To which the bench objects, the Supreme Court of Panama
Apparently, one family was selected out of the 436 Pakistanis whose names were leaked.
ISLAMABAD:
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court disagreed with the July 2017 decision of a five-judge panel, saying that the panel’s actions had nothing to do with the April 2016 disclosures.
The Supreme Court went above and beyond. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified, according to Justice Sardar Tariq Masood.
The Panama Papers, a trove of stolen documents released in April 2016, revealed how thousands of people from all over the world have hidden their money in offshore businesses. The documents contained the personal information of 436 Pakistanis, including members of Nawaz Sharif’s family.
Petitioners included Imran Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and Sirajul Haq, leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court disqualified the ex-prime minister on July 28, 2017, for failing to include in his candidacy papers the fact that he was paid by a company owned by one of his sons.
“It is not a crime to create an offshore country,” Justice Masood remarked, referring to the creation of the offshore jurisdiction used by one family out of 436 individuals listed in the disclosures.
On Friday, the hearing of JI chief Sirajul Haq’s petition for beginning a probe into 436 Pakistanis listed in the leaks continued before a division bench led by Justice Masood and including Justice Aminuddin Khan.
At the hearing, the bench inquired as to the petitioner’s failure to contact the NAB, FIA, FBR, or SBP throughout the course of the previous seven years.
With the FBR, the SBP, the FIA, and the NAB all present, how can the Supreme Court conduct its own investigation? How would these departments function if the Supreme Court sets up a judicial commission at the same time? And how can the court rule without hearing the 436 persons whose names have been leaked? Judge Masood had a question.
As the FBR, FIA, NAB, and SBP were all present, the bench noted that the law could not be broken. “Should the state institutions be closed and all the work be done by the Supreme Court?” the judge queried.
Here’s More The Supreme Court justices remain deeply divided.
The judge questioned JI’s attorney on why his client cared about the probe of the defendants. When asked about it, the lawyer said public funds were at stake.
When the JI, following 24 sessions in the [Panama Papers] case, distanced itself from the main issue, he questioned why the petitioner had not considered using public funds.
The judge also remarked that the Panama Papers included information on specific businessmen. He probed the attorney, “Do you want to force these companies to leave the country?”
Justice Aminuddin Khan stated he had many things on his mind but was limited by time. He said that legal funds were sent overseas before a negative campaign was initiated.
According to Justice Masood, the court needs to examine Article 184 (3) of the Constitution to determine how to proceed with this matter. “There are different opinions about Article 184(3),” he remarked. The trial was eventually put on hold for four weeks.
