ISLAMABAD: A judge of the Supreme Court remarked on Wednesday that the people’s right to be represented by their chosen representative and ensuring that the prime minister is qualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution to lead the country is the “mother of all fundamental rights”.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, a member of the five-judge Supreme Court bench hearing the Panama Papers case, made the observation when Attorney General (AG) Ashtar Ausaf Ali informed the court that Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan had in his petition not identified the fundamental right(s) he was seeking to enforce.

There is every possibility that the Supreme Court may wrap up the Panamagate hearings on Thursday and reserve its judgement, to be announced later.

On Wednesday, the AG concluded his arguments and PTI counsel Naeem Bokhari commenced his rebuttals, assuring the court he would finish in the first half of Thursday’s proceedings.

Attorney general says MNAs can only be disqualified after criminal conviction

After giving an opportunity to Sheikh Rashid Ahmed and Taufiq Asif — on behalf of the Jamaat-i-Islami — the court may finally conclude hearings on the 25th day. Makhdoom Ali Khan, who represents the prime minister, may also be afforded an opportunity to speak if the court asks him.

‘MNA’ not public office

Wrapping up, the AG contended that Nawaz Sharif was a member of the National Assembly first, and prime minister second. Therefore, he deserved to be treated like any other MNA, under section 42(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1976.

The provision provides that any parliamentarian accused of corrupt practices — including the charge of falsification of statement of assets and liabilities — could face trial before a sessions judge.

If convicted, the charge entails a three-year jail term, which can be challenged in a tribunal.

The AG argued that the PM’s disqualification was only possible following a conviction, adding that no conclusions could be drawn over whether the prime minister was guilty of making a false statement without affording him a proper hearing.

A writ of quo warranto could not be issued for the disqualification of a member of the assembly, he was not a holder of public office, the AG maintained. Other remedies include filing a reference with the National Assembly speaker or the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

Justice Saeed, however, appeared unconvinced. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), he said, was “dead and buried” after its chairman said, point-blank, that it would not seek a review of the Lahore High Court’s decision to quash a money laundering reference against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa pointed out that corrupt practices fell under the definition of dishonesty. He recalled that in the 2012 Asghar Khan case, which was also filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court had directed the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the authorities concerned to take criminal action against politicians who received handouts worth Rs140 million from the Inter-Services Intelligence ahead of the 1990 general elections.

Incidentally, the incumbent prime minister was also among the politicians who received generous donations from the ISI.

But the AG emphasised that there was no declaration against the politicians. Salman Akram Raja, who was also one of the counsel in the Asghar Khan case, maintained that the court’s declaration was against the former army chief and ex-DG ISI — retired Gen Aslam Beg and retired Lt Gen Asad Durrani, respectively — as well as Mehran Bank’s Younus Habib, and not against the politicians who were not party to the proceedings.

“The problem is that even FIA, like NAB or FBR, did nothing,” Justice Saeed regretted, while Justice Ejaz Afzal wondered whether the court could appoint an independent investigative authority — in view of the inaction demonstrated by state institutions in probing the Panama Papers scandal.

What confidence would it inspire among ordinary citizens when state institutions openly said they would not do anything, come what may, Justice Saeed bemoaned.

But the AG emphasized that similar matters were already pending before the ECP and that the matter the petitioner was seeking to address had already been raised in the earlier Ishaq Khakwani case.

‘Stick to one story’

Earlier, when the AG attempted to explain how foreign currency loans were obtained for the Hudaibiya Paper Mills and later liquidated, Justice Saeed — in his usual witty style — asked the law officer to “please stick to the earlier story” regarding investments in Qatar, instead of spinning a new yarn.

“Life will be easy if you act like the AG instead of acting like a counsel for the parties,” Justice Saeed observed.

The AG also assured the court that the state would not object to the PTI chief’s locus standi if he ever demonstrated an interest in challenging the Lahore High Court’s quashment order.

PTI counsel Naeem Bokhari commenced his arguments on Thursday by asking the court to believe only what the prime minister had said in his address to the nation and National Assembly, and not give credence to his children’s claims since that was hearsay.

He contended that Hussain Nawaz, who claimed to be the owner of the four upscale London flats, was only two years old when the land agreement to set up Gulf Steel in Dubai was signed in April 12, 1974. Additionally, he was only six years old when the tripartite agreement was executed the mills were sold in 1978.

Published in Dawn, February 23rd, 2017