Nawaz Sharif still guilty! SC throws out review petitions against Panama Papers verdict

• Five-judge SC bench throws out review pleas filed by Sharif family, Ishaq Dar against Panama Papers verdict
• Judges reassure Sharif family’s lawyers their observations will not affect trial in accountability court
• Bench disposes off Sheikh Rasheed’s petition after NAB assures court of filing appeal in Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference within seven days

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s Supreme Court (SC) on Friday dismissed the review petitions filed by ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his children and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar against the Panama Papers judgement of July 28, dashing the ruling family’s hopes of some relief from the country’s top court.

After Friday’s decision, the Sharif family and Dar will have to seek justice in the Islamabad Accountability Court, where three references against the Sharif family and one against the finance minister have already been filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

Members of the Sharif family have been summoned by the accountability court on September 19, and Dar on September 20.

A five-judge SC bench had taken up the petitions seeking review of the judgement which disqualified Nawaz Sharif and ordered NAB to file corruption references against Sharif, his children — Hussain, Hassan and Maryam Nawaz, son-in-law Captain (r) Mohammad Safdar and Ishaq Dar.

The bench was headed by Justice Khosa and comprised Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan — who along with the latter two headed the special implementation bench in the Panama Papers case that oversaw the work of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).

“For reasons to be recorded later, all these review petitions are dismissed,” Justice Khosa announced in the short order that was delivered after counsels from both sides completed their arguments.

The reasons for the judgement will be revealed later in the detailed order.

‘SC OBSERVATIONS WON’T AFFECT SHARIFS’ TRIAL’

Earlier in the day, Sharif children’s counsel Salman Akram Raja submitted before the court that Capt (r) Safdar has nothing to do with the London flats [owned by the Sharif family].

Raja was referring to the court’s order directing inclusion of Safdar’s name in the corruption reference against the Sharif family regarding their London properties.

In response, Justice Khosa remarked that Safdar definitely has some connection with the London flats.

Raja said he agreed with the arguments presented by Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Harris in the past two days regarding the appointment of a monitoring judge and the JIT’s work.

Justice Azmat responded that the bench had given an assurance on Thursday that no observation of theirs will affect the trial proceedings.

“There will be no compromise on a fair trial,” he observed further.

Justice Ejaz observed that the trial court will decide the case on the basis of evidence.

“Let the matter be investigated,” observed Justice Khosa. He added that the judges were very careful in writing the Panama Papers case judgement.

The SC had on Thursday asked Harris to have trust in the court, which had always come to his rescue in the past.

“There is no need to get apprehensive merely because one decision has come against you,” Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed while addressing Harris.

The observation came when the counsel expressed the reservation that his client might not get fair trial in the accountability court since everything in the corruption references against Sharif and his children had been attributed to the SC.

In response to the bench’s observation on Friday that Safdar’s signatures are present on the trust deed for the flats, Salman Akram Raja said he signed the document as a witness.

“There should’ve been an enquiry, why did you order a [NAB] reference,” he said, adding that Safdar’s basic rights will be hurt if a reference is filed in the accountability court.

Justice Khosa observed that Maryam had disowned the London flats before but the JIT report revealed that she’s the owner.

Justice Ejaz said that the British Virgin Islands confirmed that Maryam is the owner and that it is incorrect that Safdar is not connected to the matter.

Raja then concluded his arguments following which Awami Muslim League (AML) Chairman Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed’s petition regarding reopening of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case was taken up.

NAB TO FILE HUDAIBIYA REFERENCE WITHIN 7 DAYS

The judges disposed off the petition in which Sheikh Rasheed had accused the accountability watchdog of failing to file an appeal against the Lahore High Court’s verdict in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference in accordance with the SC verdict on July 28.

The court decided the application after NAB Prosecutor General Waqas Qadeer Dar submitted that NAB Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry had ordered the filing of an appeal in SC to challenge the LHC’s 2014 decision to close the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.

“The learned prosecutor general […] has undertaken that the requisite appeal shall be filed before this Court within the next seven days without fail,” the court’s short order said.

The bench subsequently disposed of the application after Sheikh Rasheed did not press it following NAB prosecutor’s assurance.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Khawaja Harris presented his arguments. Also on Thursday, Dar’s counsel Shahid Hamid completed his arguments.

Making his case before the bench on Thursday, Harris argued that Sharif never claimed to have received any salary from FZE Capital — a UAE-based company owned by the Sharif family.

He added that a proper trial is needed for a lawmaker’s disqualification, saying that if just his election was termed void then Sharif would only have been barred for one term.

However, the bench observed that documents submitted in court during the Panama Papers case proved that Sharif received a salary from the UAE-based company in August 2013.

In his arguments on Thursday, Dar’s counsel Shahid Hamid claimed that his client’s assets did not grow overnight but in fact expanded over a period of 15 years.

He also argued that the court needs to set boundaries of its jurisdiction, to which the bench responded that the boundaries are set from case to case.