ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan’s lawyer asked the Supreme Court on Monday to disqualify Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for lying to the court and accumulating wealth beyond known source of income, in the light of the Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) findings.

Senior counsel Naeem Bokhari, who represents Mr Khan in the Panama Papers case, also requested the court to summon the prime minister — an option that was kept open in the court’s April 20 judgement — so that he could be cross-examined and disqualified for ceasing to be sadiq and ameen, as required under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

In his argument before the three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan in a sweltering and stuffed-to-capacity Courtroom No 2, Mr Bokhari said the court had to determine whether the findings of the JIT were binding or not.

But in contrast with earlier Panama Papers case hearings, when judges had freely made observations and asked different counsel provocative questions, Monday’s proceedings were more reserved and the bench did not provide onlookers any inkling of what they had in mind regarding the fate of the JIT report or the allegations against the Sharif family.

Court to decide whether JIT findings binding or not, says Naeem Bokhari

Mr Bokhari conceded that the JIT’s findings contained certain grey areas, especially in connection with the link between the prime minister and Hill Metal Establishment (HME), saying that some of the documents procured were not certified.

But his strategy was to attack the different affidavits or documents submitted by members of the Sharif family regarding their businesses in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and investments in Qatar, which eventually translated into the four Avenfield flats in London.

He also referred to the various recommendations made by the investigators, pointing out that Maryam Nawaz Sharif, daughter of the prime minister, had been named as the beneficial owner of the two offshore companies — Nielson Enterprises and Nescoll Limited — which owned the London flats.

At this, Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that, in essence, the JIT had concluded that Tariq Shafi, the prime minister’s cousin, had no money left to invest in the family business of former Qatari prime minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al-Thani.

Referring to the statement of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Justice Khan observed that they should not lose sight of the scope of the statement, which was recorded in the capacity of a witness and could only be used to contradict him whenever he appeared in the witness stand during a trial.

The PTI counsel argued that it was clearly established that HME was established by Hussain Nawaz without possessing adequate income, despite the fact that a massive amount of Rs1.1 billion came to Nawaz Sharif, of which Rs880 million went to Ms Sharif in the form of a gift. These remittances indicated that the prime minister did have some interest in HME, he emphasised.

During the hearing, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed reminded the counsel that the minority judgement of two judges in the Panama Papers case was not binding, whereas Justice Khan explained that the three majority judges had laid down the parameters for the investigation while remaining within the confines of the law.

The counsel recalled how Sheikh Al-Thani became belligerent, saying he did not recognise Pakistan’s jurisdiction when he was summoned by the JIT four times.

Mr Bokhari also highlighted what the JIT called “source documents”, which had been defined as documents obtained through external law firms or entities. But their admissibility was to be determined by the court, he hastened to add.

When Justice Ahsan asked whether these documents were certified, the counsel replied that while they were not, they might have some value in these proceedings.

Arguing on behalf of Jamaat-i-Islami emir Sirajul Haq, Taufiq Asif said the prime minister had apparently ceased to be sadiq and ameen.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed asked the court to either disqualify the prime minister under Articles 62 and 63 or restore all 22 lawmakers who had been sent home by the apex court in the past.

The court will resume hearing the matter today (Tuesday), when Khawaja Harris will argue on behalf of the prime minister. Salman Akram Raja and Dr Tariq Hassan will then argue on behalf of the PM’s three children and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, respectively.

Published in Dawn, July 18th, 2017