ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Ijazul Hassan on Thursday observed that the prime minister had recognised the Dubai mills and said all records are available.
“Now the burden of proof is on you,” he told the PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan during the hearing of Panamagate corruption scandal.
The PM’s lawyer told the larger bench that Nawaz is not answerable for his sons’ businesses as he has no role in the family’s financial matter.
“So far prime minister is concerned; he has no company in British Virgin Island or tax haven nor is he shareholder or director of any of the companies,” said Khan, adding that his client has never been beneficial owner of any such companies.
He argued that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer had contended for the premier’s disqualification on the basis of “mere contradictions”.
Referring to the PM’s speeches on state-run TV channel and in parliament, he argued that the PM in the speeches gave an overview of his family business started in 1937, prior to the PM’s birth.
He said the PM’s father Mian Sharif was in-charge of all financial matters, adding that Nawaz had never been the director of Gulf Steel Mills and the mill was started purely on debts.
He argued that the PM’s speeches clearly tell that his father started businesses which are not a lie under Article 62 and 63, adding that the petitioners are only interpreting the wordings of speeches, which were in Urdu.
He told the bench that the PM, in his speech, said his life is like an open book.
To this, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who is heading larger bench, remarked that some pages of this book seem to be missing.
Justice Azmat Saeed said the case is contradictions between statements.
To which the PM’s lawyer said that there were certain omissions in the speeches which should not have been made.
Khan told the bench that this is the court which will determine whether any inadvertence is lie and whether any omission is suppression because this will become law for the lawmakers.
Justice Khosa observed that they are conscious of all these matters because the judgement will set a precedent.
Khan said that after the death of Mian Sharif, his grandson became the custodian of property.
To this, Justice Ijazul Ahsan told Makhdoom that Nawaz himself admitted that all the record is with him, adding that he addressed a written statement so the onus of proof is on respondents (the Sharifs).
“Basic question is that we have to determine the truth not by the statements but the statements backed by documents,” he observed.
The court observed that both the parties are not revealing the truth which, ultimately, is hindrance in finding the reality. The court also observed that it has been hearing the case within the inquisitorial jurisdiction, adding that if matter of disqualification is raised under Article 62 (f) then the matter would also witness the implications of Article 66, which states that parliament proceedings could never be challenged in any court of law.
Justice Khosa observed that the PM’s explanation does not clarify the matter; on the other hand, no one can explain the money trail except the respondents. He observed that the PM’s counsel has to satisfy the court.
He also observed that Nawaz has failed to give any reference about Qatari investments in his speech, adding that if there were some omissions in the PM’s speech, should it be termed as a lie or half-truth?
However, he further observed, that in some cases the evidences are not directly present which are decided on circumstantial evidences.
“Whatever has been produced before us could it be considered as evidence and without relying on the provisions,” Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed.
He also said that this unique case has to be proceeded with risk and in all the criminal, constitutional and corporate aspects.
