ISLAMABAD -  Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar has said parliament is a sovereign body and they respect it.

“Parliamentarians are our representatives. We don’t want to lay down a bad law for MPs, but we have to examine if the people were involved in corruption and deceit,” he added.

The chief justice stated this while heading a three-judge bench which heard a petition of PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf General Secretary Jehangir Tareen for having an offshore company and getting bank loan written off.

To a question of similarity in the cases against former prime minister Nawaz and the PTI leaders, the chief justice said Akram Sheikh is right that this application should have been taken up with the case of Panama leaks against Nawaz Sharif and his children.

Justice Saqib questioned why former chief justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali did not fix it with the Panama leaks as there is a similarity in both the petitions. Sikandar Bashir, representing Jehangir Tareen, said it is absolutely true, but at that time the wisdom was to separate the case from the Panama leaks.

Justice Umar Atta Bandial said the case law is given in the 28th July judgment to disqualify a parliamentarian on the basis of false declaration of assets and liabilities.

The judge said in Rai Hassan Nawaz case the element of mens rea (criminal intention) was considered for disqualification. He asked Jehangir Tarin’s counsel how his case is distinguishable from the Panama leaks.

Sikandar Bashir said the petitioner is seeking disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution. He argued that for disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution mens rea (criminal intention) is required, adding false statement on oath is dishonesty.

He argued though in the July 28 judgment the word ‘intention’ was not used, there were elements due to which the court came to the conclusion that there was mens rea and disqualified ex-PM Nawaz Sharif.

The chief justice remarked if the entries in the nomination papers for 2013 general elections fall under the category of false statement, there is definitely mens rea. Sikandar said if misstatement on oath is proven, undisputed facts are required for disqualification. “The case against the former prime minister formed the basis. Similarly, there was act of contempt of court to disqualify PM Yousaf Raza Gilani,” he further contended.

The chief justice noted that there is discrepancy in both the documents filed before the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Sikandar contended that in written-off loans the petitioner has not produced any document while this fact is belied by the statement of State Bank of Pakistan that he has filed.

He said the court, before deciding the case against Jehangir Tareen, has to keep three aspects in mind; whether the loan was obtained in the name of his client, spouse or dependent, whether the amount is more than Rs 2 million and that the authorities to waive off the loan are banks.

The counsel said even if the court comes to the conclusion to disqualify Jehangir Tareen on the basis of written-off loan, he could be disqualified under Section 99(1)(a) of ROPA, 1976, and not under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution.

He pointed out when the loan of Farooqi Palp Mills Limited was written off in 2007, Jehangir Tareen was not its director or shareholder, adding he became its director in March 2010 and resigned in 2013.

Hanif Abbasi’s counsel, Azid Nafees, said the company belonged to Jehangir’s son-in-law and he used his influence as a federal minister for commerce and industries to write off its loans. The chief justice said there was no document before them to prove that Jehanigr Tareen used his influence as a minister to waive off loans.

About the discrepancies in income tax returns and nomination papers for general election 2013, Sikandar said Jehangir Tareen was not elected a National Assembly member on the basis of the nomination papers filed on March 27, 2013, but he was elected as an MNA from NA-154 as a result of by-election in 2015.

The allegations against Tareen are based on income tax returns 2010 and 2011 while there are no allegations on the basis of income tax returns of 2013, 2014 and 2015.

He contended misstatement in earlier documents could not be utilised at a later stage, adding those allegations could not be used under Article 62(1)(f).

At the end of Wednesday’s hearing, the CJP said nobody told the court what dishonesty is and what element of deceit is. He said: “In the October 3 order, we have stated that only arguments stand concluded, but hearing is not completed as there are still questions of law which need to be examined.” The case was adjourned until Thursday (today).

 

TERENCE J SIGAMONY