Lawyers differ on disqualification of PM

ISLAMABAD: Majority of top legal minds in the country believe that until and unless a direct link of the prime minister with the purchase of London flats is established, the premier can’t be questioned about anything regarding these flats.

The father of the prime minister was the head of the family till 2004, also headed a big group of businesses in different sectors including textile, sugar and steel for many decades and could have easily purchased this number of flats in London or anywhere else in the world.
Some of the top legal experts believe that this case is not different than the Arsalan Iftikhar case as both the cases are based on assets beyond means. In the Arsalan Iftikhar case, if a father distanced himself from his son’s action, why not in this case. Therefore, they believe that both the cases should be seen through the same lens as father cannot be implicated for his son’s actions. Similarly, some of the experts believe if the premier and his family failed to prove the money trail of the London flats, the apex court can disqualify him.

One of the senior-most lawyers, Abid Hassan Minto, while talking to The News, said the judges’ remarks could not be taken as their decision as remarks kept changing every day.“In simple words, the courts cannot implicate a father for his son’s wrongdoings. However, this is a completely different case and a complex one. The Supreme Court will have to examine the available evidence on the basis of which it has to take any decision. If it is proved that the London flats were purchased through ill-gotten money, the apex court can take any decision in this case”, commented Mr Minto.

Senior lawyer Muhammad Akram Sheikh, while talking to The News, said the Supreme Court could not take any decision against the prime minister without establishing a link of the London flats with the premier. “The Supreme Court will have to show a link of the prime minister with these London flats. If no links are established between these flats and the prime minister, I think the apex court will not take any such decision. The prime minister has claimed that these flats were his father’s property and for this purpose, they (PM and his family) presented the money trail in the form of Qatari Prince letters. This was the JIT’s responsibility to record the Qatari prince’s statement to verify this money trail which it ignored,” commented Sheikh Muhammad Akram.

He said that the prime minister’s sons had been doing businesses since the last 20 to 25 years and they were independent; then how onus of sons could be on the father.

Talking to The News, Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed opined if the prime minister’s family failed to establish the source of funds to purchase the London flats, this would also implicate the premier as well. “These are mere remarks of the judges and by giving these remarks, they are simply trying to make the prime minister’s family realise that if they fail to establish the money trail, the premier could be implicated in this case. The Supreme Court can give its verdict to de-notify the prime minister under Article 62D in this case,” commented Justice (retd) Wajihuddin.

He said the apex court could also refer the case to an accountability court on the basis of these findings of JIT but if the links of the London flats were not established, the court could de-notify him as an MNA as well.

Former attorney general for Pakistan and senior lawyer Irfan Qadir has a totally different opinion regarding this case. He believes that the judges cannot implicate a father on the wrongdoings of his sons. “The Arsalan Iftikhar case is the prime example why a father cannot be implicated for his son’s deeds. In the Arsalan Iftikhar case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan separated this issue and categorically said that the father had nothing to do with his son’s actions. Therefore, the apex court should deal both the case in the same manner as both the cases are related to assets beyond means”, commented Irfan Qadir.

He opined that this implementation bench could not even hear this case as the implementation bench could hear only a case which had already been decided and a conclusive verdict had been given. Since no verdict had been given by this bench, how it could be termed an implementation bench, remarked Irfan Qadir.

Senior lawyer Babar Sattar, while talking to The News, said the Supreme Court would have to connect the title of these properties with the prime minister.

“The Panama Papers case is totally focused on the assets beyond means and if the court reaches a conclusion that the said flats were the property of the premier in 1996, it means serious questions arise. But if the prime minister’s family establishes the property’s links from 2006 onward, for this purpose they already have shown the Qatari Prince’s letters as money trail. Whereas the premier has never admitted that these flats are his property, hence this is a very complex legal issue and the apex court has to connect the title of this property with the prime minister to give its verdict,” remarked Babar Sattar.

He said this was a complex legal debate whether a court could implicate a father on his son’s wrongdoing or not and only a court could decide what to do.

On the other hand, senior lawyer Ahmed Awais does not agree with the point of view of some of his fraternity’s top members and opined that a father could be implicated on his son’s wrongdoings especially in this case. He said all the said property was Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s as his children were dependent at that time when the London flats were purchased. If the prime minister and his family could not prove the money trail of the London flats, the apex court could then disqualify the premier as he had failed to justify the means of his income.