ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s special implementation bench on Friday reserved its judgement in the Panama Papers case after completing hearing over the Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) final report.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that the bench would review the matter of the prime minister’s disqualification.
In his remarks, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan stated that the bench was already reviewing the matter of the prime minister’s disqualification, while Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that the court would not back down from its decision.
This was the fifth consecutive hearing of the bench from July 17, when it began hearing responses of the petitioners and respondents on the JIT’s final probe report into the Sharif family’s businesses.
During Friday’s hearing, the counsel for the prime minister’s children, Salman Akram Raja, completed his arguments and earned appreciation from the bench.
The bench also directed for the confidential Volume X of the JIT report to be made available to the premier’s counsel, Khawaja Harris. The judges remarked that they want to keep everything transparent.
The bench observed that it will operate strictly within the remits of the law and not trample anyone’s individual rights.
The three-member bench also heard the arguments of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s counsel as well as the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor general today.
Dar’s counsel submitted additional documents to the court and hoped it would answer the queries raised by the court earlier.
The NAB prosecutor informed the bench that they will ‘soon’ decide whether to reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.
Once the respondents’ counsels completed their arguments, the petitioners’ counsels were given a chance to respond to the replies of the respondents.
The bench began its proceedings around 9:30am.
PM counsel’s arguments
The counsel for the premier’s children, Raja, informed the bench that there are several law firms in London that operate on Saturdays, to which the bench agreed.
The counsel also clarified before the bench that the firm of his predecessor, Akram Sheikh, may have made a clerical error which led to a confusion of dates regarding ownership of offshore companies by the premier’s children.
“We cannot even think of submitting false documents to the court,” claimed Raja.
During the hearing, the bench also directed the production of Volume X of the JIT report, with Justice Azmat observing that they want to keep everything transparent.
The bench asked the prime minister’s counsel, Khawaja Harris, to examine specific sections of the volume.
Volume X of the report was kept confidential at the time the JIT report submitted its final report. The JIT had asked the Supreme Court not to make the volume public as it contained material related to ongoing international cooperation in the investigation against the Sharif family.
Raja informed the bench that the prime minister’s children are responsible for their own businesses, saying their grandfather aided them financially till 2004.
Later, addressing Raja, Justice Azmat observed, “you did well today”.
Presenting his arguments, Raja claimed that the Qatari prince was not given the option of recording his statement via video link.
Justice Ejaz remarked that they will swim against the tide, within the remits of the law, if they have to.
The bench observed that action is taken in accordance with the relevant law if the assets of a public office holder are more than his known income sources.
Justice Ijaz commented that the prime minister, in his speech in the National Assembly and before the nation, said he has all the necessary proof but they are waiting for this ‘proof’ for over a year.
The judge observed further that Capt (retd) Safdar’s assets declaration does not mention Maryam’s beneficial ownership of offshore companies.
Dar’s counsel’s arguments
Later, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s counsel began presenting his arguments before the bench. Dr Tariq Hassan also argued before the court earlier in the week.
Dr Hassan said he was asked tough questions by the bench during his last appearance. He informed the bench that he has submitted 34-year records of his client, which should hopefully answer all the court’s queries.
Justice Ejaz observed that the bench will examine all the documents in detail.
Justice Ijaz observed that even if the Hudabiya Paper Mills case is kept aside for a moment, there is sufficient material against Dar.
Hassan said he does not have the employment records of the finance minister, who served as an adviser in the Middle East.
Hassan argued that his client is tired of all this scrutiny, saying “This needs to stop”. He said Dar appeared before the JIT as a witness but it seems here that he was a suspect.
Justice Ijaz observed further that Dar’s son transferred funds to Hill Metals Establishment.
“Tariq Sahab you have done justice to your client. Now let us do justice with him too,” remarked Justice Azmat.
The judge further observed that the bench cares about all the respondents and will proceed according to the law.
Dr Hassan later completed his arguments after which the NAB prosecutor general took the stand.
“NAB is pondering whether it can reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case and will make a decision in around a week,” he said.
“How long will you think about this?” responded Justice Ejaz.
Afterwards, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) Naeem Bukhari began his arguments on the replies of the respondents.
Bukhari argued that Nawaz Sharif did not declare his association with FZE Capital. “He is not sadiq and amin in front of the people,” he said.
When asked by the bench that the other side claims the prime minister did not receive any salary, Bukhari claimed the proof of the premier receiving a salary exists.
“Nawaz Sharif concealed payment of salaries as well as his appointment as the chairman of FZE Capital,” said Bukhari.
He added that Hussain gave his father Rs1 billion in ‘gifts’.
The PTI chairman’s counsel claimed the premier lied in his speech in the National Assembly and also violated his oath of office.
Justice Ejaz inquired if public office holders can be privately employed, observing that judges are clearly not allowed to engage in private work while in office.
The additional attorney general commented that there is no clear cut restriction regarding this on the prime minister.
Bukhari argued that the matter relates to a conflict of interests.
“Maryam is the frontwoman of her father,” alleged Bukhari.
Justice Ejaz observed that they will have to determine if the prime minister’s children had any source of income in the 1990s.
Following Bukhari, petitioner Sheikh Rashid presented his response to the respondents’ arguments.
“Nawaz Sharif made threatening remarks regarding the JIT,” said Rashid, adding that this amounts to contempt.
He claimed the money trail was not provided to the court despite repeated requests of the bench. “There’s nothing in the case if you take out the Qatari letter,” he added.
Following Rashid, Jamaat-e-Islami’s (JI) counsel presented his arguments after which the bench reserved its judgment and adjourned the hearing.
