ISLAMABAD - The Jamaat-e-Islami counsel yesterday started arguments in the Panamagate case which were apparently in direct contrast to the assertions made by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

The PTI allegations against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were not only about his concealment of assets and tax evasion but also the contradiction and omissions in his address to the nation and the speech he made on the floor of National Assembly in view of the Panama leaks.

The crux of JI counsel Taufiq Asif’s main arguments was that the premier’s speeches were a confession on his part. The judges repeatedly asked him to point out the confession in the speeches. He, instead of pointing out the confessional part of the speeches, said there was a contradiction in them. At that, Justice Azmat Saeed smiled and asked him “don’t do this” and leant back in his chair.

Justice Gulzar Ahmed told him to argue this case of international importance in a casual way.

Asif’s poor arguments not only brought embarrassment to JI chief Sirajul-Haq, one of the petitioners, but also to him. To hide his nervousness, the JI chief covered his face, but when Taufiq withdrew his statement that Nawaz Sharif was a defendant in the Zafar Ali Shah case, he held his head, showing complete despair. A few moments later, he wrote a note on a chit and handed that over to a young JI lawyer sitting in the front row.

PTI chief Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen throughout the proceedings tried to control their laughter. However, at the end, they sniggered. Though there was a smile on their face but at the same time, they were tense, thinking that the JI counsel may destroy their case as well. This was the reason Imran did not talk to media after the hearing, which he does after every hearing. In his place, AML chief Sheikh Rasheed along with PTI leader Naeemul Haq talked to the media outside the Supreme Court.

For Friday’s hearing, Imran Khan reached five minutes late and Sheikh Rasheed reserved a seat for him. Sheikh, who was wearing black shalwar kameez and a red muffler, kept discussing the performance of JI lawyer with Jehangir Tareen and Imran Khan.

Taufiq Asif’s reliance on Zafar Ali Shah and Zahoor Elahi judgments went against him. In the Zafar Ali Shah case, he insisted that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was one of the defendants and Khalid Anwar, a senior advocate, his counsel. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Azmat told him that the incumbent PM was not defendant in that case. Smilingly, Justice Khosa said on the basis of this misstatement his client could be disqualified, as whatever the lawyers say in the court was on behalf of their clients. Asif then said, “I withdraw my arguments on this”.

Justice Khosa to ascertain whether Nawaz Sharif was a defendant in the Zafar Ali Shah case ordered the court assistant to bring the original file from the SC record. When the file was produced, Justice Khosa found out that Nawaz Sharif had filed a civil petition in that case, but Khalid Anwar was not PM’s counsel. Taufiq realising that his point appeared true said: “I withdraw my earlier statement of withdrawal”.

As compared to last six days, when PM counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan was arguing the case, there was less rush in the courtroom No 2.

The JI counsel by citing Zahoor Elahi judgment wanted to establish that the PM does not have immunity. Upon that Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan told him that the PM was not seeking immunity under Article 248 of the constitution in this case but claiming a privilege under Article 66.

Asif’s arguments seemed to be in line with the interview of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, which he had given to a private TV channel on Wednesday.

It’s being a Friday, the judges heard the case till 11am so they and all the attendants could prepare for and offer Friday prayers. The JI counsel would continue his arguments on Monday as well. As the court was rising, a young lawyer of JI stood up in his seat and told the court that he would also argue in the case. Expressing displeasure, Justice Khosa said after the arguments of a senior counsel why another lawyer wanted to represent the same petitioner.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, who presented a copy of Raymond A Baker’s book Capitalism’s Achilles Heel the other day prompting Justice Khosa to remark that “they are four but you are giving one book to us”, presented four more copies of the book to the court yesterday.

 

 

JI beating about the bush