ISLAMABAD: The Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) said if former Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was dealt with iron hands then why not other persons named in Panama Leaks be dealt with strictly according to the way and procedure laid down in the Panama Leaks case judgment.
The JI, on Tuesday, submitted the reply to the questions posed by the SC in the Panama Leaks case. JI Amir Sirajul Haq has filed a petition seeking a probe against 436 Pakistanis named in Panama Papers Leaks.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Aminuddin Khan, on June 9, 2023, after hearing the argument of the JI lawyer had framed nine questions and directed him to file their reply. The bench had also asked the counsel why in 2016 the party demanded an investigation to be carried out first against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and then 436 persons, named in Panama Papers Leaks.
To the Court’s query, how and under what circumstance the JI’s petition was de-linked from other petitions and what was the purpose of detaching this petition from others, the JI replied that originally it had filed the petition after the Panama Leaks in April 2016 with chairman National Accountability Bureau for holding a detailed inquiry against all the Pakistani nationals, who had transferred money/ national assets abroad.
It explained that during the hearing of the constitutional petitions No28, 29 and 30/2016 it was observed by the court that Jamaat-e-Islami wants action against all the persons named in the Panama Papers scandal, while the petitions 29 and 30/2016 are only to the extent of action against the then prime minister.
The Court said that if it would take up the JI’s petition then it will take years to hear and decide them; therefore, directed the JI to de-link its constitutional petition 28/2016 as the Court wanted to decide first the case against the public office holder.
The JI’s reply maintained in light of the Court’s direction filed a second constitutional petition No03/2017 with a new prayer that the respondent (ex-PM Nawaz Sharif) hold property in London and had evaded taxes; therefore, he be disqualified under Article 62(i)(f) of the constitution.
The JI mentioned that therefore, the bench hearing those petitions de-linked its petition from the other two petitions as the scope of those petitions was materially different from others.
There were other questions like whether the matter in hand is not covered by the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, with regard to the tax liability of the concerned persons, and whether the liability of tax is not within the purview of the officers of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR); whether the State Bank of Pakistan’s directions and Foreign Exchange Manual are not relevant with regard to money sent abroad for purchase of said properties; whether FBR, SBP, and other relevant departments do not have their own hierarchy for deciding the matter and their final orders may ultimately be challenged before the High Court and the SC, and whether the petitioner approached the SBP, FBR, FIA and Anti-Corruption Department against the persons named in Panama Leaks?
On these questions, the JI’s reply stated that the role of the Income Tax Department, the FBR and the SBP has been discussed in para 18 and 19 of Panama’s detailed judgment. It also informed that they had submitted an application before the NAB, but it showed difficulties taking action against 600 Pakistanis whose names appeared in Panama Papers inter alia the authenticity and genuineness of over 11.5 million documents released by private law firm.
About the allegations of tax evasion and illegal remittances from Pakistan, the NAB said that concerned regulators, the FBR, the SBP, and the SECP, can look into the matter.
The JI’s reply further maintained that the issue of Panama Leaks was also agitated from the forum of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) by one of its members, Dr Arif Alvi, MNA (PTI). The committee issued notices to the concerned regulators including the Finance Division, the SBP, the SECP, the FBR, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the NAB, and the FIA.
The NAB told the PAC about its handicap to proceed on non-genuine documents. The FBR chairman intimated about the issuance of notices and the progress of the probe. The governor SBP and chairman SECP informed about the process initiated by them to determine the illegalities, if any, found committed. The FIA said it has not been conferred any powers to investigate and prosecute matters relating to the holders of public office.
Regarding the SC’s question whether in the presence of the existing statutory bodies and institutions, a commission as sought should be constituted for inquiring into the matter in hand?
The JI’s reply stated that the working of these statutory bodies and institutions neither will be curtailed, nor hampered in any manner, rather these institutions will be the information providers to the Commission and may be some responsible officer included as a member of the Commission or JITs.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.