- Confessional statement to magistrate given under duress, argues Dar’s counsel
- Judges ask why NAB didn’t file an appeal in Hudaibiya case and orders prosecutor general NAB to submit minutes of meeting where the decision was taken
- Don’t rush over with the arguments, judges remind counsel of Hassan and Hussain Nawaz
Advocate Shahid Hamid, who is representing Maryam Nawaz, her husband Captain Safdar and Ishaq Dar, concluded his arguments by saying Ishaq Dar gave his confession in Hudaibiya case under duress here on Monday before Justice Asif Saeed Khosa-led five-member Supreme Court bench hearing a number of petitions in Panamagate case.
Mr Hamid contended that since the money laundering case against Mr Dar is closed, he cannot be disqualified on that count. ‘More than 13 judges have heard that case, it is 25 years old and back then he wasn’t occupying a public office,’ he remarked.
An interesting interaction took place between Mr Hamid and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan when Shahid Hamid contended that his client’s confession can’t be used against him to which Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked that he is absolutely right but after becoming a witness his statement can be used against the prime minister as circumstantial evidence.
Both Justice Khosa and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that since Ishaq Dar has been tried before, the principle of double jeopardy (bar on second prosecution for the same offence after acquittal or conviction the first time) comes into play as Mr Hamid argued that no person can be prosecuted or punished for the same offence twice citing Section 403 CrPC, Article 13(A) of Constitution of Pakistan and Section 26 of General Clauses Act.
Mr Hamid, before concluding his arguments, said that after the 1999 coup many political leaders were tortured in Attack Fort. ‘Khawaja Asif and Rana Sanaullah can tell you what they went through, they even shaved Rana Sanaullah’s head and eyebrows,’ said Mr Hamid.
NAB submits Dar’s confession
According to NAB record presented before the court by NAB Prosecutor General Waqas Qadir Dar, Ishaq Dar gave his application for grant of pardon on 20th April, 2000, and Chairman NAB approved his application on 21st April, 2000. On 24th April, the investigation officer gave an application to record Dar’s statement and on 25th April he recorded his confession statement before the magistrate.
When asked why no appeal was filed, prosecutor general informed the court that NAB took the decision in a meeting not to file one. Justice Khosa asked prosecutor general to present before the court minutes of the meeting in which that decision was made.
Enter Salman Akram Raja, counsel of Hassan and Hussain Nawaz
Advocate Salman Akram Raja told the court that his formulations will cover three aspects that have arisen so far before the bench. ‘Firstly, I will discuss what is my client’s role in all of it, the inconsistencies between the speeches and interviews and what was said,’ he argued. He further said that he’ll prove that his client is the beneficial owner and PM has nothing to do with the London flats. Secondly, Mr Raja said that he’ll address the official record, income tax returns and nomination papers as his client is the donor of certain amount to PM; and thirdly to determine facts as they might have unfolded during the past 50 years and compare them with what was said by PM.
Ejaz Afzal Khan reminded him that he has to prove both that he is the owner of London flats and also that Nawaz Sharif is not the owner as alleged by the petitioner.
Mr Raja also questioned the very maintainability of the petition as he pointed out contradictions in the petition. ‘Petitioner asked for an investigation into the matter of ill-gotten money,’ he said, adding that this prayer is placed more for effect. ‘The court cannot decide on matters of money laundering in the jurisdiction of 184 (3). The court’s powers are vast; however, it cannot be expected to do work of other institution,’ he argued. Mr Raja also said that the accuser didn’t present evidence before the court.
‘Different versions with different material have been provided, but no party has provided evidence on the matter,’ he said.
Mr Raja said that he has to provide a plausible account of events as they took place as this is the highest level of burden placed on an accused by our law. ‘The burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt squarely lies on the petitioner,’ he argued.
As Mr Raja started arguing about the Dubai factory of Mian Sharif built back in early 1970s after taking loans from banks, Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan asked him what was the collateral and conditions for the loan. ‘No documents related to loan are available,’ replied Salman Akram Raja. He also told the court that 75% shares of Gulf Steel Mills were returned to banks.
When Justice Gulzar and Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked from where the profit of 12 million dirham came from as the mill had outstanding dues of 36 million dirham while it was sold at 33.375 million rupees, Mr Raja said that it could all be speculation.
Salman Akram Raja said that no money went from Pakistan. ‘It was obtained from loans,’ he said when Justice Khosa asked about a lack of clarity on where the money came from.
Mian Sharif’s ‘settlement of inheritance’ submitted
Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has submitted settlement of inheritance to the court in a sealed envelope. The document hasn’t been made public by the Sharif family.
The hearing was adjourned till today (Tuesday).
