Justice Ejaz Afzal breaks silence on Nawaz’s disqualification

ISLAMABAD: Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan while defending his judgment on disqualifying former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Panama Papers case has confirmed that Supreme Court judges chose the JIT members.

He admitted making a WhatsApp call and including military officials in the investigation to prevent any interference from the PMLN government. For the first time, Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan, one of the five judges on the Panama Papers bench, spoke in detail about his judgment, the case background, JIT formation, and members’ selection. He also discussed the case’s merits and shared his views on the current judicial crisis in the country.

Since retiring in May 2018, Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan has avoided the media, but he now finally spoke out for the first time about the Panama Papers case. He was one of the five judges in the Panama Papers case who called for a thorough investigation through a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to reach a fair conclusion. Based on the JIT findings, Justice Khan was convinced that Nawaz Sharif should be disqualified for failing to disclose a receivable salary from his son.

Below is the detailed conversation this correspondent had with the retired judge. This correspondent asked Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan if it was true, as media reports suggested, that the members of JIT in the Panama Papers case were selected through a WhatsApp call. Specifically, the retired judge was asked who made this call — whether it was Justice (R) Azmat Saeed Sheikh or someone else — and if certain heads of institutions were instructed to send specific names.

Justice Ejaz Afzal confirmed that a WhatsApp call was indeed made but clarified the process. He explained that when the then government proposed names for the JIT, the Supreme Court judges felt these individuals were “approachable,” potentially compromising the investigation. “We didn’t ask for any specific names,” Justice Ejaz stated, emphasising that they simply requested a list of officials with the highest integrity to ensure impartiality. He further clarified that Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh did not personally make the call but had instructed the Supreme Court Registrar to ask departments to suggest trustworthy senior officials. Justice Ejaz Afzal pointed out concerns about government influence, noting that officials like the SECP chairman had close ties with Sharif, raising doubts about their independence in such a sensitive probe.

The retired judge was also asked about the decision to appoint ISI officials for the security of the JIT and the inclusion of two military officials as JIT members. He was questioned about journalist Ahmad Noorani’s story, in which Noorani reached out to Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan for his comments. Later, Noorani was issued a contempt of court notice over the matter.

Responding to this, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan confirmed Noorani had contacted him. “He asked me about this, and I just told him we speak through our judgments,” Justice Khan said, adding that his statement on the issue was also aired by Shahzeb Khanzada in his show. Regarding the selection of military officials for the JIT, he explained, “We chose military officials because those from other agencies were approachable. We wanted a fair investigation.” When asked if these military officials were part of the Dawn Leaks JIT, he responded he didn’t know but noted that the Sharif family could have filed a complaint if they had concerns about this issue.

When asked if any military general had ever contacted him during the Panama Papers case, Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan said, “I have never been approached by any military general, except once.” He then recalled an incident from his time as Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court.

Justice Ejaz shared that a brigadier had called him, saying the Corps Commander Peshawar wanted to meet him. “I told him I would be in my chamber until 11 pm,” the retired judge recalled. “Half an hour later, he called again and asked, ‘Can’t you walk down to the flagstaff house?’ I told him this is not a walk down, it’s a walk up, and I’m not accustomed to walking up.” Soon after, he received another call informing him that the Corps Commander would visit his chamber by 8 pm.

During the meeting, Justice Ejaz explained, they discussed routine matters until the Corps Commander changed his tone. “He said, ‘Mr Justice, do you think your rule of law will change the country? We arrest people, and you let them go.” Justice Ejaz responded firmly, saying, “As long as I am here, I will follow the law and go by the book. I will never convict anyone without evidence. If you have the power to change that, do so.” The general replied that he knew Justice Ejaz well but could not forget past incidents of terrorism. Justice Ejaz told him he sympathised but would not convict anyone unless proven guilty. “This was my only encounter with any general,” he concluded.

When asked if the judges in the Panama Papers case summoned then-NAB chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry to file an appeal against the high court’s decision in the Hudaibiya case, he confirmed that during the Panama Papers case, the judges had asked then-NAB Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry about the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. Justice Ejaz explained, “I told him it was a solid investigation, but it had been quashed by the high court during the investigation stage, which legally should not happen.” He said that he asked Chaudhry if he planned to appeal the high court’s decision, but Chaudhry declined. Later, when Justice (R) Javed Iqbal was appointed as NAB chairman, he filed the appeal in the Supreme Court, where it was assigned to Justice Qazi Faez Isa. However, Justice Isa dismissed the appeal due to limitation. Justice Khan remarked that the appeal had strong grounds for condonation of delay, noting that Chaudhry, appointed by the Sharifs, would have been unlikely to file an appeal against them. Justice Iqbal, the new chairman, filed it with condonation of delay as a basis, which Justice Khan felt was valid, but Justice Isa still dismissed it. When asked if it was legally right for the Panama bench to appoint Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan as a monitoring judge, Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan explained that monitoring judges are often appointed in many cases, including terrorism cases. However, when this correspondent pointed out that monitoring judges in lower courts are appointed by the High Court, not the Supreme Court, he clarified that the Supreme Court can also give instructions to ensure cases are decided in a timely manner. Justice Khan said he did not know if Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan had any personal issues with the Sharifs but added that objections should have been raised if there were any.

About Nawaz Sharif’s acquittal in the Panama Papers case, Justice Ejaz Afzal believes the caseagainst Nawaz Sharif was not a case for acquittal. It was prosecuted very badly. When asked about the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif for not declaring the salary from his son, which he never received, Justice (R) Ejaz Afzal Khan explained that he had detailed the matter in his judgment. He pointed out that problems arise when people comment without reading the judgment. According to Justice Ejaz, Nawaz Sharif obtained an Aqama and signed an agreement that entitled him to a salary of 10,000 dirhams per month after being elected chairman of his son’s company’s board of governors in 2006.

Justice Ejaz stated that their legal team was asked about the Aqama, the employment agreement, and the salary details. He noted that Nawaz Sharif’s legal team, led by Khawaja Haris, confirmed the existence of these documents. Importantly, he explained that the salary was not only accrued but also accumulated over time. When the court inquired about the current status of the salary, the legal team replied that in January 2013, Nawaz Sharif’s son informed his father of his intention to close the company. Nawaz Sharif then stated that the entire salary amount, which had reached approximately Rs30 million by that time, would belong to his son.

Justice Ejaz Afzal further highlighted that the Representation of People’s Act, Section 12 (2), requires individuals to declare their assets as they stood until June 30 of the preceding year. Thus, Nawaz Sharif was obligated to declare his assets, including the receivable salary, which had accrued until June 30, 2012. Since the salary was both accrued and accumulated and was not disclosed, Justice Khan noted that if it had been stated that the salary was transferred to the son in January 2012, it would not have been considered part of Nawaz Sharif’s assets.

About the current judicial crisis and the threats to the independence of judiciary, Justice Ejaz Afzal commented, “Independence of judiciary cannot be guaranteed by constitutional provision. It cannot be even infused by your judgments too if you as a judge are not independent. You can’t be influenced by anyone.”