Panama verdict appears to have no influence on SC decisions

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday set the stage for the 2018 electoral contest between Shahbaz Sharif and Imran Khan -- both of whom got clean chit in separate cases announced the same day.

It was a great day for both Imran Khan and Shahbaz Sharif, who are now the most serious contenders for the office of the prime minister and are expected to be face to face in the next general elections likely to be held in the first week of August 2018. These decisions and their implications will help bring back political stability besides an assurance for the 2018 elections.The PML-N’s case of disqualification against Imran Khan has been dismissed by the Supreme Court whereas to the relief of Shahbaz Sharif and his son (Hamza Sharif), a serious effort made to revive the Hudaibiya Paper Mills investigation has been shot down by the apex court.

While both the PTI and PML-N leaders and their followers are showing mixed reactions on the two judgments announced on Friday, most of the people ignored the fact that at least none of these judgments has followed the principles set by the Panama specific five-member bench in its controversial order that had disqualified Nawaz Sharif. In the Panama case, the five-member bench had ruled, “The argument that the JIT overstepped its authority by reopening the case of Hudaibiya Paper Mills when Reference No. 5 was quashed by the high court does not appear to be correct as the JIT has simply made recommendations in this behalf which can better be dealt with by this court if and when an appeal, before this court, as has been undertaken by special prosecutor NAB, is filed and a view to the contrary is taken by this Court.”

Although, the SC Panama case order did not include any direction to NAB to file an appeal in the Hudaibiya case, the NAB was pressurised to file the appeal, which rang alarm bells for Shahbaz Sharif and his son.In the second week of September this year, The News broke the story of how in a meeting held in an office in Islamabad three senior officials of NAB were reprimanded for not preparing the appeal in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case against the Sharifs in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Only two days after the said meeting, NAB had announced to file the appeal in Hudaibya case.

The filing of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case by the NAB had extended the scope of the ongoing probe against the Sharifs to Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif and his son Hamza Shahbaz. The elder Sharif, former prime minister Nawaz, already stands disqualified while his children have also been booked in NAB references.

On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed the NAB appeal and thus threw into dustbin what the JIT had recommended to hang the sword of Damocles over Shahbaz Sharif's head. The JIT, in its report had claimed, “The JIT has brought on record substantial additional evidence which substantiates and corroborates the FIA and NAB investigations and also establishes the linkage between the two investigations.

"It is recommended that all three cases are fit to be reopened for investigation and trial on the basis of new additional evidence procured and brought on record by the JIT. In view of the foregoing, the Honourable Bench may pass appropriate orders including filing of reference against the accused already identified in the reference, if deemed fit.”

In its controversial Panama Papers case verdict, the Supreme Court took an unusual and strict view which upset even many legal minds and relied on definition of Black Law dictionary to convict the former prime minister and disqualify him for life on the charge of not declaring salary that was never received by him.

In the Imran Khan case, the Supreme Court took the view that the offshore company- Niazi Services Limited (NSL)- was established as a corporate vehicle for the legal ownership of the London flat, of which the respondent (IK) was the beneficial owner. The respondent was neither a shareholder nor a director of the NSL which had a paid-up capital of £9/- and the London flat as its sole asset.

The SC said that this asset held by the NSL was declared by the respondent under an amnesty scheme granted pursuant to Section 59D of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 therefore, the respondent was under no legal obligation to disclose the corporate vehicle NSL as an asset either in his income tax returns or his statement of assets and liabilities filed with the ECP alongwith his nomination papers or in his annual returns filed under Section 42A of the ROPA.

Regarding the Banigala property, the SC said that it is owned by the respondent after it was orally gifted to him by his ex-wife Ms Jemima Khan vide gift mutation No.10696 dated 29.10.2005 after their divorce became effective in June, 2004. Prior to that, the Banigala property had been purchased by the respondent as a family home for his wife and children.