-
But that’s what the petitioners have based their case on, PM’s counsel
- ‘Parliament legislates and court interprets’: Makhdoom Ali Khan
- Maryam says she is not dependent of her father since her marriage
On the 10th day of Panamagate Case hearing, Prime Minister’s Counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan told the Supreme Court bench that it is parliament that makes laws while it is courts that interpret them. He was arguing for fourth consecutive day.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing on Tuesday in the petitions filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Awami Muslim League (AML).
Justice Khosa said that the business of parliament can be discussed in the court, as the court has decided before that the speeches in parliament can be used against members as evidence. ‘British Parliament in a decision has ruled that corruption does not have parliamentary exemption,’ he remarked. Justice Khosa also pointed out that according to Article 68 of Constitution, the parliament has been barred to discuss conduct of any judge of higher judiciary.
Exemption under Article 248
Makhdoom agreed with the court that articles 68 and 204 bar discussing conduct of judges and if a member parliament discusses the matter on the floor of the house, he won’t have the exemption. However, ‘President, Prime Minister and Governors have constitutional exemption. PM has it to run the affairs of the State,’ he argued. Makhdoom said that the PM has asked for exemption under Article 248 (Protection to President, Governor, Ministers, etc) not under Article 66 (Privileges of Members).
Continuing his arguments, Makhdoom Ali Khan referred to Article 66 of the Constitution that gives legal protection to the proceedings of parliament wherein it is clearly mentioned that the proceedings of parliament could not be called into question by any court.
He contended that his client had not made any wrong statement on the floor of the house and even if he had, he enjoyed immunity.
When the court asked him if the immunity given to the members of parliament could be withdrawn, Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that parliament could withdraw the immunity but even then the apex court will have to give its verdict in accordance with the law on the issue of disqualification of prime minister for his speeches.
The court asked Makhdoom if the prime minister had not given a wrong statement in parliament, why he was seeking immunity. When Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked Khan if he was contradicting the statement of his client, he said he was not contradicting the statement of prime minister but stressed that the court should also look into Article 66 that gives legal protection to proceedings of parliament.
PM’s speech is not covered by Article 19
PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan pleaded that article 19 guaranteed freedom of expression to everyone.
On this, Justice Asif Khosa reminded him that his case doesn’t fall under article 19 and he should confine his arguments to the case. Article 19 gives you the right to express and you are seeking immunity, he observed.
We are not prosecuting the prime minister on his speech, Justice Khosa said.
The prime minister’s lawyer stated that his client has not sought immunity under Article 248 and his focus on this matter is because the petitioners have based their arguments on PM’s speech in the National Assembly.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that another allegation on PM is that his speech was not in accordance with facts and they contradict each other. Makhdoom read excerpts from PM’s speech in the parliament and argued that PM was only giving the details of his children’s properties abroad. ‘The speech contained nothing on whose basis he could be disqualified,’ he said while adding that even if there are contradictions between PM’s speech and statement by his children, he can’t be disqualified on this count by the court.
Justice Khosa however observed that the court can view speeches to interpret law. ‘The exemption granted to speeches in parliament extends to the point that courts don’t usually view them to interpret law,’ contended Makhdoom.
Justice Khosa asked Makhdoom as to who is telling the truth: PM or his children. He reminded him that that the question before the court is not one of privilege or exemption. ‘We are trying to understand an issue brought before us,’ he remarked.
Concluding his arguments for the day, Makhdoom said that no evidence has been brought before the court that links his client to mills in Dubai.
Maryam submits documents
Maryam Nawaz on Tuesday, through her counsel Shahid Hamid, submitted additional documents before the bench, refuting the allegations of PTI.
In her application moved under Supreme Court Rules of 1980, she had attached certified copies of her wealth and bank statements and relevant record to clarify her position.
Placing record under the relevant laws, the bench is prayed to dismiss the pending petitions and issue appropriate order against the petitioner for falsely maligning the respondent.
Maryam Nawaz in her plea stated that she had never been dependent on her father after her marriage in December 1992. The non-agriculture and agriculture income during the last five tax years (2012 to 2016) stood around Rs 39,174,184. She further said that she continued to live with her husband and three children after her marriage.
She also submitted her tax details for the past five years. In 2012, she had filed Rs2,314,917 as income tax, Rs6,517,504 in 2013, Rs8,872,742 in 2014, Rs9,340,243 in 2015 and Rs12,128,778 in 2016.
Maryam Nawaz’s reply stated that five homes comprise the Raiwind Estate which she said belongs to her paternal grandmother. Around 45.5 acres of 48 acres are under her grandmother’s supervision, the reply said.
The costs on Shamim Agricultural Farm are jointly paid, the reply said, of which Maryam Nawaz paid Rs6,000,000 in 2014 and 2015.
