PM’s children file objections to JIT report

ISLAMABAD: The Panama Leaks’ case has been witnessing many ups and downs since the country started pursuing this landmark case. Wednesday’s hearing was also one of such episodes where hundreds of people saw Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s counsel, ‘struggling to make a successful defensible assertion to save his client from ‘the danger of direct disqualification.’

Many senior lawyers, journalists and politicians in a completely packed courtroom almost agreed upon that “today’s [July 19] rational arguments of PM’s counsel gradually melted down the looming danger directly linked to his client’s possible disqualification.”

They all compared this continued ups and downs with what happened exactly six months ago on the same day in the same case when Makhdoom Ali Khan, the-then lawyer for the prime minister, was successfully convincing the worthy judges not to disqualify his client who at that time too was facing a serious issue of discrepancies (under articles 62-63) in his speeches pertaining to controversial flats his children owned.

On Tuesday, many in the same courtroom were discussing perhaps this court would be sending the prime minister to home. Anything could happen here, many lawyers observed in the courtroom. “It might be tough survival for the prime minister though — but it will be telling a tragic story soon as his reference will most likely be sent to the trial court.”

With this point, during the course of proceeding, this correspondent also learnt the strategy of his children how they would contest their case in this court today (Thursday). Salman Akram Raja, counsel for Maryam Nawaz Sharif, Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Hassan Nawaz Sharif, will present his arguments on ‘benami transactions’. He will respond to the Panama JIT’s findings where investigators observed that the actual owner of the Avenfield properties, Hill Metals and other businesses is the prime minister whereas his children are just ostensible owners and in fact his ‘benamidars’. “As per the mandate of articles 117, 118 and 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat order, 1984, the onus to prove the allegation of ‘benami’ is upon the person who alleges it. It is a trite law that the onus is to be strictly discharged by adducing admissible, positive, affirmative and confidence inspiring evidence qua the requisite ingredients of benami’ transactions under source of consideration and who is in possession of motive for ‘benami’ and who is holding title documents.” The defense counsel will likely present this argument before the worthy judges. In response to JIT’s objections on properties based in the UAE, PM children’s lawyer is also going to submit additional documents to rebut the JIT report today.

Raja will also give his point of view on the JIT’s findings where it wanted to make a case in terms of Section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) 1999. “It was a duty of the JIT to conduct fair, just and thorough investigation to collect admissible evidence of unimpeachable character to prove the following requisite ingredients — that the accused was the holder of a public office — what were his known sources of income here, there is an allegation that a holder of a public office accumulated the assets, pecuniary resources by misuse of his office or authority.” This would be another supporting argument. About the nature of onus upon the accused, this correspondent also learnt that the defence counsel would argue perhaps that Section 14 of the NAO, 1999 does not warrant the conclusion that if anything is unexplained, which the court thinks the accused could explain, he ought, therefore, to be found guilty. On presumption of innocence, the learned counsel thinks that in circumstances, the defence should be expected to prove accusation, in spite of Section 106 of the evidence act in a criminal case the onus rests on the prosecution, does not shift to the accused at any state to prove his innocence or make up for the liability and failure of the prosecution to produce evidence to establish guilt; this was the strategy shared by an aide of Sharifs’ family.

Friday would be a decisive day, many in the courtroom were saying, because the counsel for the prime minister’s children will be concluding his arguments most likely. Many senior lawyers were of the view that the SC could also give its short order after listening to all the parties within the next couple of days. Perhaps it might be a good day for Mr Haris but it was a sad day for Dr Tariq, counsel for Finance Minister Ishaq Dar. The Supreme Court did not even buy his single argument.