- Sharif family’s ownership of London flats prior to 2006 yet to be established: SC
- Court directs JI lawyer to submit agenda of NA the day prime minister delivered the speech
ISLAMABAD, January 20: The Supreme Court observed on Friday that it was yet to be established whether the Sharifs owned their London properties before 2006. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa has observed that there is no evidence in the case. Meanwhile the counsel of Amir Jamaat-e-Islami Senator Sirajul Haq, Taufiq Asif has argued that Nawaz Shairf violated his oath as Prime Minister and Member National Assembly so the court should disqualify him while using his speech as evidence. He said the prime minister concealed the London assets so he is no more “Sadiq and Ameen” and should be disqualified. He said the court should disqualify the prime minister under Article 62-1F. Tafiq Asif said prime minister delivered speech in National Assembly for personal interest, adding that the speech of the prime minister was not for national interest or public welfare so the prime minister could not be given privilege of Article 66 over this speech. He said the burden of proof in the case is on Sharif family. The court has directed JI lawyer to submit the agenda of NA the day prime minister delivered the speech. JI lawyer will continue his arguments on Monday.
A five-member larger bench of Supreme Court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa resumed the hearing of Panama Papers case. Other judges in the bench include Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan.
Referring to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s interviews, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that the PM continued to do business and politics together till 1997.
Justice Khosa told Jamaat-e-Islami counsel Taufiq Asif that unless the conflict of interest was established mere allegations of the premier’s involvement in business would not take the petitioner anywhere.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the JI counsel whether there was any code of conduct prohibiting the prime minister from partaking in business activities while remaining in office.
When the JI lawyer read the prime minister’s speech in the Parliament, Justice Ijaz remarked the PM would address it on the floor of house, adding that explanations on personal allegations against the premier could be demanded there.
When the counsel referred to the Zafar Ali Shah case judgment, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that this was a submission by the AGP that could not be used against the Sharifs. Another judge, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh told the JI counsel that they could not deliver a verdict based on assumptions.
The JI counsel insisted that the premier’s speech be considered a confessional statement. “The prime minister’s speech should be taken to be a confession. There is no other way,” he asserted.
He also pointed out that certain details regarding the properties and assets owned by the premier’s family were not provided in the speech.
Taufiq Asif told the court that the Sharif family’s Ittefaq Foundries, located in Punjab, were a loss-making entity in 1980.
However, he said, by the end of the following three years, the foundries had reported a profit of Rs60 million. He added that, by 1985, the foundries had also become one part of a larger group of companies.
Bringing the focus of his argument to the Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai, the JI’s counsel told the court that they were sold for $9m. However, he said, no details had been provided regarding the source of financing used to establish the business in the first place.
Moving on to the Sharif family’s London properties, the JI lawyer maintained that “Nawaz Sharif hid his assets in London” in a reference to the Sharif family’s Park Lane apartments.
The lawyer insisted that by hiding his assets, Nawaz had failed to uphold his oath as prime minister and therefore should be disqualified.
“He [the prime minister] should be disqualified. He is no longer sadiq and ameen,” he argued.
He said that under Article 184(3), the court holds the authority to make a declaration in this regard.
Asif also told the court that the premier, in his tax returns and nomination papers, had not mentioned the London flats. “He has not denied ownership of the flats,” he added.
In his remarks, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed said “You claim that the speech is a confession; show us which part of the speech contains the confession [regarding the London flats]”.
Referring to the Zafar Ali Shah case, which had validated the Oct 12, 1999 military takeover, Taufiq claimed that the London flats had been mentioned as PM Sharif’s property then as well.
However, the court observed that the London flats had only been mentioned by the then attorney general in his arguments during the case.
“The court did not give those arguments any importance in its decision,” Justice Ejaz Afzal asserted.
Justice Khosa also remarked that PM Sharif’s ownership of the properties “was not established in that case”.
“You are referring to arguments made by the lawyer, not a precedent set by the court,” he added. “Have you no fear of God,” Justice Azmat admonished the counsel.
“The arguments you are making are tantamount to Naeem Bokhari [PTI’s counsel in the Panamagate case] asking us to include arguments made in the PTCL case in the Panamagate hearings,” Justice Azmat remarked.
The lawyer then retracted his arguments based on the Zafar Ali Shah case. “You have made incorrect statements in your argument. Should we apply Article 62 or Article 63 to you too?” Justice Azmat asked the lawyer of JI in a lighter mood.
During the hearing, JI lawyer said that Sharif family’s assets grew manifold in the reign of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
The court asked: “Is there any rule that prohibits PM from having own business? If not, then why you are dragging the court on just assumptions”. The counsel replied that there is no such embargo.
Toufeeq Asif said that Nawaz Sharif hid details of London assets in nomination form and tax returns as PM’s lawyer said the flats were purchased by the investment of Jeddah factory. Justice Khosa said that Nawaz Sharif talked about buying the flats but didn’t accept the ownership. Now, the question arises whether the flats were purchased or got in settlements, he asked.
Justice Azmat Saeed remarked, “Why are you dragging the case on mere assumption? No evidence or material has been brought to us on which basis we deliver the judgment.”
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that the Prime Minister has asked for privilege of the parliament under Article 66 not immunity.
Addressing Taufiq, Justice Gulzar Ahmed warned him not to take the case so non-seriously.
Continuing Taufiq said that Nawaz Sharif’s speech in the National Assembly was not over government policies but as MNA rebutting personal accusations and thus does enjoy parliamentary privilege.
Was prime minister’s speech was part of the agenda, could floor of the assembly be used to rebut personal allegations, asked Justice Ijaz.
A little later Justice Azmat asked Taufiq Asif where are we being taken to, show us the part of prime minister’s speech where he confessed being involved in Panamagate. The hearing has been adjourned till January 23 (Monday). -Sabah
