PM files concise statement with Supreme Court Denies ownership of offshore companies

Sh Rasheed’s allegations

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif on Saturday filed a concise statement with the Supreme Court in the PanamaLeaks case in which he denied being the beneficial owner of offshore companies.

Filing his concise statement in response to a petition filed by the APML chief Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, Nawaz denied being the beneficial owner of the London flats and requested the apex court to dismiss the petition with cost.

The premier’s counsel, Makhdoom Ali Khan, maintained his client was qualified under Article 62 and thus he could not be disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution.

The counsel filed parawise comments on Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed’s petition.

“My client is not the legal or ostensible or beneficial owner of the offshore companies which own the four apartments as alleged in the petition," Khan told the court.

Counsel for Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Naeem Bokhari submitted the transcript and USB of Hussain Nawaz Sharif’s interviews with Hamid Mir in Capital Talk on Geo TV channel aired on 19-01-2016 and with Asma Sherazi aired on 4th April 2016 in “Hum Dekhane Gae” on Channel 92.

Khan submitted that the prime minister had not made a false declaration by not mentioning the offshore companies in his nomination papers for NA-120 submitted on March 31, 2013 for the general elections.

“The PM did not make any false statement or mis-statement by not declaring these offshore companies in his income tax return and wealth tax statements,” he said, adding that Maryam Safdar was not a dependent of the prime minister.

He recalled that the petitioner filed a reference against the PM with the Speaker National Assembly on September 2, 2016, which was dismissed.

He further said the petitioner did not challenge the Speaker’s ruling in the high court under Article 199 of Constitution.

Khan said the petitioner had filed an application with the Election Commission, seeking Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification, which was still pending. “As the petitioner has already availed himself of adequate constitutional and statutory remedies, therefore he should be stopped from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the august court under Article 184(3) of Constitution,” the reply said.

It denied the allegation that the prime minister had delayed an inquiry into the charges against him and his children in the PanamaLeaks. 

He said the prime minister neither contested the maintainability of the petition under Article 184 (3) of Constitution, nor claimed immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution.

He did not deny the requirement under Article 62(1)(F) of Constitution that an elected member must be sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen.

The reply further contended that the petitioner had not brought anything on the record to prove that the PM did not meet the requirements of articles 62 and 63 of Constitution.

“There is no declaration by a court of law that the PM does not meet the test of Article 62(1)(F), the counsel contended.

He submitted that unlike Article 32 of Constitution of India 1949, Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan was not by itself a Fundamental Right. 

It is a remedy available by invoking the jurisdiction of the august court in a matter of public importance relating to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

These Fundamental Rights have to be interpreted in a manner that they do not violate the Fundamental Rights of the prime minister under Article 10A to a fair trial and due process and his right to equal protection of law in a non-discriminatory manner under Article 25 of the Constitution, said the reply.

“The petitioner has failed to produce any material, which is either admissible or proved in accordance with the law and the Constitution,” the PM’s counsel submitted. 

He said the petitioner desired that the apex court act as an investigating agency, examine the voluminous evidence involving intricate questions of facts and without fair trial and due process disqualify the prime minister.

He said the material relied upon by the petitioner could not be regarded as evidence and it could not form the basis of disqualification unless it was ruled admissible in evidence and formality proved against the PM in consonance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.