SC says it’s empowered to hear cases directly

Says many cases were heard directly in past; PM’s counsel says MPs can be disqualified under Article 184(3) but it can’t apply to PM as he enjoys immunity; says every word of PM’s speech in NA is true; Justice Ahsan asks counsel why he stresses immunity when his client had said he would not ask for immunity

ISLAMABAD: Hearing a set of petitions seeking a probe into the PanamaLeaks and disqualification of Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif for “lying” in the National Assembly, the Supreme Court on Monday observed that it had the jurisdiction to hear the cases directly and had done so in the past. 

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing in the petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Jamaat-e-Islami and Awami Muslim League.

The apex court was informed that parliament could withdraw the immunity available to its members; however, the apex court will have to give its verdict in the PanamaLeaks case in accordance with the law.

Continuing his arguments, Makhdoom Ali Khan referred to Article 66 of the Constitution that gives legal protection to the proceedings of parliament wherein it is clearly mentioned that the proceedings of parliament could not be called into question by any court.

He contended that his client had not made any wrong statement on the floor of the house and even if he had, he enjoyed immunity. When the court asked him if the immunity given to the members of parliament could be withdrawn, Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that Parliament could withdraw the immunity but even then the apex court will have to give its verdict in accordance with the law on the issue of disqualification of prime minister for his speeches.

The court asked Makhdoom if the prime minister had not given a wrong statement in Parliament then why he was seeking immunity. When Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked Khan if he was contradicting the statement of his client, he said he was not contradicting the statement of prime minister but stressed that the court should also look into Article 66 that gives legal protection to proceedings of Parliament.

Justice Ahsan recalled that at first his client had said that he will not ask for immunity and “now you are stressing immunity.” Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that even if they did not ask for immunity the court will also look into the law and constitution.

He claimed that every word of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s speech was true and he didn’t deceive or misrepresent on the floor of the House. He however contended that the apex court had to examine whether it could at all look into the speech of his client made in Parliament in view of the provisions of Article 66 of the Constitution which protect the freedom of speech in Parliament.

He submitted that if the said privilege was violated then every parliamentarian would hesitate before saying anything in Parliament. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said the issue before the court was not the disqualification of prime minister on the basis of his statements and the court will decide the case on the basis of documents, additional documents as well as speeches of the prime minister.

He further said the court was trying to assess the speeches of prime minister. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked Khan if the prime minister could be disqualified under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

He said although the apex court had jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to take up such matters, can someone be unseated on the basis of material provided to the court.

Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that the apex court could disqualify legislators while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution but it cannot disqualify the prime minister on the basis of his speeches under Article 184(3) as the prime minister has immunity.

He contended that the Supreme Court and High Courts had repeatedly held that courts will not exercise their authority in constitutional jurisdiction to disqualify elected representatives of the people.

In this respect, the learned counsel recalled that Justice Ijazul Ahsan had allowed former Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to contest elections in spite of the fact that there were damning findings against him in the rental power case.

Makhdoom Ali Khan also cited cases of former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani as well as disqualification made in dual nationality’s case saying the apex court had disqualified elected candidates while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

To elaborate his point, Makhdoom Ali Khan said that first the apex court had issued directives to government to write a letter on December 16, 2009 in Dr. Mubashir Hassan’s case, adding that then the court issued a second direction in the matter.

Reading out the apex court orders in Yusuf Raza Gilani case, he contended that on March 30, 2010 secretary Ministry of Law was summoned and on April 01, 2010 the apex court was informed that the National Accountability Bureau had written to Swiss authorities in pursuance of the court directives.

He said several adjournments to accommodate government officials to comply with order were granted whereas on May 25, 2010 the then federal law minister had informed the court that the summary had submitted to the then Prime Minister Gilani.

Citing the apex court order in Gilani case, Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted that on January 3,2012, a five-member larger bench took up the court orders implementation matter and subsequently contempt notices were issued to Prime Minister Gilani on January 10, 2012 and on February 2, 2012 a seven-member bench of the apex court had framed charge against him.

Makhdoom Ali Khan further contended that on April 6, 2012 Yusuf Raza Gilani was convicted for contempt till rising of the court, adding that on June 19, 2012 the apex court issued directives that Gilani was disqualified because he was already convicted and had failed to file an appeal.

Makhdoom Ali Khan pleaded that in the dual nationality case, the Supreme Court had disqualified parliamentarians as they had not denied that fact. Khan alleged that the PTI chief Imran Khan wanted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to be disqualified because according to him he was not Sadiq and Ameen.

Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that Dr. Sher Afghan Khan Niazi and Dr. Farooq Sattar had filed references against Imran Khan with the Election Commission of Pakistan where Imran Khan had taken the position that the requirement of being Sadiq and Ameen did not apply to elected members but to the candidates contesting elections.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday).