Panama judgment: Key points that missed public attention

ISLAMABAD: Friday’s additional judgment of the five-member bench of the Supreme Court in the Panama case contained two vital points, which skipped the public attention.

One, the verdict did not order ‘reopening’ of the Hudabiya Paper Mills case. It became clear when the judgment noted that the argument of Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) overstepped its authority by reopening the Hudabiya Paper Mills case when this reference was quashed by the Lahore High Court (LHC) does not appear to be correct as the team has simply made recommendations in this behalf which can better be dealt with by the apex court if and when an appeal, before it, as has been undertaken by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Special Prosecutor, is filed and a view to the contrary (to the LHC decision) is taken by the top court.

This clearly means that the apex court will take a decision on the Hudabiya Paper Mills case when the NAB will submit an appeal to it against the LHC judgment. What had happened was that a two-judge LHC bench had quashed the reference but one of them had ordered reinvestigation. On the emergence of this difference of opinion, the referee judge had also quashed, and the NAB had not preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. Now, if the top court accepts the NAB appeal, it would order a reinvestigation by the anti-graft agency. Subsequently, the NAB will file in an accountability court a reference, obviously after reinvestigation into the Hudabiya Paper Mills case.

Noting the arguments of Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer, the judgment said, he contended that the JIT overstepped its mandate by reopening the Hudabiya Paper Mills case when it was not so directed by the apex court; that another investigation or inquiry shall also be barred by the principle of double jeopardy when this reference was quashed. . .; that the investigation conducted by the JIT cannot be said to be fair and just when none of the respondents was questioned about or confronted with any of the documents tending to incriminate them and that the JIT exceeded its authority while obtaining documents from abroad by engaging the firm of the persons happening to be their near and dear ones.

According to the judgment, such exercise, the lawyer added, cannot be termed as Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) by any interpretation nor can the documents thus obtained be vested with any sanctity in terms of Section 21(g) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. He next contended that no weight could be given to the finding of the JIT when it is not supported by any authentic document. An investigation of this type, the lawyer argued, which is a farce and a breach of due process cannot form basis of any adverse verdict against Nawaz Sharif.

There was another important point, noted in the judgment, which was messed up by a section of the media. In fact, a total of four (not over a dozen) references will be filed in accountability court as per the verdict.

The NAB was ordered to file these references within six weeks on the basis of the material collected and referred to by the JIT and such other material as may be available with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and NAB having any nexus with the assets or which may subsequently become available including material that may come before it pursuant to the MLA requests sent by the JIT to different jurisdictions.

One of the four references will be against Nawaz Sharif, Maryam, Hussain, Hassan, and Capt (retd) Muhammad Safdar relating to the London flats. In preparing and filing this case, the NAB was ordered to also consider the material already collected during the course of investigations conducted earlier.

The respondents in the second reference relating to Azizia Steel Company and Hill Metal Establishment will be Nawaz Sharif, Hussain and Hassan.

The third reference will be against Nawaz Sharif, Hussain, and Hassan regarding Flagship Investments Limited, Hartstone Properties Limited; Que Holdings Limited; Quint Eaton Place 2 Limited; Quint Saloane Limited (formerly Quint Eaton Place Limited); Quaint Limited; Flagship Securities Limited; Quint Gloucester Place Limited; Quint Paddington Limited (formerly Rivates Estates Limited); Flagship Developments Limited; Alanna Services Limited (BVI); Lankin SA (BVI); Chadron Inc; Ansbacher Inc; Coomber Inc; and  Capital FZE (Dubai).

The fourth reference will be against Senator Ishaq Dar for allegedly possessing assets and funds beyond his known sources of income.

The judgment also ordered the NAB to include in the proceedings all other persons including Sheikh Saeed, Musa Ghani, Kashif Masood Qazi, Javaid Kiyani and Saeed Ahmed, who have any direct or indirect nexus or connection with the actions of Nawaz Sharif, Maryam, Hussain, Hassan and Ishaq Dar leading to acquisition of assets and funds beyond their known sources of income.