PanamaLeaks case
Justice Ejaz Afzal says if a person is disqualified, he will be disqualified for life and take the stigma to grave; Justice Khsoa says establishing or owning an offshore company not an issue but concealment of wealth and tax evasion
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that instead of assumption, authenticated documents would be considered as admissible evidence to decide the Panamagate case.
A five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing of the petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Jamaat-e-Islami and Awami Muslim League seeking a probe in the PanamaLeaks and disqualification of Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.
The court ruled for examining the qualification and disqualification of the prime minister in the case while exercising its jurisdiction of Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel for the prime minister, concluded his arguments. The bench termed the arguments most valuable.
Arguing before the court on the matter of jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, he cited various judgments, mostly old, and contended that the apex court will have to look into its limited jurisdiction while hearing the cases under Article 184(3). He, however, made it clear that he was not raising objection to the maintainability of the petition against his client but to say that the Supreme Court could not disqualify the prime minister on the grounds of documentary evidence.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, they will examine the qualification and disqualification of the prime minister as it was a public importance case. He said the instant case related to the whole nation as the prime minister, being the representative of the nation, was a party to the matter in hand.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that the matter before the apex court was about the qualification of the prime minister. He said the Supreme Court could disqualify Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif by relying on the disputed documents. The court observed that instead of assumption, authenticated documents would be considered as admissible evidence to decide the Panamagate case.
Makhdoom Ali Khan handed a copy of a book over to the bench written by Raymond Baker on the ‘Corruption’ of Mian Nawaz Sharif. The PTI counsel had in his arguments cited some excerpts from the said book.
“This was an opinion of the author and we cannot rely on it," Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said. Justice Khosa, however, on a lighter note told the counsel that they were five but the book was one at which Makhdoom replied that he will provide the book to other members of the bench also.
Justice Ejaz Afzal smilingly said: “Let Justice Khosa read it and we will ask then what he read?” Makhdoom Ali Khan contended that mostly the court could not rely on books or newspaper reports adding that the material could not be considered as evidence unless a person appeared in the court and explain what he said.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that the court accepts only verified documents as evidence adding that under Section 78 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat, no material can be taken into account unless its author appears in the court and explains it.
“Verdicts cannot be given mere on assumptions. If a person is convicted, he is imprisoned. But if a person is disqualified, he is disqualified for ever and this stigma and label he takes along to grave as well."
Citing various judgments delivered by the apex court in the public importance cases, Khan contended that there were some four limits established, which could not be crossed over by the court.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed asked the counsel if these limits were abolished, then where he will be standing. “I will stand in the limits of law,” Makhdoom Ali Khan replied. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, however, asked the counsel that he had also limits of the Constitution where he could get support as well. He also cited Begum Nusrat Bhutto and Abdul Wali Khan cases in which the court gave verdicts on mere newspaper reports.
At this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked Khan as to if he was embarrassing the judges. Makhdoom Ali Khan, however, excused to the bench for citation of other old cases. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa in a lighter tone said “Use old books and lose new cases.”
Khan, when giving the citation of Murree Brewery and other related cases, requested the bench to consider its verdict in which it had decided the matters over hearing cases without jurisdiction of the court.
Terming the citations obsolete, Justice Khosa observed new jurisprudence had been developed which was different than four decades ago. Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted that if a matter is under adjudication before the Election Commission or High Court, then the apex court will have to decide the matter after the decision of the commission or the high court.
He said references had been filed against Nawaz Sharif and Ishaq Dar with the Election Commission of Pakistan whereas appeals with the Lahore High Court to disqualify them. The references were filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan by Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, Yasmeen Rashid, Sardar Latif Khosa and Pakistan Awami Tehreek.
Justice Khosa observed that the matter in hand had many dimensions saying it had to examine whether disqualification of the premier could be sought in constitutional and criminal proceedings.
He said when the late President Ishaq Khan dissolved the Nawaz Sharif government under Article 58(2) B and the matter was pending with the High Court, even then the apex court heard the matter.
Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that apex court had no powers to hear a matter against the executive orders saying when the late Ishaq Khan dissolved the government of Nawaz Sharif in 1993, then the apex court had examined whether the president exercised his powers in accordance with the Constitution or not.
Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan said allegations had been leveled against chairmen of the Federal Board of Revenue and National Accountability Bureau in the current matter, so the court would have to hear them as well.
Referring to offshore companies, Khan submitted that establishing offshore companies never remained illegal. He said the government had also established two offshore companies which own two Pakistani state hotels including Roosevelt in the US and Scribe in France.
This quickly prompted Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa to ask the counsel if he was trying to justify his client’s offshore companies by citing references of two state hotels. Establishing or owning an offshore company was not the issue but the issue was of concealment of wealth and tax evasion, Justice Khsoa remarked.
Earlier, the counsel for the prime minister told the court that Maryam Nawaz was financially independent. Similarly, Shahid Hamid, counsel for Maryam Nawaz, filed evidence with the court regarding her property.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked whether the land was bought by father in her daughter's name. Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that Nawaz Sharif had purchased the land for Maryam Nawaz and later the property was transferred to her after she had paid price for the land. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Friday).
