ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court, while hearing the Panamagate case on Tuesday, said it would not set any example by disqualifying a prime minister over speeches.
A five-member bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, resumed the hearing in which Justice Aijaz-ul-Ahsan said the decision of PM’s innocence would be taken after going through the evidence.
During the proceedings, Justice Ijaz Afzal remarked that disqualification of the prime minister on mere assumptions would be a dangerous judicial precedent and “we don't want to set any such precedent.”
He questioned as to whether it would be appropriate to give judgment on documents which did not fulfill the legal requirements. The honourable judge asked how conflict could be resolved without recording evidence. The prime minister’s link with Panama papers and his speech are two different matters, he added.
Naeem Bukhari, counsel for PTI chairman Imran Khan, said if Panama leaks was kept aside, there was enough material on record for the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
The counsel contended that the prime minister in his speeches stated that Dubai and Jeddah factories’ sale proceeds were used to purchase the London flats. The PM also stated in the speeches that they had all the documents of Jeddah and Dubai plants and would be provided to the court, whenever required. He said the PM never mentioned the investment in Qatar real estate business in his speeches.
Bukhari, to establish PM Nawaz’s connection with the London flats, read the report of Senator Rehman Malik who, as FIA additional director general, had prepared.
The PTI counsel contended the report traces money trail, laundering and how the UK properties were purchased. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed said Rehman Malik prepared the report on the basis of his own knowledge, adding his own name had appeared in the Panama leaks.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa questioned what Rehman Malik did with the report when he was interior minister. He observed Rehman Malik had prepared the report out of patriotism and sent it to the then president, the CJP and the NAB chief. Justice Khosa withdrew the remarks which he had made during the proceedings on Monday (July 9). At the onset of the hearing, he said: “Yesterday I passed remarks about articles 62 and 63, which I withdraw. “I regret the statement which was generalised and not specific for anyone.”
The bench seemed divided in Tuesday proceedings. Justice Ejaz and Justice Azmat seemed defending the prime minister and his children case, while Justice Khosa seemed supporting the PTI stance on the Panamagate.
Justice Khosa said investment in Jeddah, Dubai and Qatar was the Sharif family money. He also said the PM was also seen in the photograph which the PM had shown in the parliament, and that hinted at some connection, he added.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan said Mian Muhammad Sharif was in-charge of the entire business. The part of it went to Dubai and Jeddah, so how the son should be held accountable when the PM himself had stated that he had disassociated himself from the family business. He said the PM and Maryam figure nowhere in the Hudaibiya Mills case. However, Bukhari contended Hussain Nawaz and Maryam Safdar were the directors of Hudaibiya Mills.
Justice Ejaz asked the PTI counsel that the documents on which he had relied were not authentic and complete.
Bukhari said the whole case of PTI revolves around the honesty and truthfulness of the prime minister. He argued that according to the ICIJ report, the prime minister’s sons and daughter, despite the repeated emails, didn’t reply. However, before the publication of the report, their solicitor responded on their behalf.
Justice Ejaz said they would determine the responsibility of the PM after examining the entire record. He said the PM speech in the parliament was an independent transaction. He held the speech of the prime minister was not part of any criminal transaction, so it had nothing to do with the Panama papers.
Justice Khosa observed the respondents would have to prove how the money trail.
Justice Ejaz also questioned whether they could give judgment against the PM for the reason that he had concealed the information. Justice Gulzar said: “If they make the statement basis for disqualification of the PM, we will set a dangerous precedent.”
When the court put legal queries, Bukhari said, “I am a stepney tire. Actually, Hamid Khan was to contest the case, but when he left, I was asked to argue.”
Bukhari again asked the court to direct the NAB chairman to file an appeal in Hudaibiya Papers Mills. He said only the complaint was quashed, while the trial and case material remained. He said there was enough material in that case against PM Nawaz and his children to implicate them in the Panama leaks.
Justice Ejaz said they could not disqualify someone on the basis of the case which had been quashed by a high court.
Justice Khosa remarked whether the counsel wanted the judges to become crusaders, hold a trial wielding swords and pass the judgment. Justice Ejaz said: “How can we give judgment on the basis of incomplete papers?”
Bukhari said under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the court has vast powers. The court clarified that they would not expand the scope of Article 184(3).
Justice Ejaz said they could direct the NAB chairman to reopen the case, but that would go to the accountability court and not to the apex court.
Bukhari tried to prove that sale proceeds of Dubai factory, 12 million dirhams, were used in settlement of the bank liability. He said that after the payment of liability, no money was left with the Sharif family. Justice Ijaz asked him how he was sure that 12 million dirhams were paid as liabilities.
The hearing was adjourned until Wednesday (today).