Advancing arguments in the Panamagate case on Monday, the Jamaat-e-Islami counsel said that the onus of proof in the matter lies with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Appearing before a five-member larger bench led by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JI lawyer Taufeeq Asif argued that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had clearly said in his speech in the National Assembly on May 16, 2016 that he would be ready for accountability; so the onus of proof lies with him under Article 119 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat.
Taufeeq Asif further said that Nawaz Sharif had defended his family business during the speech but later on he hired the services of a counsel for himself while his children hired other counsel in the current matter. To which, Justice Gulzar Ahmed asked the counsel to establish the link between the Prime Minister and the business of his family abroad.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed further asked the JI counsel to provide grounds for his claim that Nawaz Sharif was involved in family business, adding that the counsel will have to inform the court about details related to the situation of the Sharif family's business after Mian Sharif died in 2004.
Responding to an argument of the JI counsel, Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed if the Sharif family members fail to provide any document in the current matter, they would face legal consequences. The JI counsel said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif didn't mention in his speech the money trail in relation to establishing his business abroad.
During the course of proceedings, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the counsel for Nawaz Sharif had earlier declined to produce the money trail on grounds that his client has nothing to do with the Mayfair properties in London. Taufeeq Asif argued that after defending his children on the floor of the Lower House, Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif had submitted documents before the apex court about details of 'money gifts' which he received and gave to his children.
"The whole speech delivered by the Prime Minister on the floor of the house was specifically personal and nothing was in public interest," the JI counsel said. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the counsel why he was asking the court to take up the instant matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution which is the jurisdiction of the apex court for taking up any public importance case.
Taufeeq Asif pleaded that Constitution grants immunity to a member of the Parliament from the legislative business, saying the floor of the House cannot be used for personal clarification over an issue.Taufeeq Asif urged the court to ask the Prime Minister why he used a parliamentary forum for personal explanation in the Panamagate case, adding that instead of Tuesday, which is reserved as private member day in the National Assembly, Nawaz Sharif delivered speech during the government official business proceedings on Monday.
The JI counsel further said that the forum of National Assembly cannot be used for personal clarification, adding the parliamentary privilege can be sought only for legislative business. Responding to the bench's query whether or not the speech of Prime Minister was part of Parliament's proceedings, Taufeeq Asif said that it was not the part of agenda of the National Assembly proceedings.
Responding to Taufeeq Asif's plea for seeking court's directives to Speaker National Assembly to produce a copy of the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's speech, Justice Khosa observed if no other petitioner has shown any reservation over the premier's speech record available to court then it doesn't make sense to summon the same.
Taufeeq Asif said there might have been some mistakes or errors in the translation of the premier's speech into English; however, the bench plainly observed that the translated copy of the speech provided by one of the petitioners in the case for evidence would be considered correct.
The JI counsel repeatedly submitted that the speech of the Prime Minister was personal in nature but at the same time argued that the government is defending the Prime Minister, saying that ministers come to the court to attend the proceedings of the Panamagate case and deliver statements before media outside the court after every hearing.
To which, Justice Khosa observed that "whoever give their comments on the roads and whosoever give their commentaries should keep them with themselves now and let the decision come." The JI counsel when referred to the honesty for oath of a member of the parliament mentioning "justly", Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa remarked that the word "justly" was not mentioned in the oath of the member of Parliament as well as in Article 62 (1) (f).
However, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that the word "justly" mentioned in Article 218 of the Constitution is related to election whereby it is mentioned that election should be held fairly and justly. Taufeeq Asif pleaded that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif lied on the floor of the House to which Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh observed that anybody's false statement remains intact unless no truth comes to the surface.
When the counsel started talking about the jurisdiction of the apex court, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh said that Supreme Court has already decided that it can take up case of public importance of those people who don't have access to the judicial system.
The JI lawyer argued that the Prime Minister also lied on the floor of the House while mentioning his forced exile, "hence he no more remains sadiq (truthful) and ameen (trustworthy)."
Justice Khosa said presently no issue of forced exile of Nawaz Sharif is before the court, saying the apex court had already decided the matter after quashing the sentence of the Prime Minister in plane hijacking case. Justice Khosa further said that the bench is very much cautious about the jurisdiction of the court in the matter. Later, the bench asked the JI counsel to conclude arguments in an hour while adjourning the hearing of the matter till Tuesday (today).
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.