Judges largely dissatisfied with evidence, arguments in Panama case

ISLAMABAD: The bottom-line of intensive hearings that the Supreme Court has held against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his three children concerning offshore companies and London apartments is that barring an exception the judges were largely dissatisfied with the documents produced before them and the arguments advanced by lawyers.

They were also unhappy with the responses given by the chairmen of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), Qamar Zaman and Mohammad Irshad respectively, as these top office holders fell short of the judges’ expectations in dealing with the Panama scandal.

Almost every attorney regardless of side he stood for was plainly told by the judges that they were not pleased with their submissions. Some of them were intensely grilled and were deeply embarrassed for not satisfying the justices.

Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf was also not apparently up to the mark in the judges’ view, which became clear when one judge remarked that the AGP should assist the court and not become a party (by arguing in Nawaz Sharif’s favour).

If one lawyer who could be singled out for having been listened to keenly and who was not much forcefully questioned and thus put on the defence, he was Makhdoom Ali Khan. He raised critical constitutional and legal points, trying to wriggle out his client, the prime minister, from this cobweb. Most importantly, he pointed out the constitutional privilege of an MP, of course including Nawaz Sharif as member of the National Assembly. He attempted to knock out the petitions against the prime minister on constitutional grounds.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Naeem Bokhari had a very tough going for several days. For being nowhere, Jamaat-e-Islami lawyer Taufiq Asif earned a lot of flak from the bench. Salman Akram Raja and Shahid Hamid had relatively better sailing.

At times, it appeared that the judges were frustrated over not getting proper answers to their questions as well as the desired documentary evidence. They repeatedly restated that they have not been provided the essential written proofs that lead them to a conclusive determination. They also noted that attempts have been made to confuse them by the lawyers by varying arguments. More than once, they stated that neither the petitioners nor the defendants furnished the requisite papers, leaving innumerable gaps in their stands.

The judges made it clear more than once during some of three dozens of hearings that the primary objective behind putting pertinent questions to the lawyers was to search for truth, and that their remarks and observations should not be taken as their impending judgment. However, the queries they posed and the observations they passed always hit headlines, which were presented as the final outcome of the crucial case.

A highlight of the last couple of hearings is that the judges were deeply irked over the reply of the NAB chairman. This was also reflected in their remarks made on Wednesday. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed summed it up when he observed that the aspect of investigation from the premier by the NAB was buried six feet deep because of the response of the anti-graft agency chief. “The NAB died before us yesterday. Its chairman stated he has said what he wanted to say and it is up to the bench to do whatever it wishes to do.”

It is certainly for the judges to take the ultimate decision, but it appeared from their angry observations that the NAB chairman, who will retire in coming October on the expiration of his four–year term may be dealt with severely in the judgment.

Although the AGP projected the view that he was just presenting the facts as per the records and was not representing the Federation, most of his observations obviously turned out to be very close to the stands taken by the Sharif family’s lawyers. He argued that the bench should not order filing of an appeal in the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Lahore High Court (LHC), quashing the Hudabiya Paper Mills case.

He stressed that a declaration (meaning a court decision) was mandatory for disqualification of the prime minister and the apex court can’t do so. Other forums are available to declare the premier ineligible. A reference can be filed with the National Assembly speaker, and other forums can be approached in case there is no decision on such reference by him.

Ashtar Ausaf submitted that the instant Panama case and the Hudabiya Paper Mills matter can’t be linked because they differ in nature. He also talked about the powers of the top court in the case like the instant one. Justice Ejaz Afzal noted that it was in their mind as to how far they can go in adjudicating upon the present petitions.

The AGP also noted that the bench has to see what material it has before it to make a declaration. There is only one affidavit and copies of some documents which have to be examined in the light of the evidence law. He pointed out that disputed material was provided by the PTI. Therefore, the court cannot give a verdict on its basis.

The AGP contended that the state institutions should not be disgraced as he felt embarrassed during his appearances at the international arbitration because they refer to the statements of Pakistan’s dignitaries against the key departments. “When the state institutions themselves tend to be disgraceful then what should we do,” asked Justice Khosa and urged the AGP to think about why such remarks were being issued against the state institutions.