ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday wondered whether the May 16, 2016, speech of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the National Assembly about his family business was part of the house business agenda.

“Is it proper or is it admissible for the prime minister to appear in the National Assembly to explain about his family business in his speech,” asked Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, a member of the five-judge SC bench hearing the Panama Papers case.

The observation came when Advocate Taufiq Asif, appearing on behalf of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) chief Sirajul Haq, argued that the May 16 speech of the prime minister was not related to the day-to-day proceedings of the National Assembly. Rather, he said, it should be construed as something of personal nature because the PM used the august floor of the house to explain his family affairs.

The prime minister, through his speech, unveiled nothing about any state policy on terrorism, National Action Plan, welfare of people or anything about the Quetta incidents, rather he spoke on personal explanation, the counsel said, adding that neither the speech was part of the agenda of the lower house of that day nor was there any finding or ruling of the speaker to dispense with the house agenda, allowing the premier to make the speech.

SC asks if May 16 statement about family business part of house agenda

Advocate Asif argued that since personal explanation was not considered on a par with anything related to the conduct of the business of the house as it was not part of the agenda, the PM’s speech did not fall within the ambit of Article 66 of the Constitution, which deals with the privileges of the members and provides protection from any challenge before any court of law for their utterances.

The counsel then referred to Article 5 that expects obedience to the Constitution and the law from all citizens irrespective of the fact that he is the prime minister, minister or a common citizen. He also referred to the oath of the prime minister to compare it with the oath of a minister and said the oath of the premier specifically stated that he would not allow his personal interest to influence his official conduct or his official decisions, but the PM’s speech was all about personal explanation about his family business.

The counsel recalled that the prime minister had in his speech stated that his father sold Gulf Steel Mills in the United Arab Emirates in 1980, but he became the finance minister of Punjab in 1981 and then caretaker chief minister in 1984.

At this, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who heads the bench, recalled the PM’s interview to a television channel in which he stated that he had parted ways with the family business in 1997. He told the counsel that unless he highlighted the conflict of interest on the part of the prime minister substantiated with evidence, mere allegations of his involvement in the family business would not take him anywhere.

“The status of the prime minister must be above suspicion,” the counsel argued.

“Like Caesar’s wife who should be above suspicion,” Justice Khosa observed.

“Is there any research done by you to highlight any code of conduct which prohibits the premier from indulging simultaneously in business when he is holding the public office,” Justice Ahsan asked the counsel.

“We need specific incidents but unfortunately there is no evidence or material before us to establish personal interest on part of the premier,” regretted Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed.

The judge repeatedly asked Advocate Asif to satisfy the court that the speech of the prime minister was an admission about his ownership of the four London flats, as claimed by the counsel, reminding that the PTI had taken the plea that the prime minister had made deliberate omissions to hide the alleged ownership of the properties in his address to the National Assembly.

The counsel argued that the speech should be considered as evidence. When he tried to insist that the speech was an admission about the ownership of the London properties prior to 2006, as claimed by Hussain Nawaz, elder son of the prime minister, Justice Khosa said that had it been established, the court would not have been sitting for so many days to hear the matter.

The counsel then referred to the 2000 Zafar Ali Shah case and said the judgement also mentioned the London properties.

At this, the court summoned the original case record of Zafar Ali Shah and asked the counsel whether Nawaz Sharif was a party in the case.

When the counsel named Khalid Anwar, the former law minister in the then Nawaz Sharif cabinet, Justice Saeed recalled that Mr Anwar himself had pleaded before the apex court that since Nawaz Sharif was not a petitioner, no observation should be made against him.

Senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan, who represents the prime minister, and Shahid Hamid, the counsel for Maryam Nawaz, also referred to the judgement to show that Khalid Anwar had represented different political parties in the case and also argued that though the petition had been filed by different political parties, yet the then proceedings solely targeted Nawaz Sharif who was not even in the court.

Justice Ejaz Afazl observed that the counsel was deriving inference from the submission of the then federal government before the court regarding the London properties and wondered how this submission could be used by this court now.

Justice Khosa observed that the Supreme Court in its judgement did not give any finding relating to the properties, though the federation had requested the court then to attach the same.

At this, the counsel withdrew his submission relating to the Zafar Ali Shah case.

Justice Khosa observed that the court would not shift the burden of the counsel’s overlooking of facts to his client — the JI chief — but said the lawyer should to be careful.

Advocate Asif will continue his arguments when the court resumes hearing on Monday.

Published in Dawn January 21st, 2017