-
PM’s counsel concludes arguments
- JI seeks PM’s disqualification; their counsel gets law wrong multiple times
The Panamagate case hearing continued well into its third week with PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan concluding his arguments. On the other hand, JI counsel Advocate Taufeeq Asif faltered on multiple occasions as he argued for PM’s disqualification.
Monday
On Monday, Makhdoom continued his arguments by citing SC’s ruling when former PM Yousaf Raza Gillani was removed due to his failure to write to Swiss government. He reiterated that in all cases of disqualification the decision was given after recording of evidence. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that the cases he has been citing prove that SC has powers and is competent to hear this case.
Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan quoted before the bench that the court did not disqualify Raja Parvaiz Ashraf.
Makhdoom also argued that the speeches of Prime Minister, issues of tax and dependency of Maryam Nawaz are three separate issues and he’ll address them separately. ‘Where record is disputed, Supreme Court can’t directly act,’ he argued. During the second half, the arguments and remarks revolved around Article 66 of the Constitution that deals with privileges of members of parliament. PM’s counsel was asked harsh questions pertaining to the inclusion of the speech in the hearing.
Tuesday
On Tuesday, the arguments once again centred around the SC’s powers to adjudicate the business of parliament, as Justice Khosa argued that the business of parliament can’t be challenged in the court. He also said that court has decided before that the speeches in parliament can be used against members as evidence.
Makhdoom agreed with the court and said that the PM was seeking exemption under Article 248 (Protection to President, Governor, Ministers, etc) and not under Article 66 (Privileges of Members)
At one time, Justice Khosa asked Makhdoom as to who is telling the truth: PM’s children or PM. 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 factory in Dubai.
Maryam Nawaz also submitted her reply on Tuesday in which she stated that since her marriage in 1992 she is not a dependent of his father, Nawaz Sharif. She also annexed her tax returns of the past five years from the earnings of Shamim Agriculture Farm.
Wednesday
Wednesday proved to be a hard day for PM’s counsel as the hearing entered its 11th day. PM’s Counsel Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan found himself before the judges who were more interested in the source of the funds that were being gifted to PM from his son, Hussain Nawaz rather than precedents, citations and judicial examples from across the globe.
Makhdoom Ali Khan argued on the status of Maryam Nawaz as an independent individual. Interestingly, he said that due to a lack of particular column on the tax form, the name of Maryam Nawaz was written in the column of dependents.
Makhdoom told the Court that a full record of transactions is available and the gifts were given through banks. ‘The accusations of evading tax levelled against the PM are incorrect,’ he told the court.
Advocate Shahid Hamid, who is representing Maryam Nawaz, presented the details of property owned Maryam Nawaz to the court.
Thursday
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 and 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) should be brought in a constitutional petition and if a PM can be disqualified through it. Justice Khosa remarked that the case is not of quo warranto but of qualification of office holder.
When Justice Gulzar observed that the Court can decide the questions of dependency by looking at the facts before them.
Makhdoom contended before the court that in order to save taxes the government of Pakistan has formed offshore companies that own Roosevelt Hotel in US and Scribe in France.
When PM’s counsel resorted to quote precedents from ’60s and ’70s, Justice Khosa remarked that he was citing decades old decisions and jurisprudence has evolved ever since.
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.
Friday
Things on Friday didn’t go well for JI’s counsel Advocate Taufeeq Asif as he was rebuked multiple times by judges during the course of hearing as he argued that PM’s speech in the parliament is a confession and should be treated as such. ‘Nawaz Sharif has violated the oath he took as PM,’ he argued as he didn’t mention London Flats in his tax returns
JI’s counsel couldn’t answer when he was asked by the bench where in his speech the PM had admitted to owning flats. He also got it wrong when he said Nawaz sharif was a respondent in Zafar Ali Shah case and Advocate Khalid Anwar was representing him.
JI files petition seeking record of PM’s speech
ISLAMABAD
ONLINE
Jamaat-e-Islami has filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking the record of PM’s speech made in the National Assembly regarding Panamagate.
The petitioner and Amir JI Siraj-ul-Haq has filed a petition in the apex court pleading for a record of the speech that PM Nawaz Sharif made in the lower house on May 16, 2016. He also tabled documents about his London flats.