The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved on the 26th hearing of the Panamagate case its judgement on pleas filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Jamaat-e-Islami and others seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members from the Parliament. A five-member larger bench led by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa also comprised Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
Throughout the adjudication, the bench tried to ascertain money trail of the Sharif family in the context of Mayfair properties in London and the exact date of the title transfer of the properties whose ownership is not in question. The Supreme Court repeatedly observed during the proceedings of the case that both sides are doing their best to hide tangible facts and ensure that the court would eventually have to form a commission to decide the Panamagate case.
In his rebuttal arguments on Thursday, PTI counsel Naeem Bokhari alleged that the incumbent government had awarded a 20-year contract for import of LNG from Qatar as a reward to the Al Thani family's longstanding business relations with the late Mian Sharif. Moreover, a member of Qatari royal family wrote a letter with a view to rescuing the Sharif family in the Panamagate case. To which, Justice Gulzar Ahmad remarked if the government signed the deal to bestow favours on the Qataris then it may be a conflict of interest. Responding to the court, Bokhari said that the LNG contract had been challenged before the Sindh High Court.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan said that a judgement cannot be announced on the basis of disputed documents and questioned the PTI documents, observing that it is yet to be established that the Sharif family's Mayfair properties in London were purchased in 1993. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that both the parties to the case have not submitted documents in accordance with law of evidence, saying if the court avoids the PTI documents then the Sharif family's documents will also not be accepted on the same grounds.
Bokhari contended that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in his speeches misled the nation about the amount received from the proceeds of Gulf Steel Mills. He asked why the Prime Minister didn't send a notice to Mossack Fonseca if he believes that revelations made in the Panama Papers about his family are untrue. "This is the point in my case to which I am seeking the court's verdict in the matter," Bokhari contended.
The PTI counsel further said that the Al-Thani family has been working as a bank from 1980 to 2000 for the Sharif family because not a single penny from the interest of the invested money was paid off. Bokhari said that the Al-Thani family paid off a $8 million loan of Sharif family in London but not a single bank transaction has been shown.
To which, Justice Khosa remarked if the court applies the same formula then 99 percent of the documents pertaining to the case will have to be thrown away. Bokhari also contended that the Hudaibiya Paper Mills scam against the Sharif family is the centre of money laundering. Chief of the Awami Muslim League (AML) Sheikh Rashid said that his arguments attract a laugher in the court as he said that his arguments would be "sweet, smart, short and simple".
He argued that the apex court has raised as many as 371 questions during the Panamagate case proceedings but the Sharif family's counsel failed to respond to those queries. He said it would be the last chance to award punishment to the corrupt people and if the court will not do so then the country will be governed through undemocratic forces. Sheikh Rashid contended that the court can decide the matter on the grounds of two speeches of the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, saying earlier the apex court has disqualified twenty parliamentarians as they were not found to be righteous and honest.
Rashid contended that the matter in hand is also about righteousness and honesty of the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and alleged that the premier has tampered with the Panamagate case documents.
Responding to the argument of the Sheikh Rashid that he is expecting justice in the matter, Justice Khosa said that it is unfortunate that one who gets remedy in his favour in a case becomes happy but the loser of the case accuses the judge of taking bribe. Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh plainly observed that the court will decide the matter in accordance with law instead of making anybody happy because everybody has to go to grave. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed decisions are always announced under the law which become precedents and are cited even after two decades.
The counsel for JI contended that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has violated his oath against which political parties have shown confidence in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The PTI chief Imran Khan submitted that after revelation of the Panama Papers, people from all over the world raised voice against corruption. He contended that the matter in hand is about the question of honesty of a leader, saying a leader is more responsible person as compared to a layman so he must be honest.
He said that it's the major feature of leadership that one should be righteous and honest; otherwise tax collection target in the country would never be achieved as people will not show trust in such kind of leadership and will prefer to avoid taxes. JI chief Sirajul Haq contended that he has invoked the apex court's jurisdiction in the current matter for the prosperity of the next generations of Pakistan.
While talking to Business Recorder, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Kamran Murtaza said that as per law laid down by the apex court, a judgement is to be announced within reasonable time. He said that apex court has ruled that in case the judgement is reserved and not announced by the high court within three months, the cases are to be reheard; thereby the period to reserve a matter cannot exceed three months.
However, Kamran Murtaza was of the view that due to urgency of the matter of the Panamagate case, the Supreme Court is expected to announce the judgement in a few weeks because more than 25,000 documents have been placed on record by both the parties which every member of the bench is supposed to go through. It may be mentioned here that the hearing of the Panamagate case by this five-member bench began on Jan 4.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.