ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has fixed the hearing of the Panama Papers leaks case for Nov 1 — only a day before the planned lockdown of the capital by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf.

The SC decision, however, has set off a debate on the significance of the hearing a day ahead of the planned siege of the city.

While circles close to the government anticipate that the Supreme Court will take up a second petition of Advocate Tariq Asad who had sought to restrain the PTI from staging its protest, PTI insiders believe that the date will have no impact since the commencement of proceedings even on a day-to-day basis is not going to defuse the situation.

Decision sets off debate on significance of hearing a day before PTI’s planned ‘lockdown’ of capital

“What if the Supreme Court orders the PTI, which has already mobilised its supporters and injected quite a huge amount of money, not to go ahead with its sit-in?” wondered a senior counsel on condition of anonymity.

Chaudhry Faisal Hussain, a lawyer close to the PTI, was of the opinion that the government would try to explore all avenues or clutch at straws in its favour. But the decision taken by PTI chief Imran Khan to continue exerting pressure on the government on the Panamagate issue was not going to change, he said.

And to shore up his argument, Chaudhry Faisal cited the example of the 2007 hearing on a petition filed by former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry in his own court against his sacking by then president Gen Pervez Musharraf who had submitted a reference to the Supreme Judicial Council against Justice Chaudhry for alleged misuse of authority.

As the 13-judge SC bench was hearing the case, lawyers were agitating outside the court without disturbing the hearing. And eventually the lawyers succeeded, he quipped.

He was of the view that the government had reacted very late as it was taking Imran Khan’s siege threat lightly with the hope that it would soon fizzle out.

When asked if he had received any notice from the court office about the fate of his second petition, Advocate Tariq Asad said he was planning to move an application on Saturday with a request to hear the matter either on Monday (Oct 24) or on Nov 1, along with his first petition on the Panama Papers leaks.

“Nevertheless, even if my request is not entertained, I will definitely raise the issue of dharna before the court on Nov 1,” he told Dawn. In his second petition, Mr Asad argued that the PTI’s planned sit-in in Islamabad was beyond the scope of their right to freedom of movement and right to freedom of assembly.

Islamabad is not his [Imran Khan’s] personal estate to close and the residents of Islamabad are not his slaves to torture them by calling his workers from all over Pakistan and make their lives miserable by blocking roads, depriving them of their business, children’s access to educational institutions, patients’ access to hospitals for treatment and depriving labourers of their livelihood, the petition says.

On Nov 1, a three-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and consisting of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain will take up a set of five petitions on the Panamagate scam.

Notices have already been issued to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam, sons Hussain and Hassan and son-in-law retired Capt Mohammad Safdar, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, NAB chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry, the Federal Investigation Agency, Election Commission of Pakistan, Federal Board of Revenue and the secretaries of law, parliamentary affairs, cabinet division, establishment division and information.

Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali has been asked to assist the court.

The petitions filed by the PTI, Jamaat-i-Islami, Advocate Tariq Asad and All Pakistan Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed have sought the disqualification of Prime Minister Sharif and members of his family for allegedly making investments in offshore companies.

A journalist, Asad Kharral, has also moved an application as an intervener with a request to summon replies from NAB to his April 25 petition before the bureau in which he had accused the prime minister and his family members of siphoning off Rs100 billion by allegedly misusing authority.

The court has already dismissed the petition of Zafarullah Khan of the Watan Party on the grounds that the prayer sought was premature since the petitioner has asked the court not to constitute the parliamentary committee.

Meanwhile, reacting to Imran Khan’s assertion, Attorney General Aushtar Ausaf clarified on Friday that he held a constitutional office and it was his duty to assist the court while representing the state, and not any individual.

Talking to reporters at his Bani Gala residence, Imran Khan had wondered how the attorney general had the audacity to defend the prime minister on state’s expense. The prime minister should have engaged a private counsel instead of being defended by the attorney general, he said.

Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2016