Panama case is significant because PM is made party to it

ISLAMABAD: Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who heads the five-member bench that is holding proceedings against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children, most aptly referred to the paramount importance of the case saying that it concerns the whole nation because the defendant is the prime minister.

Obviously, the mere fact that the case involves the premier has made it all the more significant and attention grabbing at home and abroad. The judges have its great significance in mind. However, the case will be decided keeping in view the facts produced before the bench in the light of the Constitution and law.

Most important is the authenticity of the documentary evidence submitted to the court that is largely missing in the instant case. This fact has been repeatedly mentioned by the judges. Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that only authentic documents can be accepted as evidence; how judgment that will have far-reaching consequences can be handed down on assumptions; and if the Supreme Court disqualifies, the stigma will stick not only throughout the whole life but it will go with the concerned person even in grave.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that the issue for disposal by the panel relates to disqualification and not to offshore companies. “We are trying to have non-controversial documents.”

There is not even an iota of doubt that the case is of political nature as both the petitioners and the defendants are eager to cash in on its outcome in the political arena. A predominant majority of people of Pakistan are eagerly awaiting the verdict. How far the ruling will damage one party or benefit the other is an open question and it depends on which political side one is. Never before has Nawaz Sharif faced such comprehensive scrutiny and accountability.

His lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan undoubtedly raised a number of constitutional questions to defend his client. He dilated at length on the freedom of speech and privilege of the MPs under Article 66 about the speeches made in the parliament and the votes cast there.

This privilege is available to all the MPs and is not restricted to the premier or any other particular lawmaker. It was argued that this is meant for the parliament, which can’t be taken away by any authority.

However, the court stated that the speeches made on the floor of the parliament can be examined.

On Thursday, the attorney dwelt on another key point and stated that although he was not objecting to the maintainability of the petitions under Article 184(3), he wanted to emphasize what the top court can do and what it can’t under this provision. The court has the jurisdiction to hear the petitions, but has limits that are determined by the law. Justice Khosa observed that the matter of disqualification can be heard in a case of public importance.

The issue of dependence of Maryam on her father or her independence emerged as a major topic which attracted expansive arguments. To prove that she is independent she has to file with the court the details of her income and tax payments. Now, her lawyer has filed with the court the details and dates of the properties she purchased to prove her point.

Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that the bench will have to decide what the definition of dependence is while keeping the case in mind. Justice Gulzar Ahmed remarked that a verdict on Maryam's status as a dependent could be made on the basis of the facts presented to court; that the matter of her dependence is of concern; and that more facts should be provided on the matter.

As the Makhdoom departed from the rostrum for the time being after completing his arguments, confining them to the defence of the prime minister, he left pertinent questions to be tackled by the judges in their decision.

He faced many queries and always remained to the point, precise and concise. He provided no opportunity to the judges to cut him short for being too protracted. He turned out to be a thoroughly professional lawyer, who kept quoting from the Constitution and the case law to convince the judges about his client’s case. How far he was able to win will transpire only when the justices will pronounce their judgment.

Shahid Hamid and Salman Akram Raja, lawyers of Maryam, Hussain and Hassan have a lot of work to do. The Makhdoom represented the premier whose name doesn’t figure in the offshore companies identified in the Panama Papers, the London apartments or any other business dealing of the Sharif family. He was arraigned for the simple reason that he was the father of Maryam, Hussain and Hassan, and that he was the prime minister of Pakistan.

On the other hand, Hussain has admitted that he owns the London properties through the offshore companies, and that Maryam is the trustee and not their beneficial owner. Therefore, the task before their lawyers is more difficult than that of the Makhdoom.