ISLAMABAD: The Sup­reme Court has finally auth­orised the National Accoun­tability Bureau (NAB) to record the statements of the six-man Joint Investigation Team (JIT) headed by Wajid Zia which probed the Panama Papers leaks scandal against then prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

“The Honourable Moni­toring Judge (Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan) of this court has been pleased to direct that in order to ensure that all legal requirements and formalities are fulfilled and to avoid any possible lacuna that may damage the case, led the Head of the JIT and any other concerned member who had collected the relevant evidence pursuant to the directions passed by this court record their statement before NAB,” said a communication issued by the Supreme Court registrar to Additional Director General FIA Wajid Zia.

Justice Ahsan was nominated supervisory judge in line with the directions of the July 28 Panama Papers leaks judgement to monitor and supervise the working of NAB as well as to oversee the proceedings in the accountability court.

Sharif moves a separate review petition urging apex court to set aside its July 28 disqualification order

On Aug 19, NAB had moved an application before the monitoring judge seeking permission to record the statements of the JIT members. It is expected that instead of recording the statements of all the members of the JIT, only Wajid Zia may be asked to depose in view of the perceived reluctance on the part of the two members of the intelligence agencies, an informed source told Dawn.

While disqualifying Nawaz Sharif under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, a five-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa through its July 28 judgement had ordered NAB to file four references before the accountability court, Rawalpindi, within six weeks of the disqualification verdict on the basis of the material collected and referred to by the JIT as well as material already available with the FIA and NAB.

Subsequently, the bureau asked the JIT members to record their statements but when they declined, NAB filed the request before the implementation judge seeking permission to record their statements.

According to NAB sources, the statements of JIT members will help in finalising the corruption references against the former prime minister, his family members and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

The permission was sought by NAB with the purpose that the JIT members may appear as prosecution witnesses to support the 10-volume JIT report and evidence submitted to the apex court, which NAB will submit along with the references against the Sharif family.

Legal observers are of the view that there is a likelihood that the prosecution witness, whosoever is, will be subjected to cross-examination by the defence counsel whenever trial before the accountability court commences.

In its letter to Wajid Zia, the Supreme Court office also mentioned that the JIT had investigated the matter and collected evidence which constituted part of their report.

A copy of the Supreme Court order has also been issued to NAB chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry.

According to the court judgement, NAB has to move first reference against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his sons Hussain and Hassan, daughter Maryam and son-in-law retired Capt Mohammad Safdar relating to four upscale Avenfield flats in London.

Likewise, another reference against Nawaz Sharif and his two sons on Azizia Steel Company and Hill Metal Establishment as well as third corruption reference against Mr Sharif and his sons regarding 16 other companies. The companies include Flagship Investments Ltd, Hartstone Properties Ltd, Que Holdings Ltd, Quint Eaton Place 2 Ltd, Quint Saloane Ltd, Quaint Ltd, Flagship Securities Ltd, Quint Gloucester Place Ltd, Quint Paddington Ltd, Flagship Developments Ltd, Alanna Services Ltd (BVI), Lankin SA (BVI), Chadron Inc, Ansbacher Inc, Coomber Inc and Capital FZE (Dubai).

The fourth reference has to be filed against Finance Minister Ishaq Dar for possessing assets and funds beyond his known sources of income.

Questions over SC verdict

Meanwhile, Nawaz Sharif moved a separate review petition before the Supreme Court with a pleading to recall the July 28 disqualification and dismiss the petitions moved by PTI chairman Imran Khan and others.

Earlier on Aug 15, Mr Sharif had filed a similar review petition before the Supreme Court. Though the contents of the two review petitions are the same, the only difference is that the earlier review petition was instituted against the July 28 order of the court which was signed by five judges of the Supreme Court namely Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan.

But the fresh review petition has questioned the unanimous verdict handed down by three judges — Justice Khan, Justice Saeed and Justice Ahsan — prior to the pronouncement of the order of the court the same day.

Earlier, the children of Nawaz Sharif and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had also filed review petitions against the July 28 judgment.

The fresh review petition was moved by senior counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed on behalf of Nawaz Sharif in which the petitioner highlighted that the question as determined by the Supreme Court whether the “receivables” constitute an asset or not for the purpose of Section 12(2) of the Representation of People Act (RoPA), 1976, no dishonest intention could be attributed to Nawaz Sharif even if such salary was categorised by the apex court as receivable and held to constitute an asset held by the petitioner as such.

In its July 28 judgment the Supreme Court had sent Nawaz Sharif home unceremoniously on un-withdrawn salary from the Capital FZE because it was not disclosed in his nomination papers and, therefore, he was held to be not honest in terms of Section 99(f) of RoPA and Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

The review petition argued that the inference so drawn by the Supreme Court was without taking note of the ratio laid down in the 2016 Sheikh Mohammad Akram’s case in which the apex court had refused to draw inference of dishonesty merely because the returned candidate in making a statement on solemn affirmation had omitted to disclose in his nomination papers an FIR registered against him.

Had there been undisputed or admitted evidence that Mr Sharif had received salary from his son’s UAE firm Capital FZE but deliberately concealed the same in his declaration of assets and liabilities in the nomination papers, the issue of disqualification could have arisen.

But when the petitioner has neither received any salary nor intended to claim it, it cannot be inferred that he acted dishonestly in omitting to mention such salary as an asset in his nomination papers, the petition argued, adding that the judgment, having not taken into account this aspect suffered from error floating on the face of the record and, therefore, merits review.

The omission to mention the un-withdrawn salary by Mr Sharif in his nomination papers could not, in any case, lead to declaration to his disqualification without first ascertaining whether such omission was deliberate or with an ulterior motive or merely inadvertent, accidental or due to misconception or misunderstanding of law or facts, the petition argued.

Published in Dawn, August 27th, 2017