|
|
#1
01-13-2017, 06:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Nation wants to k**w the truth: SC
 PanamaLeaks case Says both parties **t interested in speaking the truth; PM’s speech on floor of parliament has constitutional protection ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday observed that the people wanted to ascertain the facts in the PanamaLeaks case, however, the petitioners as well as the lawyer of the prime minister were **t interested in speaking the truth. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the prime minister, in his speech, had said that he was like an open book but it seemed that some of the papers of this book were missing. Justice Khosa said that it was the responsibility of the court to dig out the facts in the interest of justice. The SC also observed if it was to examine the speech made by the prime minister on the floor of parliament, it would also look into Article 66 of the Constitution that gives legal protection to parliament proceedings. A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing into the petitions, seeking probe into the PanamaLeaks as well as disqualification of the prime minister for lying on the floor of parliament. Commencing his arguments, Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, contended that the petitioner was stressing on disqualifying his client for giving contradictory statements on the floor of the House and in his address before the nation. According to the petitioner, he said that his client got had disqualified under Article 62 of the Constitution. Makhdoom Ali Khan, however, said that under Article 62 of the Constitution, disqualification of a member of parliament needs the verdict of a judicial forum. The learned counsel further said that even the petitioner also sought disqualification of his client in matters relating to gifts. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that the court would also look into the Article 66 of the Constitution if it was to examine the speech made by the prime minister on the floor of parliament as he said that the said article gives legal protection to the proceedings of parliament. It is pertinent to mention here that Article 66 of the Constitution relates to privileges of members of parliament which states that there shall be freedom of speech in parliament and ** member shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in parliament, and ** person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under authority of parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. Makhdoom Ali Khan contended that his client could **t be disqualified for **t disclosing details of his family business in his speeches he made on the floor of parliament as well as in his address to the nation. He said that prime minister only gave an overview of his business and **t categorised the details pertaining to family business but said that there were some omissions in it. At this, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa asked the learned counsel that his client also did **t give any detail in his speech about the investments made in Qatar and questioned as to whether these omissions should be termed a lie or half truth. The learned counsel contended that his client could **t be made answerable for the business of their sons adding that there was ** law that could hold him responsible for his son’s business. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, however, observed that the PM was required to provide evidence pertaining to money trail adding when the respondents accepted the ownership of the properties, it was also the responsibility of the respondents to provide details. Makhdoom Ali Khan further said that his client was **t a shareholder or director or had any ownership in offshore companies adding that the PM was also **t a shareholder in the Gulf Steel Mills. The court, however, observed that the respondents had **t filed any record in the apex court that clarified that the prime minister was **t a shareholder. He submitted that as the business belonged to his sons, hence their lawyer could better assist the apex court in this regard. He told the court that his client got loans from banks and started business abroad, saying if the court needed facts in this regard, it should constitute a commission that could investigate the matter in Dubai. The learned counsel contended that in the petitions filed against his client, the petitioners had contradicted their respective stances adding that the clause of disqualification did **t apply on the prime minister. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, however, observed that the court knew the sensitivity of the matter at hand and the verdict of the apex court in this case would become a precedent. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that the court, when tried to dig out the facts, went to one side but hurdles were created while on the other side the same was the situation. Makhdoom Ali Khan contended that producing the documents and proving the allegations was the responsibility of the petitioners. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa at one point observed that some time in criminal cases both the parties in a particular case failed to provide sufficient evidence. Elaborating his point, he said that a dead body came wherein both the parties failed to substantiate sufficient evidence for which the court established its opinion on circumstantial incidents. Meanwhile, the court adjourned further hearing till today (Friday). أكثر... 
|
|
|
العرض الشجري