PanamaLeaks verdict to be as per law: SC

Judgment reserved; Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed says court will give verdict without bothering anybody’s hue and cry; no short order can be announced as court has to go through documents keeping in view all aspects; it will be such a verdict that even after 20 years people will say it was given in accordance with the law

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday reserved judgment in the PanamaLeaks case with the ruling that the decision would be announced in accordance with the law and the constitution.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, reserved the judgment after the counsel for the petitioners completed their arguments. Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh and Justice Ijazul Ahsen are the other members of the bench.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, Jamaat-e-Islami chief Sirajul Haq and Sheikh Rashid Ahmed of Awami Muslim League had filed petitions with the apex court seeking probe into PanamaLeaks case and disqualification of Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif for “lying” on the floor of Parliament.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said this was not the case in which a short order had to be passed saying the court will go through reams and reams of documents keeping in view all aspects and deliver verdict in accordance with the law and the constitution.

“This is not the first case of its kind but in future such nature of cases may come to the court. Hence we want to come up with such a verdict where even after 20 years people will say the judgment was given in accordance with the law,” Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that they will give verdict in accordance with the law and the constitution without bothering about anybody’s hue and cry.

Earlier, Naeem Bukhari, counsel for the PTI, requested the court to issue a declaration for disqualification of Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif for making false statements in his speeches made to the nation and in Parliament.

He said there were signatures of Maryam Safdar on the documents of Minerva Services Company. Justice Azmat Saeed however said Maryam Safdar had already termed her signature fake.

Justice Ijaz Afzal asked Bokhari if they could verify these documents saying they were neither special court nor trial court. “How a piece of paper can be accepted as evidence unless it is verified under Qanoon-e-Shahadat,” Justice Ijaz Afzal questioned.

Naeem Bukhari however contended that in past the court had accepted such pieces of paper as evidence in judgment. He cited the Sindh High Court Bar case in which the judges who took oath on the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) were sent home and the case of disqualification of former Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani.

Justice Ijaz Afzal however said in case of Yousaf Raza Gilani, the court gave verdict after everything was established against him.

“In my case too there is contradiction between the speeches of prime minister and the statements of his children. Two speeches of the prime minister and the statements of his children are before the court while documents in this regard were also filed with the court,” said Bukhari.

Justice Khosa however observed that the documents so far filed by both the parties were not in line with the procedure and as per Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Naeem Bukhari said his arguments were very much clear for the disqualification of prime minister as he had made a wrong statement about the money generated from the sale of Gulf Steel Mills.

He asked if the PanamaLeaks case was wrong then why the premier had not issued a notice to Mossack Fonseca. “This is my case for which I seek a court verdict”, Naeem Bukhari said.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Chief of Awami Muslim League, submitted that two speeches of the prime minister were before the court adding that the apex court had already disqualified some 20 parliamentarians and his case was also related to Sadiq and Ameen.

After permission, PTI chief Imran Khan told the court that he came to the apex court after people took to the streets across the globe against corruption exposed by the Panama papers.

He said this was the case about an honest leadership and compared to the general public a leader should be honest.

“There are cases against me both in the Election Commission and this court and if I am declared no more Sadiq and Ameen then I have no right to be a leader,” Imran Khan said.

Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami Sirajul Haq submitted that they had knocked the doors of institutions concerned against corruption but returned empty-handed and then finally approached the country’s highest court.

“We are in your court and you are in the court of Allah”, Sirajul Haq said, adding that not only the petitioners, but also millions of people were looking to the court for justice.” Earlier, JI counsel Taufeeq Asif also argued contended that the prime minister had violated his oath.