SC questions admissibility of ICIJ revelations

The Supreme Court on Tuesday queried in the Panama papers case the admissibility of the revelations by International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). Resuming the hearing of the matter, a five-member larger bench led by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa questioned the source of massive funds that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's son Hassan Nawaz invested in business in London soon after completion of his education in 1999.
During the course of proceedings the bench concentrated on the Sharif family's statements and interviews to the media relating to the purchase of the Mayfair properties in London. Resuming his arguments on behalf of one of the petitioners in the matter - Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf - Syed Naeem Bokhari contended that Hassan Nawaz had established a company in the UK in 2000; Bokhari cited Hassan Nawaz's 1999 interview in which he purportedly acknowledged that he was a student with no source of income and that the rent for the London flats was being remitted from Pakistan.
The PTI counsel brought to the court's attention Hassan Nawaz's brother Hussain Nawaz's interview in 2016 in which he disclosed that his brother has been engaged in business for the last 21 years. Bokhari added that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had said in his speech that his late father Mian Sharif established a factory in Jeddah which was later sold and the money his two sons used that money to purchase flats in London.
PTI' lawyer Naeem Bokhari presented a 249-page investigation report prepared by the then Additional Director General Federal Investigation Agency on money laundering purportedly committed by the Sharif family in 1996. Bokhari apprised the court that Rehman Malik had submitted the report to the then President Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and the then Chief Justice of Pakistan Ajmal Mian.
Bokhari urged the apex court to evaluate Rehman Malik's report and decide whether the report is 'trash or not'. This prompted a Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh to observe that the report was merely an opinion and not a material evidence and that such a report cannot be considered as evidence. Justice Sheikh asked Bokhari to address the court instead of the nation, observing, "You are asking us to violate the oath".
PTI counsel Bokhari cited the Lahore High Court verdict which he claimed complements Rehman Malik's report. The Lahore High Court had quashed National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) reference that accused the Sharif family of committing money laundering, and NAB failed to probe the incumbent Finance Minister Ishaq Dar's confessional statement in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa remarked that the confessional statement did not reach the stage where it could be considered admissible evidence; and further observed that "this issue is not one of a civil wrong or a criminal trial - we are only looking at the constitutional disqualification matter". Justice Khosa asked Bokhari whether there exists any connection between Nawaz Sharif while the family business and Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh observed that Bearer Certificates were never with Mian Sharif, the late father of Nawaz Sharif.
Bokhari agreed with the remarks of Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan that if the trust deed is fake then Maryam Nawaz can, at some point, be seen as a beneficial owner of the London flats; and the moment the court concludes that the Qatari prince's letter is mere hearsay then the deed itself becomes irrelevant.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asked Bokhari: "If the entire business of the Sharif family was in the hands of the late Mian Sharif and if, subsequent to the sale of the UAE steel mill, part of the sale money was sent to London and to Jeddah then how can Mian Sharif's actions' be answerable by his children?" Justice Khan further remarked that Queens Bench London's verdict on the attachment of Mayfair properties over money payable to Al-Tawfeek Financial Fund by Hudabiya Paper Mills does not mention Nawaz Sharif or Maryam Nawaz's names which prompted Bokhari to state that the trust deed between Hussain and Marryam is a 'question of fact'.
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh observed, "I need judicial precedent on where Panama papers stand or where there is a basis for a court to announce a verdict." Bokhari responded, "Your lordship will do this". "We being human beings and we make statements, the question arises whether the statement may become the basis to disqualify someone - if yes then it would be a dangerous precedent," observed Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan.
Justice Khosa observed that there is a heavy onus of proof that lay with the respondents in the case as they have to prove how such a massive amount of money was kept for more than a quarter of a century. Earlier, at the onset of the hearing, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa withdrew his observation regarding Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution saying, "I should not have given such observations".
The hearing of the matter was adjourned for Wednesday (today) when PTI Bokhari will conclude his arguments. Meanwhile, filing a civil miscellaneous application in the case on Wednesday, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), one of the petitioners, requested the Supreme Court to summon Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif to the court in person to clarify his position in connection with his statements regarding the Panama Leaks.