KHUDAYAR MOHLA

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that allegations levelled against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the Panamagate case could be right or wrong but they are not frivolous.

A member of the five-judge larger bench led by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa in the Panamagate case, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh said that public has the right to know about the fact whether or not Prime Minister is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and amen; and he fulfills the criteria set under Articles 62 and 63 of Constitution.

At the onset of the hearing of the Panamagate case, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Ashtar Ausaf argued if the premier had misstated in declaration of assets statement before the Election Commission then right forum for his disqualification adjudication would be the district & sessions court instead of the apex court of Pakistan.

To which Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed how it would be possible to produce documents before a district & sessions judge which were not submitted in the current case before the Supreme Court.

Ashtar Ausaf said the Prime Minister doesn’t fall under the purview of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, saying these Articles are limited to the members of the Parliament, adding that the apex court cannot directly disqualify a member of the National Assembly.

To which Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked whether or not the portfolio of the Prime Minister is a public office. He also asked whether or not an action can be initiated against him. The AGP was of the view that the writ of quo warranto cannot be exercised to disqualify a member of the National Assembly as he is not holder of a public office.

Ashtar Ausaf further said that the Hudaibiya Paper Mills Ltd case cannot be linked to the Panamagate case, adding if Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan’s right has been breached in consequence of the Lahore High Court verdict in the HPML case then he can file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The AGP submitted that he will not challenge the locus standi of Imran Khan if he files an appeal before the apex court; however, he contended that the apex court cannot give a verdict on the grounds of PTI’s disputed material in the current case.

To which Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed the court realises the difficulty of the AGP as the State was complainant in the HPML case so the AGP should continue his arguments in Panamagate case.

Responding to a query of Justice Khosa, the AGP submitted the apex court can issue directives to the concerned institutions to investigate the matter if the same have failed to perform their duties.

A member of the bench, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, observed that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had admitted the facts and pledged to the people of Pakistan that complete record would be provided to the relevant forum, adding that the record has not been produced in accordance with the promise yet.

Responding to the AGP’s contentions that the State institutions should not be disgraced as he felt embarrassed during his appearances at the international arbitration forums, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said the court has nothing to do with it but the concerned state institutions are themselves responsible for making them disgraceful.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa questioned whether the Premier had given any statement that his son Hussain Nawaz was the sole owner of the Mayfair properties in London, saying in his speeches Nawaz Sharif has used the words ‘our flats, our businesses.’

Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh remarked about the response of Chairman National Accountability Bureau in the current matter, saying the chief of the top anti-graft body is like an insurance policy of the Prime Minister.

Concluding his arguments in the matter, the AGP reiterated that the apex court cannot announce verdict mere on the basis of assumptions.

Commencing his arguments in replication, PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, not his sons, is the owner of Mayfair properties in London.

He urged the court to accept his arguments; to which, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said that earlier Bukhari had insisted that Maryam Safdar was the beneficial owner of the flats in London, questioning what makes Bukhari to say that such flats are owned by Nawaz Sharif.

The PTI counsel submitted that nowhere did the prime minister in his speeches state that flats belonged to his children. However, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh plainly said that it would not be possible for the court to act in accordance with the wishes of the PTI counsel on the basis of rejection of point of view of the other side by him.

The bench asked the PTI counsel to conclude his arguments by next date of hearing.

Later, the proceedings of the case were adjourned till Thursday (today).