ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of the request of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) for dealing with iron hands with the 436 individuals whose names had also surfaced in the Panama Papers leaks for allegedly stashing fortunes in offshore companies.

Headed by Justice Aminud Din Khan, the constitutional bench disposed of the petition moved by former JI chief Sirajul Haq in August 2016 with the understanding that since the matter was not a live issue, the political party would approach the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for the redress of its grievances.

Advocate Muhammad Ishtiaq Ahmad Raja, who was representing the former JI chief, reminded about the precedent in which a joint investigation team (JIT) on Panama Papers was set up to probe into the charges against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

Therefore, a similar JIT should be constituted in accordance with the Panama judgment, in a similar fashion as was done to investigate Nawaz.

In 2016, party had sought action against 436 individuals named in the Panama Papers

Justice Musarrat Hilali observed that JIT was formed in a specific case in the Panama Papers leaks case and wondered where the rest of the Panama scandal went.

However, the counsel argued that it was the position of the party that the rest of the cases involving those whose names also surfaced should also be probed in detail.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail observed that NAB could take action on any information but Justice Hilali reminded that the authority of the bureau had been decreased after amendments to the NAB Ordinance and the bureau could only look into the matter in accordance with the new amendments now.

Justice Mandokhail wondered under what law JIT was formed in the Panama scandal and asked if there was any scope for JIT in the NAB law.

The counsel insisted that NAB should be directed to investigate other individuals like the Panama scandal was investigated.

However, Justice Aminuddin Khan observed that the constitutional bench was not concerned with what happened in whichever case in the past.

On July 25, 2023, Sirajul Haq, in a written reply before the court, had pleaded that if former prime minister Nawaz Sharif could be dealt with iron hands for allegedly stashing fortunes in foreign offshore companies, why other 436 individuals could not be treated in the same way.

In an 18-page reply, the JI requested the SC to order the constitution of the JIT like it did in the Nawaz case to probe into the matter and submit a report before the apex court.

That reply was filed in response to earlier directions of the Supreme Court when on June 9, 2023, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood who, presiding over a two-judge bench, had put nine questions to Muhammad Ishtiaq Ahmed Raja.

The questions included whether the liability of tax was not within the purview of the officers of FBR under the Income Tax Ordinance (ITO) 2001 and how and under what circumstances JI petition was delinked from other petitions at the request of counsel for the petitioner and what was the purpose for requesting to detach these petitions from others.

Published in Dawn, November 27th, 2024