Proceedings of parliament can be reviewed: SC

Says drawing comparison between speeches made in parliament not violation; PM’s counsel says he doesn’t claim immunity under Article 248 but seeks privilege of free speech under Article 66 that gives legal cover to parliamentary proceedings; Justice Azmat says parliamentary immunity under Article 66 for all MPs, including PM; Maryam Nawaz files additional documents with court

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that it was constitutionally competent to review parliamentary proceedings and drawing comparison between the speeches made in parliament was not a violation.

The observation came during the hearing of a set of petitions by a five-member bench of the apex court in the PanamaLeaks case. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa presides over the five-member bench.

The apex court was informed that Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was not claiming immunity under the Article 248 of the Constitution but seeking privilege of free speech, like any other parliamentarian, under Article 66 of the Constitution that gave legal cover to the parliamentary proceedings.

Continuing his arguments, Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for the prime minister, said they were not seeking immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution but claiming privilege available to the parliamentarians under Article 66 of the Constitution that gave legal protection to the proceedings of parliament.

He said the prime minister could not be disqualified for the contradictory statement of his sons. He said the issue of privilege was brought because disqualification had been sought on the basis of a speech in parliament.

Makhdoom Ali Khan contended that he had sought privilege under Article 66 that gave legal protection to parliamentary proceedings and its proceedings could not be called into question by any court of law.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed Sheikh observed that the privilege of parliamentarians to say something in parliament was not absolute under Article 66, adding that activity outside parliament did not fall within the purview of immunity extended to parliamentarians in the House under Article 66 of the Constitution.

Addressing Makhdoom Ali Khan, he said parliamentary immunity under Article 66 was not only for the prime minister but also for the entire parliamentarians, adding that the question before the court was not the prime minister’s speech on the floor of the House but his address to the nation from outside parliament.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said he had sought privilege in the speech made by his client on the floor of parliament but not in the speech made before the nation on May 5, 2016.

The court then asked him to read out the statement made by the prime minister in his address to the nation which he did.

In the speech, the prime minister said he had established the Jeddah Mill after taking loan from the bank and later on sold it out and gave the money to his sons to invest it in some other business.

At this, Justice Khosa asked the counsel if the prime minister had not made a wrong statement before the nation as his son had contradicted his statement by saying that he established the Jeddah Mills under his own name.

Khan simply replied that it was for the court to decide as to who gave a wrong statement but the father could not be disqualified on the basis of a wrong statement made by his son.

Justice Khosa said the court was not prosecuting the prime minister on the basis of his speech in parliament. He said the court was deliberating on whether or not it could examine the premier’s speech in the current case.

He observed that these were not regular parliamentary proceedings, as the prime minister had volunteered to say something on the Panama Papers issue.

He said committing a crime was not performance of an official duty and parliament was not an island where one can do whatever one wants.

On arguments that the proceedings of parliament could not be adjudicated in the court, Justice Khosa observed that the apex court had declared in a case that the speech to the members of parliament could be used as evidence.

Citing several judgments, Makhdoom Ali Khan contended that the matter in hand was not about the disqualification of the prime minister but to disqualify a member of parliament.

He also touched upon the allegations leveled by the petitioners regarding the tax evasion of the prime minister. 

The counsel said the petitioner had sought disqualification of the premier in prayer No 1 while in prayer No 6 he had asked the FBR, the respondent No 5, to scrutinise the PM’s tax returns, so the petitioner was not seeking that this court make the assessment adding that the petitioner, therefore, admits that tax liability is not determined.

If prayer No6, seeking direction to the FBR to scrutinize the tax returns of the prime minister, then prayer number 1 seeking disqualification of Nawaz Sharif could not be granted, Makhdoom Ali Khan contended.

He further submitted that if prayer number 6 was granted, then prayer no 1 seeking disqualification of the premier could not be granted so the petitioner’s own pleadings, prayer 1, could not be granted on the plea of tax evasion.

“So there has been no assessment and no determination of liability," Makhdoom Ali Khan contended.

The court adjourned the hearing until today (Wednesday).

Meanwhile,  Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam Safdar told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that she had never been her father’s dependent since her marriage in December 1992.

Shahid Hamid, the counsel for Maryam Safdar — respondent No 6 — in the PanamaLeaks case, filed some additional documents with the apex court under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 and prayed the court to place the documents and related statements on record. She requested the apex court to take an appropriate action against the petitioner, Imran Khan, for maligning her on false grounds.

She contended that her total income from both non-agricultural and agricultural sources during the year 2012 remained Rs2.31 million.

She submitted that her aggregate income was supplemented by the salary and allowances of her husband that he had been drawing since 2008 as a member of the National Assembly and its details were contained in the CMA of 187/2017.

She said her spouse had been paying tax since joining the government service in 1986 adding that her husband was in government service till exile to Jeddah.

“The self-evident and mala fide purpose of the false and frivolous allegation that I am a dependent of my father is an attempt to disqualify my husband for not declaring my assets in his nomination form,” she submitted.

The additional documents also contain details about the wealth statement of the prime minister during the year 2010, the wealth statement of Ms Shamim Akhtar during the year 2010 as well as the bank statements, including the Standard Chartered and HBL.  

Maryam further submitted that she had been residing in one of the five houses at the Raiwind Estate shortly after her marriage and except for the exile period spent in Jeddah from 2000 to 2007, she continued to live there with her husband and three children.

She said the occupants of other houses were Ms Shamim Akhtar, Mian Shahbaz Sharif and the family of the late Abbas and added that the Sharif family members bore all the expenditures collectively.