Judgment in Panama papers case reserved

• SC directs to provide confidential Vol-X to Advocate Haris
• Justice Azmat says Vol X to help in clearing certain points

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment in the Panama papers case after conclusion of arguments and counter arguments by the respondents and petitioners over the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report.

A three-member special bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, reserved the verdict after hearing arguments of Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the prime minister’s children, Dr Tariq Hassan, counsel for Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, the prosecutor general of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), counter arguments from Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) counsel Naeem Bukhari, Jamaat-i-Islami counsel Taufeq Asif and Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed.

The court directed to provide a copy of the Volume X of the JIT report, earlier marked confidential, to Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer Khawaja Haris. Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that the Volume X contains details of JIT’s foreign correspondence and it would help in clearing certain points. The volume was being made public on the request of the prime minister’s lawyer, he added.

The bench asked Khawaja Haris to examine specific sections of the volume. The bench observed that it would work strictly within the parameters of the law and not trample any individual’s fundamental rights. Continuing his arguments, Salman Akram Raja said that many law firms and solicitors work on Saturday in the United Kingdom (UK), to which the bench agreed.

The bench had asked the counsel to prove authenticity of the documents submitted by a lawyer on behalf of his clients about the trust deed executed between Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz in February 2006, signed on Saturday in the UK. The counsel said that Maryam Nawaz was not the owner of the Avenfield flats in London.

Upon this, Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that the JIT report shows that Maryam was the beneficial owner of the flats. Maryam’s ownership of the off-shore companies was not included in the tax returns of her husband Muhammad Safdar, he added. He said that if the court concludes that the ownership was not included in the tax returns, then the Representation of the People’s Act 1976 will be applicable.

Salman Akram Raja said that there were clerical mistakes in the 2006 trust deed. The errors were made during the initial proceedings of the Panama Papers case when Advocate Akram Sheikh was representing the prime minister’s children. “We cannot even think of submitting fake documents to the court,” he said. He said that Hussain Nawaz had received all the capital from his grandfather Mian Mohammad Sharif.

He said that the parents cannot bear the responsibility, if the son could not produce evidence of his assets. Tariq Hassan submitted his client’s tax returns before the court, spanning over 34 years. Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that the bench will thoroughly examine all the documents. Jamaat counsel presented his arguments after which the bench reserved its judgment and adjourned the hearing.

For Advocate Salman Akram and Advocate Tariq Hassan, the last day of hearing proved relatively less intense than Thursday, when they both were at receiving end, as both the counsels concluded their arguments with submissions that there was insufficient evidence on record against their clients and the case against them has not been proved unequivocally.

During the hearing, NAB Additional Prosecutor General Akbar Tarar told the court that the consultation process was underway and an appeal would be submitted soon in Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference. “It’ll be submitted in coming weeks,” he said when the bench asked him to come up with an exact date.

Awami Muslim League leader Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed asked the court to punish the culprits themselves as the accountability courts would find it hard to hold such powerful respondents to account. The Jamaat counsel once again struggled really hard as he was repeatedly reminded by the bench to conclude his arguments and state only pertinent points.

As soon the bench announced that the judgment has been reserved and would be announced later, the people rushed outside the Courtroom-2. “I personally believe that it was a transparent proceedings and the JIT performance was really commendable,” Justice Wajihuddin Ahmed said while stressing that the reservations leveled by respondents counsel won’t make it controversial either in eye of law or public.

“We need to see what material they’ve gathered and what evidentiary value it has,” he concluded. On one hand, both the PML-N and the PTI put up courageous faces before the media. However, the underlying current of apprehension was palpable in both the camps as some of PTI’s counsels spoke about the mood of the bench in hushed manner about likelihood of not disqualifying the prime minister and sending the matter as it was to NAB or FIA.

Some observers too were of the opinion that the chances of the prime minister’s disqualification were not as high as one particular party is projecting day in and day out on media. “Tell me where does the case stand? Have the judges got what they were asking? Has the money trail been established beyond an iota of doubt? Well, the answer is no,” said Badar Iqbal Chaudhary, a senior lawyer.