-
PM’s counsel submits a list of Maryam’s properties
- Makhdoom Ali Khan concludes arguments, JI’s counsel to take the podium today
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa-led five-member bench of the Supreme Court continued hearing Panamagate case on Thursday when PM’s counsel Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan concluded his arguments after arguing for more than 18 hours over a span of seven days.
Makhdoom Ali Khan also submitted a list of properties purchased in Maryam Nawaz’s name in the court. The judges asked Makhdoom whether the PM had bought land in his daughter’s name, to which the counsel replied that he did indeed, and the land was later transferred to Maryam Nawaz when she paid its price.
Advocate Shahid Hamid, who is representing Maryam Nawaz, presented the details of property owned by her to the court.
Unlike a very happening Wednesday, the hearing on Thursday remained focused on questions of law and jurisprudence as counsel Makhdoom kept on citing previous cases. The bench asked for explanation on the matter reiterating that the case before them is of tax evasion, concealment of wealth and money laundering.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan questioned whether a writ of quo warranto (a legal proceeding during which an individual’s right-footed hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged) be brought in a constitutional petition and whether a PM can be disqualified as a result of it. Justice Khosa remarked that the case is not of quo warranto but of qualification of office holder.
Here Justice Asif Saeed Khosa pointed out that the timeframe in which the appointment of the PM can be challenged following the election through Article 225 is limited. He said that once this time period expires, the court can be asked to review the appointment under Articles 184/3 and Article 199.
Justice Gulzar noted, ‘We are concerned about the facts regarding dependency before us. Facts in this regard should be presented before us,’ he said.
To this, Makhdoom categorically said that Maryam Nawaz is not dependent of anyone and is ‘financially independent’. Adding that one can fully understand from assets of Maryam Nawaz as to how she pays for her expenditure. ‘In this regard, Shahid Hamid will shed more light,’ he said.
The National Accountability Bureau ordinance contains the definition of benami transactions but not of dependence remarked Justice Khosa. We will have to decide what the definition of dependence is while keeping the case in mind, Justice Ejaz Afzal said.
On this, Justice Ijazul Hassan remarked that the counsel himself had mentioned that the premier bought property in his daughter’s name.
Makhdoom Ali Khan then read out a verdict given by Justice Khosa in a previous benami transaction case. Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that the verdicts cited by Khan pertained to cases where a dispute arose between two parties regarding the ownership of property. In the current case, the dispute is not about which of the two parties owns the property, he added.
Justice Gulzar stated that a verdict on Maryam Nawaz’s status as a dependent could be made on the basis of the facts presented in court.
He added that the matter of her dependence is of concern and that facts should be provided on the matter.
When Justice Aijaz-ul-Ahsan observed that the financial position of Maryam Nawaz rapidly changed after 2011, and that it seems she was dependent on her father at that time, Makhdoom said that Maryam Nawaz was not depended on her father even in 2010.
Makhdoom asked Shahid Hamid to explain to the court when it inquired about London flats.
The bench noted that ‘The petitioner has challenged the holding of Prime Minister Office by Nawaz Sharif’.
The otherwise active Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen looked sluggish in the courtroom while the PML-N camp, now spearheaded by Khawaja Asif and Khawaja Saad Rafique, remained seated during the hearing.
As the hearing resumed after the interval, Makhdoom contended before the court that in order to save taxes the Government of Pakistan has also formed offshore companies that own Roosevelt Hotel in US and Scribe in France. Justice Khosa asked that by quoting this example if he was trying to justify his client’s deeds.
‘All I am saying is that offshore companies are formed to save taxes, not evade them,’ contended Makhdoom.
Makhdoom also presented a book titled ‘Capitalism’s Achilles Heel’ by Raymond W Baker on record after pointing out that since the other side has quoted excerpts from the book, he’ll present the whole book. Justice Khosa quipped if he was presenting only one copy, to which Makhdoom replied that the book was short in the market and soon more copies would be provided.
When Makhdoom started citing cases decided by Supreme Court back in 1960s and 1970s, Justice Sheikh Azmat Sheikh said with a smile that ‘it looks as if you are trying to ‘embarrass us’’. Justice Khosa remarked that he was citing decades old decisions and jurisprudence has evolved since then. ‘Much water has passed under the bridge and the court is going to set new examples,’ he remarked. Makhdoom said that he hopes that the court will stay within the limitations of law.
During the hearing, Justice Asif Khosa said that ‘Panama Papers’ issue is related to the whole nation now. The court has to take care of nation’s fundamental rights, he added.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked that disqualification on the basis of momentous evidence is stricter than punishment for a crime. ‘The stigma will be carried on by the posterity as well,’ he said.
Interestingly, where PTI’s counsel Naeem Bukhari made no citations of previous decisions of the court, Makhdoom in a course of six days cited 150 cases from 15 different countries around the world.
Before adjourning the hearing till today (Friday), Justice Khosa said that the court considers Makhdoom’s arguments as ‘valuable’ and appreciates his assistance throughout the hearing. Jamaat-e-Islami counsel Taufeeq Asif will argue before the court today (Friday).
