ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court, after hearing the petitioners and respondents counsels for five consecutive days on the joint investigation team (JIT) report, reserved its judgment on Friday.
The three-judge bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal, said it would surely look into the matter of disqualification of the respondents.
However, Justice Afzal observed that concealment of assets fell under Section 12(2)(f) of Representation of People Act, 1976, which was jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The petitioners, PTI Chairman Imran Khan, Sheikh Rashid and Jamaat-e-Islami chief, have argued that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has concealed facts about Capital FZE company, while Maryam Safdar hid the fact that she was the beneficial owner of Neilsen and Nescoll.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed made it clear during the proceedings that they would not deviate from the law and would not trample the fundamental rights of the respondents. “We are for justice,” he added.
Justice Saeed also said that they were least concerned about what was happening outside the court, adding: “We are aware of our judgment.” The court noted that this is the case of evidentiary value.
National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Additional Prosecutor General Akbar Tarar, contrary to the earlier stance of the NAB chairman, informed the court that they were considering filing an appeal against the Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment in Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.
When Justice Ejaz inquired when that would happen, Tarar replied, “Within a week”.
The referee judge of the LHC had quashed the proceedings against the Sharif family in Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. And NAB Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry, during the Panama case hearings, had clearly stated that they would not file appeal against the LHC judgment.
Salman Akram Raja, who a day ago faced tough questions while defending Maryam Safdar, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz, satisfied the court on Friday regarding the misgivings about the different signatures on the trust deed and its attestation.
The judges lauded his arguments. “Raja you have done your homework and established your point. We are grateful for your valuable assistance,” said Justice Saeed.
He told the court that Akram Sheikh advocate, who had submitted the trust deed, has said that there was a mistake but no illegality regarding different signatures on the deed.
Raja said that Volume IV of the JIT report also explains the controversy and did not consider it illegality.
About the deed’s attestation having been done on a Saturday (holiday), the counsel said that today (Friday) he received mails from various UK law firms and according to those the solicitors in Britain even work on Sundays.
He said that solicitor Freeman Box had a good relationship with Hussain Nawaz for the last 14 years therefore he signed the deed on Saturday and it was not unusual and illegal.
Raja said that his clients had not committed any forgery – which entails seven years of imprisonment.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan noted that Hussain Nawaz before the JIT took specific position that no meeting was fixed during the weekend.
Justice Ejaz Afzal asked from the counsel; “Do you agree if we sent it to accountability court for evidentiary hearing.”
Raja argued that the JIT record was incomplete.
Justice Ahsan said that it would be determined by the trial court therefore they did not want to give any findings.
Raja told the SC that Qatari Prince Sheikh Hamad bin Jasim bin Jaber was ready to record his statement through video link.
Justice Afzal questioned was he ready to give evidence today?
The counsel replied he’s not sure about it but added that Arsalan Iftikhar’s case was also before the court, claiming “this is not the case of vicarious family liability.”
Justice Afzal said that Pakistan Penal Code dealt with the “vicarious liability”, while Section 9(a)(v) of NAO (National Accountability Ordinance) was complete and envisaged the public-holder, the benamidar and the associate.
The court noted that the British Virgin Islands (BVI) attorney general responded to the JIT’s Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request, dated June 16, 2017, on July 4. However, the JIT through the SC registrar submitted the AG BVI letter before the court on July 20.
Therefore, Justice Azmat said they would open Volume XI of the JIT report, which contained the MLA requests to foreign counties.
Khawaja Haris was allowed to examine the Volume XI of the report.
The petitioners, in view of the JIT report, referred to Article 207 of the Constitution and claimed that PM Nawaz Sharif had lied to the nation as he was working in Capital FZE company.
Justice Afzal said Article 207 was for the judges, adding there was no express provision in the constitution that the prime minister could not work.
Jamaat-e-Islami counsel admitted that Article 207 did not bar the prime minister to do business or work, but he said the PM should have declared that in his nomination papers - which he did not.
The PTI and Sheikh Rashid demanded disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif under Article 62 and 63 of Constitution.
They contended that if the Qatari letters were taken out then the Sharifs had no case. They said that if the court wanted to hold trial then the prime minister should be disqualified first.
However, PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari said there had to be fair trial.
Bukhari said that NAB chairman had been sitting on cases against Nawaz Sharif. He urged the court to pass order for disqualification of Nawaz Sharif from the membership of the National Assembly.
Concluding his argument, Naeem Bukhari said that he had utmost faith and confidence in the apex court and submitted to disqualify PM Nawaz and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar under articles 62 and 63 of the constitution.
Sheikh Rashid said that the Sharif family did not reply to the 13 questions of the apex court. For the last one year, they had not supplied the required documents neither to the apex court nor to the JIT, he added.
He said that PM Nawaz was using “threatening language” against the court.
The PM is not “Sadiq” and “Ameen”, he alleged, and added that it was good that the prime minister owned the statements of his children before the JIT.
The bench appreciated the efforts of the JIT members.
Justice Ahsan said that the work of the JIT members needed to be commended as they had worked in extreme difficulty.
Tariq Hassan, the counsel of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, submitted a box containing 32 years of income tax record of the minister. He said his client had given the record of his income tax to the JIT and now he was filing it before the apex court.
Justice Ahsan said that the JIT in its findings said that Dar’s income increased from nine million Dirhams to 854 million Dirhams over a span of just five years.
Hassan replied that Dar had 40 years of experience and held many important positions, and he worked for Sheikh Al-Nahyan to earn 800 million Dirhams in five years.
Justice Ahsan told him that he should have provided the appointment and the contract letters, terms of condition, and the bank accounts details to establish this claim.
Tariq said that there was no reference against his client and he only appeared as a witness before the JIT.
At that, Justice Saeed in a lighter vein remarked “he [Dar] wanted to become an approver [against Sharifs]”?
Justice Ahsan said that there was plenty of material against Ishaq Dar available with the FIA and the NAB.
The court after hearing the arguments, reserved its judgment.