PanamaLeaks case: A trailblazing trial

ISLAMABAD: This might be the conclusion or the beginning of a new end. With a verdict being announced tomorrow (April 20, 2017) on Panama Papers’ revelation, all eyes are set on the country’s top court and how it will rule on a case that might take the politics of Pakistan by storm.

“We will take some time to deliberate and ponder over every possible aspect,” said head of the bench, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa who reserved the verdict on 23rd February this year.

February 23 marked over 126 days since the Supreme Court took up the case, with the top legal brains having already consumed 111 precious hours of the apex court in the past 35 hearings of the case.

Voluminous material consisting of more than 6,000 pages was presented before the country’s top court from all parties. Six books were also submitted to the court as references and case studies. More than 270 of 620 questions were asked by the judges, while the rest of them were asked by the respondents, petitioners, and lawyers in this case. Going through the chronology of events, one of respected judges observed: “It seems a blind man is trying to find a black cat in a dark room which is perhaps not there.”

As many as 26 hearings were conducted by the bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa (January 4, 2017 onwards), and nine hearings by the bench headed by then Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali from October 19, 2016 to December 9, 2016. Both the parties’ counsels cited more than 300 cases.

They read about three dozen excerpts from judicial decisions of more than two dozen different countries — USA, UK, Australia, India, Bangladesh and New Zealand in particular.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s sons, produced a plethora of documents, including another Qatari letter, different business agreements, some evidentiary documents of money trail, invoices of charges billed as fees of Minerva, and a couple of new affidavits of Tariq Shafi, and many others. Raja also answered eight striking questions of judges, and provided further details sought by the apex court bench.

He consumed 16 long hours of the apex court and kept focus on possibilities and speculations where, according to him, the top court could not investigate the case of his client.

During the course of some four and a half months arguments, judges and petitioners’ lawyers also posed more than 250 striking questions to the respondents. It was Justice Azmat Saeed who posed more than 70 striking questions in this case. Justice Khosa raised more than 55 questions while Justice Ijaz Afzal put over 35 questions to both the parties. The remaining questions came from the lawyers as well as justices Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Gulzar Ahmed. The petitioners’ counsels, including Sheikh Rashid of the Awami Muslim League, consumed over 42 hours of the apex court, while the defence counsel took 41 hours.

Lawyers for the FBR and NAB argued for a combined three hours, while the Attorney General took 4.5 hours. The Supreme Court judges angrily grilled the NAB chairman, who refused to file appeal to reopen Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference. The bench led by Justice Khosa heard both parties for 72 long hours, while former Chief Justice Jamali led-bench heard parties for some 22 hours.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, argued for a week i.e. 17 long hours. He cited 152 cases including judicial precedents from the courts of 18 different countries. Mr Makhdoom also cited some beautiful quotes from Shakespeare, T S Eliot, Keats, George Bernard Shaw and Shelley.

Naeem Bokhari, lead counsel for PTI, consumed more 18 hours to wind up his arguments. He had also led the team with his colleague Hamid Khan before Chief Justice Jamali’s bench in Courtroom No1.

Lawyers representing all parties argued for 94 long hours in the Supreme Court in the past 35 hearings of the case. More than three dozen parliamentarians witnessed the entire proceedings every day. Head of the Jamaat-e-Islami legal team, Taufiq Asif, took more than six and a half long hours of the apex court to build his arguments, but judges apparently did not buy them. Then it was Shahid Hamid, who spent nine long hours to plead his clients’ case where he gave references of a dozen cases by quoting from a famous poem of English poet John Donne.

PTI chairman Imran Khan attended 32 proceedings of this case where he spent 93 hours in the courtroom. MNAs Jehangir Tareen attended the court for 67 hours, Shah Mahmood Qureshi for 62 hours, and Sheikh Rashid witnessed 31 proceedings where he remained for some 83 hours. Sirajul Haq of Jamaat-e-Islami spent 76 hours in the court where he attended 26 hearings.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif spent eight hours in the court while Railway Affairs Minister remained for 13 hours in the courtroom. Two female cabinet members of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz – State Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb and State Minister for Science and Information Technology Anusha Rahman – witnessed almost 25 hearings each where they remained for 65 and 59 long hours respectively. The Prime Minister’s Special Assistant on Law and Justice, Zafarullah Khan, regularly attended the proceedings. He spent some 77 hours in the court. PML-N lawmakers Talal Chaudhry, Daniyal Aziz, and Maiza Hameed each attended more than 24 hearings.

Judges and lawyers read PM Sharif’s speeches some 105 times while the Qatari letters and the names of three Qatari princes were mentioned 112 times by judges and counsels on the rostrum. The petitioners and the respondents focused on Articles 10A, 19A, 62 62(1)(e-f), 63, 66, 69, 184(3), 185, 187, 224, and 248 of the Constitution.

The prime minister’s counsel focused on Article 66 which gives ‘absolute privilege’ to a member of Parliament to express his views on the floor of the House. For the defence counsel, there seemed to be five danger zones i.e. ‘establishing money trail’ for Hussain and Hassan Nawaz, the ownership of the Mayfair flats, dependency of Maryam Nawaz Sharif, the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, and proving that the prime minister is ‘truthful and righteous’ as per the Constitution’s articles 62 and 63.

The federal government also spent around an estimated Rs20 million to deploy additional police personnel on security of the apex court and VVIPs who attended the proceedings in past three months in the Red Zone of the federal capital.

Sheikh Rashid appeared before the bench in-person in this case. He argued for around three hours in support of his stance, citing four cases. Tariq Asad Advocate, who is another party in this case, argued for about an hour in this case but his petition was de-linked to be heard later. Hamid Khan, counsel for PTI, argued for six hours before CJ Jamali’s bench where Naeem Bokhari assisted him during November-December last year. Then it was Salman Aslam Butt, counsel for PM Sharif, who also assisted CJ Jamali’s bench for four and a half hours where he cited references of seven cases. Akram Sheikh, counsel for Hussain and Hassan Nawaz, argued for 30 minutes where he only produced the first Qatari letter.

The petitions of Barrister Zafarullah Khan were dismissed on various grounds at early stage of this case.