Only law will dictate decision: SC

PanamaLeaks case

Decision can’t be made on wish of somebody; Justice Khosa says Dar’s confession in money laundering case part of evidence on which no action was taken; money laundering record summoned; court not moving at snail’s pace

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday warned against dictation and said the verdict in the PanamaLeaks case will be given in accordance with the law after hearing all the parties.

A five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Seed Khosa, resumed hearing of petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Jamaat-e-Islami, Awami Muslim League and advocate Tariq Asad seeking a probe into the Leaks.

The other members of the bench are Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen. Justice Khosa said the court was not moving at a snail’s pace and listening to all the parties so that the requirement of justice could be fulfilled. He said the court will not give its decision on the desires of people.

The court directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit the confessional statement of Ishaq Dar in the Hudaibya Papers Mills case in which he had confessed to laundering some $14.86 million.

The court asked the NAB prosecutor general to submit the details of the reference filed against the Hudaibya Paper Mills back in April 2000 and the record of Ishaq Dar’s confession in the matter when he was behind the bars after the October 1999 military coup.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for the prime minister, sought time until January 30 to submit the detailed documents about distribution of the late Mian Sharif’s property among his heirs and about the Sharif family's gifts in pursuance of the court’s earlier directives.

Shahid Hamid, counsel for Maryam Safdar and Ishaq Dar, focused on the Hudaibya Papers Mills case saying that Dar was accused of confessing to laundering some $14.86 million before the magistrate. He contended that his client was forced to make a confession adding that later on he totally disowned the statement.

Shahid Hamid argued that some allegations also surfaced against his client that he had accused Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif of money laundering in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case. He said it was alleged that Dar had confessed that on the instructions of Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif, he operated two foreign currency accounts in the name of Sikandar Masood Qazi and Talat Masood Qazi with the foreign funds of the Sharif family in the Bank of America.

When the court asked if Ishaq Dar had denied his confessional statement, Shahid Hamid replied in the affirmative. He informed the court that his client was asked to sign a pre-written statement after which he was again arrested.

The counsel read out Ishaq Dar’s statement, "After the military coup, I was first kept under house arrest and then asked to become a part of the government in return for cooperation." He told the court that the army kept his client in confinement till 2001 after which he disclosed in an interview to a private channel that the confession was made under coercion.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that if the magistrate concerned was unable to verify the authenticity of Ishaq Dar’s confession, then the statement was not more than a piece of paper.

In contrast, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the confession was not just a piece of paper but a part of evidence on which no action was taken.

He said the NAB reference in the matter was disposed of on the grounds of technicalities. Justice Khosa asked as to why the anti-graft body failed to challenge the Lahore High Court verdict in the Supreme Court against the acquittal of Ishaq Dar in the matter.

He further observed that an intra-court appeal was heard by a two-member bench of the Lahore High Court and in such cases normally a five-judge bench used to hear the matter normally.

Shahid Hamid, however, contended that the NAB reference against his client was not maintainable on the grounds that two judges of the High Court had disagreed with re-investigation of the matter.

“Under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, double jeopardy is prevented,” Shahid Hamid said. To another question, the counsel submitted that his client was not a Member of Parliament while the Act was legislated.

Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that if the chairman NAB invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction against the High Court verdict, then the court will have to issue directives for re-investigation into the matter. Citing the apex court's directions in the former chairman Ogra case, Justice Ejaz said nobody had approached the apex court but despite that it ordered re-investigation. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the herring until Monday, January 30.