Politicians ignore advice on Panama case debate

ISLAMABAD: Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who leads the five-member bench of the Supreme Court that is hearing the petitions against Prime Minister Nawaz and his children on account of London apartments and offshore companies, softly asked all parties to the pleas to wait for the judgment as they have exhaustively discussed the case on the media.

Jamaat-e-Islami lawyer Taufiq Asif wanted a ban on TV talk shows offering commentaries on the significant case to which the senior judge remarked that a lot has been done and now everyone should wait for the judgment before dilating on it on the media. They specifically included political leaders.

Even after this gentle counsel, the heads or mouthpieces of the key petitioners – the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Jamaat-e-Islami – showed no letup in talking about the proceedings with the same pace and vigour. Similarly, the TV channels too ignored the advice.

There can’t be even minor disagreement with Justice Khosa as the present case has been debated by senior opposition politicians so much that no judicial proceedings were ever so relentlessly discussed every day since the Panama Papers’ disclosures surfaced in April last.

There was no problem in making it the hot topic of every kind of talk before the top court launched proceedings on it. But even after it opened hearings, the ambitious political figures have been deliberating upon it unstoppable. More ironical is that the spokesmen of different political parties appear before the TV cameras to interpret the judicial proceedings even when these are in progress. This is height of irresponsibility. However, the court has been ignoring such practice.

Taufiq Asif, who consumed another day in advancing arguments with the bench members being hardly impressed with his submissions, was displeased over the press coverage of his performance in the Supreme Court on Friday. But his annoyance created no impact on the panel of illustrious judges.

At one stage, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked addressing him that he has made the bench helpless with his arguments as he presents one assertion or the other and then takes it back. “The Jamaat-e-Islami is countering its own petition and it appears you are deliberately prolonging the proceedings.” Reacting to a line of arguments of Taufiq Asif, Justice Khosa observed that it seemed as if the lawyer was trying to buy more time by repeating old arguments. The attorney was instructed to wrap up his arguments on Tuesday.

The advocate did not like the questions posed to him by the judges on the last date of hearing, and projected the view that way the media portrayed how queries were raised made it look like a judgment has already been passed. However, Justice Khosa clarified that questions, which are of temporary nature, are asked for purpose of clarification and are not a verdict.

Taufiq Asif persisted with his focus on the premier’s speech to the National Assembly and opined that Nawaz Sharif concentrated on a personal issue. However, a judge pointed that the Jamaat-e-Islami’s case ends under article 184(3) if this argument is accepted because this provision deals with matters of public importance.

“You are saying that Nawaz Sharif’s address was not of public importance and then you say it is a matter of public importance; you should not give arguments against your own case,” Justice Azmat Saeed observed.

The lawyer spent a considerable time in demanding the record of the premier’s speech although judges pointed out that no side has disputed its contents, which is an accepted document for which there is no need to seek evidence to check its veracity. Taufiq Asif also articulated reservations about its delivery on Monday and not on Tuesday, which is always a private members’ day. It was beyond even ordinary understanding how far these submissions strengthened his case.

The bench head also made another extremely important observation when he said that someone can only be disqualified on the basis of “Black Letter Law” and not on people’s expectations. In so many words, every opposition politician vehemently assertively states that 200 million people of Pakistan want to see the premier disqualified. Equally vociferously, the ruling party asserts that the same 200 million people want Nawaz Sharif to stay in office. It will be decided only at the ballot box to which side these people actually are. It is also emphasized by opposition stalwarts that people’s court has handed down its judgment against the prime minister.

As per the definition, in common law legal systems, Black Letter Laws are the well-established technical legal rules that are no longer subject to reasonable dispute. Some examples are the Black Letter Law of contracts or of trademarks. It can be contrasted with legal theory or unsettled legal issues. Black Letter Law refers to the basic standard elements or principles of law, which are generally known and free from doubt or dispute. It describes the basic principles of law that are accepted by a majority of judges in most states.

The judges’ observations apart, even otherwise an impression has emerged that the proceedings are dragging for some time. However, the justices had made it clear for more than once that they will give whatever time the lawyers of all sides would wish and have no plan to cut anybody short.