Claims PM speech on the floor of the House is a ‘confession’
Taufeeq Asif is unclear about the difference between a precedent and an argument
Jamaat-e-Islami’s counsel Taufeeq Asif on Friday started his arguments before Justice Khosa-led five-member Supreme Court bench where he pleaded before the court that the prime minister’s speech in parliament is a confession and should be treated as such.
Taking to the podium after Prime Minister’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan, whose arguments ware appreciated by Justice Khosa as valuable when he concluded them on Thursday, the sherwani-clad Advocate Taufeeq Asif preferred to plead his case in Urdu.
During his arguments, the JI’s counsel said that PM Nawaz Sharif didn’t mention his London flats in his tax returns and nomination papers. ‘Nawaz Sharif has violated the oath he took as PM,’ he argued. Justice Khosa asked him if he was saying that the PM should be disqualified because he violated his oath.
Advocate Taufeeq, in a manner similar to PTI’s counsel Advocate Naeem Bukhari, tried to dissect the PM’s speech and argued that the PM hasn’t explained from where the money came for the business when they lost all to nationalisation. He also argued that his speech should be considered truth as there is no alternative.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked JI’s counsel to point out where in his speech the PM admitted owning properties abroad. Justice Khosa also remarked that if the PM had admitted the ownership, the case wouldn’t have come this far.
An embarrassing situation arose for the JI’s counsel when he argued that in Zafar Ali Shah case Nawaz Sharif was respondent No 1 and Advocate Khalid Anwar was representing him. But the PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan told the court that in that case Nawaz Sharif was not a respondent.
Justice Khosa censured JI’s counsel for his lack of preparedness as Nawaz Sharif was not a respondent in the Zafar Ali Shah case, which gave sanction to October ’99 military takeover.
On the very first day of his arguments, JI’s counsel Taufeeq Asif found himself repeatedly at the receiving end of ire from the bench as he presented arguments in the Zafar Ali Shah case by then attorney general as precedents. The judges reminded him that precedents are set by the decisions of courts and not by arguments presented before them.
While the PTI’s counsel Advocate Naeem Bukhari was absent from the court, PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan took notes throughout the proceeding.
The hearing was adjourned till Monday.
