had kept stressing repeatedly during the proceedings that the premier should be disqualified and unseated for ‘lying’. However, Makhdoom Ali Khan explained that the top court cannot disqualify the premier on the basis of statements and claims of others; and there are two ways to remove him: the first is by the submission of a no-confidence motion; and the second requires that members of the National Assembly prove that he is dishonest. Another much talked about point in the apex court has been the money trail pertaining to establishment of the steel factory in Dubai, remittance of its entire or partial sale proceeds to Qatar and transfer of money to Saudi Arabia and Britain.

However, Nawaz Sharif’s attorney made it clear that the matter of the money trail has nothing to do with the premier as the business belonged to his children and the record to the effect will be presented by their lawyer.

Thus, he was concerned with taking care of his client’s interest with the main objective of getting him dissociated from the case, pleading that Nawaz Sharif doesn’t figure in any offshore company or business of his family. He left it to Shahid Hamid and Salman Akram Raja, who represent Maryam, Hussain and Hassan, to speak on behalf of their clients.