NAB was PM’s insurance policy: SC

PanamaLeaks case

Says Bureau died for bench; no one is extending helping hand; where plethora of allegations should be thrown

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday observed that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was an insurance policy of the prime minister and it had died for the bench.

The five-member apex court bench also observed that no one was extending the helping hand to handle the plethora of allegations as to where these could be thrown. The apex court said that it would not leave the Panama case undecided and vowed to come up with a verdict regardless of the fact that the parties to the instant case might or might not like its ruling.

A five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing into the petitions, seeking probe into the PanamaLeaks.

During the course of hearing, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that they were considering the instant matter from every conceivable angle and would come up with the ruling regardless of the fact as to who might or might not like it.

Attorney General Ashter Ausaf while continuing his arguments contended that the apex court could not give a declaration without recording the evidence in cases relating to controversial issues.

The court, however, observed that it was the fundamental right if the nation wanted to know whether its prime minister was eligible or not under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

The AG submitted that these articles were meant for the members of Parliament and not prime minister adding that the relevant forums for disqualification were Speaker National Assembly and Election Commission of Pakistan.

He further contended if the prime minister had not disclosed his assets in the nomination papers, he could be proceeded against in the court of District And Sessions Judge but not in the Supreme Court.

He said that under the law, the parliamentarians were required to submit their assets and liabilities while filing their nomination papers adding that Section 42-A of Representation of People’s Act 2014 a person could file his/her assets in the nomination papers and if he/she found of any violation, he/she might be proceeded against for committing such an offense.

Hence he contended that the appellant could file a criminal case against the prime minister under this section adding that the prime minister had no immunity in the criminal cases. The AG said that criminal case could be lodged over misrepresentation in which the premier would not have any exemption. He said that not only trial but disqualification would follow.

“You mean dishonesty comes in corruption and a person can be disqualified for violating electoral laws”, Justice Khosa asked AG. The AG replied in affirmative. He cited cases of Asghar Khan, saying that the court in that case had ruled that the court could issue a declaration on constitutional ground but in criminal cases, the court could issue direction for investigation.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the prime minister’s sons came to the dice and referred to paragraph 13-14 of Asghar Khan’s case judgment, saying that allegations were accepted by the three accused for which the court gave direction for taking action against them while those who were alleged for, the court gave direction for investigating the matter.

“What do you mean by this whether the court can appoint an independent investigator for probing the issue when both the NAB and FBR chairmen failed to do their job”, Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan asked Salman Akram Raja.

“We are considering the case from every conceivable angle”, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa remarked. “The case is not for your lordship to one specific aspect but have to be looked into from all the aspects”, AG Ashter Ausaf said.

“The case is not only regarding speeches made by the prime minister but about allegations that the PM had not disclosed the facts regarding his assets”, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked AG adding as to whether or not disclosing the facts constituted dishonesty when a person was required to disclose it in the nomination papers.

At one point, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed said that state departments were not working efficiently and that the NAB was dead for the bench.

In his rebuttal, Naeem Bokhari, counsel for the PTI contended that the prime minister was the owner of London flats but not his children adding that the court should reject the ownership of London flats, claimed by the children of the premier and admit that the prime minister was the real owner of these properties.

The court however, recalled to the learned counsel that earlier he had argued that Maryam Nawaz Sharif had the real ownership of these flats. Naeem Bokhari gave the details of date of birth of Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz and Maryam Nawaz and tried to establish that they were minor when a tripartite agreement was made, saying how they could give statements.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked the learned counsel as to whether the prime minister in his speeches mentioned that he purchased the London flats in his children name. “No my lord,” Naeem Bukhari replied adding that even the prime minister did not touch the matter of Qatari investment in his speeches.

He said that the PM only disclosed that London properties were bought after selling the Jeddah Steel Mills adding that there was no mention of Qatari investment. Justice Azmat said if Sharif family’s statements were not true, where it was written that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) was justified in its stance. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Thursday) asking Naeem Bokhari to conclude his arguments in rebuttal.