ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Tuesday asked the counsel representing a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader whether he sought the instant disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan on the basis of the dissenting notes issued in the Panama Papers case.

“You are asking for the outright disqualification of Imran Khan on the grounds that whatever material came in the Panama Papers case, like Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s speech before parliament and interviews of the family members, is sufficient evidence, as held by the minority view in the Panama [Papers] judgement,” the chief justice observed.

He was heading a three-judge Supreme Court bench hearing a petition instituted by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi.

The petitioner has sought the disqualification of PTI chief Imran Khan and Secretary General Jahangir Tareen for non-disclosure of assets, ownership of offshore companies and the PTI being a foreign-funded party.

Counsel Akram Sheikh wants PTI chief disqualified for ‘lying’ to ECP, in line with dissenting notes in Panama Papers case

On April 20, the Supreme Court had ordered the constitution of a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe allegations stemming from the Panama Papers against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

The two dissenting judges, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed, had opined that the prime minister stood disqualified for not being honest before the nation, parliament and court.

Using the same argument that Mr Khan had been using against the prime minister, senior counsel Akram Sheikh, representing Hanif Abbasi, argued that the Supreme Court could not discriminate while dealing with two separate cases of an identical nature, saying that if Mr Sharif was the sitting prime minister, then Mr Khan was the prime minister in waiting.

“Can you equate the case of the prime minister with that of a member of parliament?” asked Justice Umar Ata Bandial.

If we accepted the arguments of the counsel, it would open the door to disqualify legislators while exercising authority under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for mis-declarations committed in the year 2002 or 2003, he observed.

Mr Khan was not an ordinary legislator, since being head of a political party, he could show the door to any member, the counsel noted. He was so powerful that he paralysed the capital city for months during the sit-in outside parliament, he emphasised, adding that the sanctity and prestige of the court warranted that equal treatment be meted out, whether it was a case of the prime minister or a parliamentarian.

The Hanif Abbasi case could also be heard by a five-judge larger bench, the counsel said, adding that the court acted as a filtration plant.

Mr Khan, he said, issued five false certificates assuring the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that his party did not receive foreign funding, despite the fact that such funds were pouring in.

“I am not asking for the PTI to be banned, but the court can direct the interior ministry to move a reference before the apex court in this regard,” the counsel said.

By raising the plea on foreign funding, you actually expected the court to ban the party, Justice Bandial observed, adding that the court should not deal with this issue.

The chief justice also wondered who would determine under the law that the funds the party received from abroad were from a prohibited source. The court could not declare false the certificates issued by Mr Khan without first determining how they were not correct, the chief justice said.

The counsel argued that the Supreme Court could order an inquiry during the hearing of a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, as was done in a number of judgements such as the 2010 Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed Khan case, 2012 Mohammad Yasin case or the 2012 Workers Party Pakistan case.

The Supreme Court observed, however, that it even had the authority to record evidence while hearing cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, as in the case of Chaudhry Pervez Ilahi versus Manzoor Wattoo.

Mr Sheikh concluded his arguments on Tuesday, and PTI’s Advocate Anwar Mansoor will defend the party from Wednesday. The court has also asked the PTI to submit its written reply on the applications moved by the petitioner by Friday.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2017