PanamaLeaks case
Justice Khosa says whosoever gives comments or commentaries on roads should keep it with them
ISLAMABAD: Resuming the hearing of the PanamaLeaks case, the Supreme Court on Monday said truth was yet to be sifted from falsehood adding that truth must come to the fore.
A five-member bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, is hearing a set of petitions seeking a probe into the PanamaLeaks and disqualification of the prime minister for “lying” on the floor of parliament.
The court observed that the prime minister’s counsel had produced a heap of legal points in the defence of his client but gave no solid proof. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked that whosoever gives comments or commentaries on roads should keep it with them and let the decision come.
The court questioned the linkage of Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif with the London properties. The counsel for the Jamaat-e-Islami, Taufiq Asif, contended that while delivering his speech in the National Assembly on May 16, 2016, the prime minister defended his family business but later furnished changed documents with the apex court.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed asked the counsel to establish the premier’s link with the offshore business of his family. He further asked the counsel on which basis he was claiming that the premier was involvedin the business.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed further said Mian Muhammad Sharif died in 2004 and the counsel must tell as to what had happened afterwards. Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the JI counsel why he was dragging the prime minister in the matter when the respondents had submitted that the entire business was run by the family elder Mian Muhammad Sharif. The counsel said the prime minister had not mentioned in his speech the money trail for establishing the business abroad.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, however, reminded the counsel that in the earlier arguments, the premier’s counsel had maintained that the London flats were not owned by the premier. Taufeeq Asif contended that the prime minister had defended his children in the National Assembly and later submitted documents to the court pertaining to the gifts he had received from the children as well as details of gifts he had given to his children.
“The whole speech delivered by the prime minister on the floor of the house was specifically personal and nothing was in the public interest,” the JI counsel said. At this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the counsel why he was asking the court to take up the instant matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution which was the jurisdiction of the apex court taking public importance case.
Taufeeq said the PM was the representative of over 180 million people and that’s why it’s a public importance case. He said the parliamentary forum could not be used for personal clarification adding that the parliamentary privilege could be sought only for the legislative business.
When the court asked the counsel if the PM’s speech was a part of parliament's proceedings, he replied that it was not a part of the agenda of the National Assembly proceedings. He said the prime minister should have selected the private day for his clarification which was Tuesday but he delivered the speech on Monday.
The counsel said the prime minister had concealed many things adding that whatever the PM filed with the Speaker National Assembly should be summoned. He said the premier had not filed his reply on his application.
The JI counsel again repeated that the speech of the prime minister was personal but at the same time submitted that the government was defending the prime minister as ministers daily come to court to attend the proceedings besides delivering statements before the media outside the court.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked that whosoever gave comments and commentaries on roads should keep it with them and wait for the final verdict.
When the JI counsel referred to honesty for oath of a member of parliament mentioning “Justly”, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the said word was not mentioned in the oath of a member of parliament as well as in Article 62(1)(f).
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan told the counsel that the word “Justly” was mentioned in Article 218 of the Constitution concerning the election whereby it was mentioned that election should be held fairly and justly.
The counsel said the prime minister had lied on the floor of the house and when he tried to refer to some judgments, Justice Azmat interrupted the counsel saying that anybody’s false statement remains useless when truth does not come to the surface.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Seed told the JI counsel that the apex court had already decided that it can take up the public importance cases of those who had no access to the judicial system.
The JI counsel further submitted that the prime minister had also lied on the floor of the house while mentioning his forced exile and hence he remained no more Sadiq and Ameen.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, however, said at present forced exile was not the issue adding that in the plane hijacking case, the court had already decided the matter after quashing the sentence of the prime minister and asked the counsel to read that judgment.
“We are very much cautious about our jurisdiction as to what could be done and what should not be done as well,” Justice Khosa remarked. Taufiq submitted that he would also touch the Zafar Ali Shah Case to which the court asked him to conclude his arguments in an hour today (Tuesday) and adjourned the hearing.
