Speculation sub judice on Panamagate case's outcome, two top lawyers say

It is sub judice to speculate on the possible outcome of the ongoing hearings in Panama Papers leaks case in the apex court, two senior lawyers told the Business Recorder, here. After 13 hearings, the one overriding and constantly reiterated observation by the court is that the matter in hand cannot be decided merely on presumption, particularly where admissibility of the documents is in question.
Observations by the judiciary at this juncture bear little relation to the final decision and are merely part of the inquisitorial proceedings through which the judges try to ferret out the truth on the basis of material evidence.
"I am not concerned with the morality of the matter but only with its legality. There needs to be evidence that connects the Prime Minister to the matter in hand; to merely presume that assets were gifted by the father to his children has no legal value as there is no document on record to substantiate it," said Kamran Murtaza, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
He said that in the absence of an authentic document, Nawaz Sharif cannot be held guilty in the Panama Papers case as the onus of proof lies with the one making the allegations, particularly when this onus has not been discharged.
Murtaza referred to the court's jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) in view of Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Article 184 (3) stipulates: "The Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II is involved, have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article."
Article 225 of the Constitution denotes: "No election to a House or a Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such tribunal and in such manner as may be determined by Act of 1[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)]."
Ex-president of the SCBA Barrister Syed Ali Zafar said his guess is that the case proceedings so far have revolved around determining the truth whether or not any corruption or money laundering has been committed by Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif and the court will have to form an investigative commission.
He said that the investigative commission would be different from an inquiry commission because it would have the powers of investigation. He said it would be better if the court fixes a timeframe for submission of the report by the commission. Based on the report, the court would be able to give a final verdict on the matter, he said.
"Arguments from the PTI counsel have managed to create a reasonable suspicion that some money was hidden and properties were purchased from undisclosed income," said Barrister Ali Zafar, adding that the defence given by the Prime Minister's counsel has neither been able to show the source of the money nor has any evidence been given to confirm the defence that the London apartments were purchased from the business in Qatar. "Accordingly the court will have to find out from its own sources what the truth is on the matter," he concluded.