ISLAMABAD - Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s counsel in Panama Papers case, Makhdoon Ali Khan has argued that the PM enjoys ‘immunity’ even if he had lied in the National Assembly.
Continuing his arguments before the Supreme Court bench hearing Panama leaks case, the lawyer yesterday claimed the premier had not given any wrong statement in the Parliament but said that even if he had done so, he has full exemption from prosecution.
The bench expressed resentment over counsel’s statement. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who is heading the five-member bench, said that Panama leaks case depends upon PM’s parliamentary speech.
Makdoom insisted his client could not be disqualified simply on the basis of speeches he made in the National Assembly. Stressing that the Member of Parliament has the privilege under Article 66 of freedom of speech, he said that the prime minister has an exemption under Article 248.
On Makhdoom’s argument that his client did not lie or give any false statement in the parliament, Justice Ijazul Ahsan said when the PM had not told a lie then there was no need for an exemption.
During arguments, Imran Khan, Jehangir Tareen, and Shah Mehmood Qureshi who were present in court, appeared unimpressed. Sheikh Rashid, on the other hand, was showing no interest in the hearing and dosing in the courtroom. Senator Nehal Hashmi, State Minister for Information Marriyum Aurangzeb and Ch Tanveer, who were sitting behind the PTI leaders, were in pleasant mood.
Earlier, Justice Khosa inquired how long the PM’s counsel would take to wrap up his arguments, to which Makhdoom replied he would try to conclude his arguments regarding Articles 62 and 63 today (Monday).
He added that he would also be talking about the PM’s speeches, Maryam Nawaz’s status as a dependent and the matter of her alleged ownership of the family’s London properties.
Makhdoom said that implementation of articles 62(1f) and 63 is different. He said that arguments don’t mean that SC can’t hear the case over which Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked that articles 62, 63 can be applied as per facts in Panama case.
Talking about the veracity of PM’s speech in National Assembly, the lawyer said that Indian courts have previously overlooked clauses, such as the ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’ clauses, in similar cases.
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh asked the lawyer if Indian law also contained Article 62, to which the PM’s counsel replied that the words ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’ exist in the Indian constitution as well.
The court also remarked that if Article 66 (which pertains to freedom of speech within the National Assembly) is part of the Constitution, so is Article 62 (which deals with the morals and character of members of the Parliament).
Justice Khosa commented that the parliamentary speech is only a part of the additional documents and the evidence. He added that the fate of the case will be determined on the basis of all evidence provided to the court.
Sharif’s counsel spent the bulk of the first half of the hearing citing previous cases heard by the Supreme Court. He argued that in all previous cases, the court’s decision to disqualify the prime minister came only after sufficient evidence was provided to the court.
He cited the example of the disqualification case against ex-PM Yousaf Raza Gilani, arguing that the verdict came in light of sufficient evidence.
Makhdoom argued that on April 1, federal government was asked to write letter to Swiss officials whereas PM was sentenced on April 26, 2012.
On May 4, the case was again raised in SC due to ruling of NA speaker after which the court ordered to de-seat Yousaf Raza Gilani on June 19.
The counsel also read out Dr Mubasshir Hassan case’s verdict that was announced in 2009. He said that federation didn’t act on the instructions in the case.
PM’s counsel while referring Jahangir Tareen case, maintained that for disqualification from the public office under Article 62 and 63 of the constitution the person should be convicted from a court of law.
He said that rules exist to determine falsehood and misrepresentation of facts and added that premier’s address in the National Assembly was also challenged in a court in the past.
Makhdoom said that the prime minister was also blamed for not speaking the truth at that time. The speaker had rejected the reference against the prime minister and the Lahore High Court had declared the speaker’s decision as lawful.
The Supreme Court had maintained the high court’s decision and dismissed the petitions against the speaker, the counsel said.
The court remarked that the previous verdicts given in dual nationality cases, cited by the PM’s counsel, also prove that the SC has jurisdiction over disqualification cases.
Mentioning Article 184-3 of the Constitution, the judges maintained that disqualification cases can be heard by the SC.
The PM’s counsel, citing a number of provisions from the Representation of People Act 1976, contended that these provisions needed to be read in conformity with Article 62(1-f) of the Constitution, which makes it clear that an inquiry like this cannot be conducted by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction by the apex court under Article 184(3).
At this, Justice Ahsan observed the counsel wanted to assert that a court of law should make a proper determination before disqualifying a member.
Referring to earlier disqualifications by the Supreme Court on account of dual nationality, the counsel highlighted that such decisions were made because Article 63 (1 c) of the constitution clearly stated that a member will stand disqualified and cease to be a citizen of Pakistan if he acquired the citizenship of a foreign state.
Moreover, he added, former chief justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani had also held as a high court judge that an individual who holds dual nationality cannot become a member of the parliament.
Justice Ijaz asked: “even if we ignore [the PM’s] speech in the parliament, then what about the prime minister’s address to the nation?” The judge said the PM had stated in his speeches that he would not seek any constitutional and legal exemption.
The court observed besides the PM, his children had also given interviews to various channels. The court will have to determine, which one statement is to be believed as correct.
Justice Khosa said that they were proceeding against the prime minister on the basis of speech but some properties had been acquired by him and his children therefore he was required to apprise the court about them.
Justice Azmat said that the privilege under Article 66 was subject to the constitution, adding articles 62 and 63 were also part of the constitution.
The judge asked the counsel that at some stage he would have to argue on the issue whether the omission was intentional or not?
Makhdoom during his arguments also referred to the case of Sher Afgan Khan Niazi against Imran Khan that was referred t to the Election Commission of Pakistan.
The PM’s counsel argued that at that time Imran’s lawyer’s stance was that Article 62(1)(F) did not apply to an elected member of the parliament.
Makhdoom said that now Imran Khan was seeking disqualification of PM Nawaz Sharif under the same article.
He questioned why there were different standards now?
Earlier, the PM’s counsel cited judgments of those parliamentarians, who were disqualified due to having fake degrees, and dual nationality.
He apprised those persons were first declared as not fulfilling the criterion of being “Sadiq” and “Ameen” under Article 62(1)(F) of constitution by the competent forum and then disqualified by the apex court.
Justice Khosa said that over a period Article 62(1)(F) was evolved from case-to-case basis.
Makhdoom said that the constitution was a live document as the judges interpret it.
The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) filed a petition under Article 184(3) for the disqualification of the prime minister for not being ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen’.
Talking to the media after the hearing, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Naeemul Haq expressed hope for early decision in the case. He said PM has left with nothing for his defence after BBC report and Imran Khan’s arguments.
PM’s counsel has denied that his client had anything to do with the ownership of London flats in the previous hearing.