Panama Leaks case: Volume X opened, verdict reserved

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday guaranteed to look into the matter of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification while reserving its judgment in the Panama Leaks case.

The apex court bench assured that fundamental rights of both the petitioners and respondents would be protected fully. The court observed that both the petitioners and the respondents would get a chance of fair trial as a case was registered.

A three-member special implementation bench on the Panama verdict, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, reserved the verdict in the petitions, seeking disqualification of PM Nawaz Sharif for telling a lie on the floor of parliament, concealing the facts about his family’s offshore companies, etc.

“We had stuck with the instant matter thick and thin and (are) very much cautious about the fundamental rights of the litigants (when a case) comes before us,” Justice Azmat Saeed, a member of the bench, remarked.

“Fundamental rights of both the petitioners and respondents in the instant matter would fully be protected and nothing would be done which is not guaranteed by the law,” Justice Sheikh Azmat remarked.

Justice Ejaz Afzal, the head of the bench, observed that the court was already reviewing the matter of the prime minister’s disqualification, while Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that the court would not back down from its decision.

The court reserved the judgment after the counsel for the respondents Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his children and relatives completed their arguments, while counsel for thepetitioners, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami and Sheikh Rashid Ahmed of Awami Muslim League submitted their arguments in rebuttal.

The counsel for the petitioners including Naeem Bukhari of PTI, Taufeeq Asif of JI and Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, prayed the apex court to disqualify PM Nawaz, as he remained no more Sadiq and Ameen for concealing facts regarding his family’s offshore companies and business abroad while speaking on the floor of the parliament as well as before the nation.

National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Additional Prosecutor General Akbar Tarar, on his turn, submitted that the anti-graft body was thinking over filing of an appeal within a week against the judgment of Lahore High Court, passed in Hudaibiya Papers Mill reference case in 2000.

The incumbent finance minister, Ishaq Dar, had given his confessional statement regarding money-laundering before a magistrate on April 25, 2000, on the basis of which he was pardoned in the Hudaibiya reference case.

Ishaq Dar and his lawyer, however, during the Panamagate hearing, distracted from the statement, saying it was taken under pressure during Musharraf era.

The SC, however, recently reminded Dar's lawyer that if the confessional statement in the Hudaibiya case was considered withdrawn, his status as co-accused would be restored and the pardon granted to him would be considered withdrawn.

On Friday, while commencing his arguments in rebuttal, Naeem Bukhari submitted that the PM did not disclose the existence of UAE-based company capital FZE and that he was chairman of the Board of Directors of the company.

Rejecting the impression, given by the respondents’ counsel that the premier did not receive any salary, Naeem Bukhari claimed that the proof of the premier receiving a salary existed. At this, Justice Ejaz Afzal questioned if the public office-holders could be employed privately. He said that judges were clearly not allowed to engage in private work while in office.

To a query, Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana told the court that there was no clear-cut restriction regarding this on the prime minister. The PTI counsel told the court that the PM had delivered the speech in the Parliament that the Gulf Steel Mills was sold out for 33 million dirhams, which he said was not correct.

The PM lied on the floor of the Parliament, violating his oath of office, Bukhari contended adding that Hussain Nawaz gave his father one billion rupees in gifts. He contended that during the year 1993-96, respondents Husain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz and Maryam Nawaz were minors and were not able to purchase Avenfield apartments.

Justice Ejaz Afzal, however, observed that if Maryam Nawaz was the beneficial owner of the flats, her status as a dependent of the prime minister would come into surface. He told Bukhari that he had not provided any clear evidence in this matter.

He further said that if Maryam Nawaz was not proven as the PM’s dependent, then her ownership of the flats was not enough to disqualify Nawaz Sharif. In his rebuttal, Sh Rashid Ahmed told the court that the Sharif family had not answered the 13 questions, put by the JIT and had failed to submit a money trail to the court.

He told the court that Nawaz Sharif made threatening remarks recently regarding the JIT, which amounted to the contempt of court. He prayed to the apex court to disqualify the PM as he told a lie on the floor of the Parliament and before the nation about his family assets.

Counsel for JI Taufeeq Asif also prayed to the apex court to disqualify PM as he was no more Sadiq and Ameen. Submitting his viewpoint on the part of federation, Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana submitted before the court that despite assurance given by the apex court that it would not give its decision on the basis of recommendations of the JIT, but on the material and evidence it had provided after conducting a probe into the mater. He hoped that the apex court would uphold the highest rule of law which was fairness and would protect the legal and fundamental rights of the respondents while announcing the verdict in the matter in hand.

Earlier, during the course of proceedings, the court also presented the prime minister's counsel, Khwaja Harris, with the volume X of the JIT report. "We will not show volume X to anyone right now,” Justice Sheikh Azmat said.”

He said that a number of issues would become clear after reading the volume. Volume X of the report was kept confidential at the time the JIT submitted its final report. The JIT had asked the Supreme Court not to make the volume public as it contained material relating to foreign mutual assistance related to ongoing international cooperation in the investigation against the Sharif family.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that the PM mysteriously presented documents showing proof of the money trail before the Speaker National Assembly. “I wonder as to why the premier did not share it with the court.”

Meanwhile, Salman Akram Raja, counsel for premier’s children, informed the court that there were several law firms in London that operate on Saturdays, to which the bench agreed.

The counsel also clarified before the bench that the firm of his predecessor, Akram Sheikh, may have made a clerical error which led to a confusion of dates regarding ownership of offshore companies by the premier's children.

The counsel claimed that they could not even think of submitting false documents to the court. He submitted that the prime minister’s children were responsible for their own businesses, saying their grandfather aided them financially till 2004.

Similarly, he said that Qatari prince was not given the option of recording his statement via video link. Dr Tariq Hasssan, counsel for Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, submitted some additional documents to the court and hoped it would answer the queries raised by the court earlier.

He said he was asked tough questions by the bench during his last appearance. He informed the bench that he had submitted 34-year records of his client, which should hopefully answer all the court’s queries.

Justice Ejaz Afzal told the counsel that the court would examine all the documents in detail. Justice Ijaz observed that even if the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case was kept aside for a moment, there was sufficient material against Dar. A good number of documents came to the surface, showing remarkable increase in your client’s assets, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asked Dr Traiq Hassan.

“Your assets rose from 9 million to 837 million, earning some 800 million in just 5 years,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked Dr Tariq. To another court query regarding his client appointment details abroad, Dr Tariq Hassan said he does not have the employment records of the finance minister, who served as an adviser in the Middle East.

The learned counsel contended that his client was tired of all this scrutiny, saying it should be stopped now, adding that his client did appear before the probing body as a witness but it seems here that he was a suspect.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan told the counsel his client’s son transferred funds to Hill Metals Establishment and when he was asked by the JIT to disclose those, but he sought refuge of privilege.

On April 20, the five-member larger bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa (head), Justice Ijaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh and Justice Ijazul Ahsan announced a reserved judgment in the petitions, seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for lying on the floor of the Parliament.

The court had ordered formation of a JIT in the Panama leaks case for probing the allegations of financial irregularities and money laundering, allegedly involving Prime Minister and his family for establishing properties abroad.

The court on February 22, had reserved the judgment after hearing all the parties with the observation that it would not leave the Panama case undecided and vowed to come up with a verdict regardless of the fact that the parties to the instant case may or may not like its ruling.

Justice Asif Khosa, who was heading the bench, had observed that they were considering the instant matter from every conceivable angle and would come with the ruling regardless of the fact as to who may or may not like it.

PTI Chairman Imran Khan, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed of Awami Muslim League and Jamaat-e-Islami Emir Sirajul Haq had filed petitions in the apex court. The verdict had ruled that an investigation is required to probe the matter and ordered formation of JIT headed by an official from Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) which will submit its report within 60 days.

The court directed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his sons, Hussain Nawaz and Hasan Nawaz, respondents No. 1, 7 and 8 to appear and associate themselves with the JIT as and when required.

Agencies add: Justice Ejaz said that it may lead to investigation against the finance minister, adding that Ishaq Dar was involved in Hudaibiya Paper Mill and that he failed to satisfy the JIT. However, Tariq Hassan said that record was there, but the JIT did not consider it.

He asked about the pay of Dar as Sheikh Nahyan Mubarak’s advisor. “It is illogical to say that Sheikh gave Dar 80 crore rupees in this time period,” he added.

PTI’s counsel Naeem Bokhari, in his arguments, informed the court that the PM was no more Sadiq and Ameen as he concealed assets including FZE company. He alleged that the premier also didn’t show his income.

On this, Justice Ejaz remarked that it could be possible that PM didn’t take pay despite being eligible over which the lawyer said that salary receiving receipt was present among the submitted record. He asked if the matter fell under the court jurisdiction or the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Naeem Bokhari said that Nawaz Sharif lied over selling Gulf Steel Mills for 33 million dirham while Azizia Mill was not sold for 63 million riyal, adding that PM was getting gifts from Hill Metal and Hussain Nawaz. It is unbelievable that Nawaz Sharif earned 88 per cent profit and he also received money from US Sheikh Sahib.