What's new

Panamagate Case: Supreme Court disqualifies Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in unanimous verdict

Waseem said:
Maryam's exclusion is a massive surprise though, if anything she was the key culprit in all cases being beneficial owner. How did she manage to get a clean chit?
Click to expand...

told you guys its a win for PML-N. No wonder Nawaz Sharif was so relaxed before the verdict. even if the ISI guy in JIT make some huge ripple effect and cause Nawaz Sharif and sons to be disqualified, the daughter of Nawaz Sharif will continue her father's legacy
 
It would be lovely seeing the military and intelligence folks questioning Nawaz. I hope they have a live broadcast of the proceedings.
 
An interesting point raised by a lawyer in Shahid Masood's program. Because 2 judges came up with a decision against Nawaz Sharif while other 3 didn't give him a clean chit so now anyone can go to ECP for the disqualification of NS because he is no more Saadiq or Ameen based on this decision and constitution of Pakistan.
 
Syed1 said:
It would be lovely seeing the military and intelligence folks questioning Nawaz. I hope they have a live broadcast of the proceedings.
Click to expand...

I am expecting them to leak the video just like they did for Ajmal Pahari, Baloch and Dr Asim
 
WebGuru said:
An interesting point raised by a lawyer in Shahid Masood's program. Because 2 judges came up with a decision against Nawaz Sharif while other 3 didn't give him a clean chit so now anyone can go to ECP for the disqualification of NS because he is no more Saadiq or Ameen based on this decision and constitution of Pakistan.
Click to expand...

I read this somewhere else as well. I hope some sane mind in PTI thinks about this, or somebody brings it to their notice.
 
Syed1 said:
I read this somewhere else as well. I hope some sane mind in PTI thinks about this, or somebody brings it to their notice.
Click to expand...

They got some sane minds but i think showing too much aggression directly here can backfire for PTI they so they should do what PMLN usually do use someone from outside the party to have a go at it.
 
WebGuru said:
They got some sane minds but i think showing too much aggression directly here can backfire for PTI they so they should do what PMLN usually do use someone from outside the party to have a go at it.
Click to expand...

Sheikh Rasheed perhaps?
 
So guys after this program Shahid Masood is up for another ban from Pemra on Toheen-e-Adalat :)) He just indirectly accused judges ke faisla beech main kaheen dhaber doos hua hai otherwise Maryam name was mentioned and there were directions about how NAB etc are going to to investigate the case but they are gone missing...
 
There were news about PM speech on TV today? and Also PTI Jalsa in Islamabad today. What happened? Trying to understand who lost and who won?
 
Runner Up said:
There were news about PM speech on TV today? and Also PTI Jalsa in Islamabad today. What happened? Trying to understand who lost and who won?
Click to expand...

There is only one loser today and that is Pakistan.
 
In Panama i guess you guys missed another big news...Another wicket (Tariq Fatmi) is down in DawnLeaks case after Pervez Rasheed so it looks like GHQ is still following that case.
 
Mian said:
A point to note 2 more months of humiliation for nooras means nawaz and family will never had enough time to recover and change people minds before next elections. This is actually going to hurt nooras badly in next elections
Click to expand...

How?

This won't change anything, those who had voted for him will going to vote for him again regardless of what he does or say. The only way we could have got rid of PML and any other corrupt party was through Supreme court.

Nothing will happen, this was the perfect opportunity for Pakistan to set an example and Pakistani Supreme court missed it.
 
R.I.P. Pakistan. Three gutless judges allowing this criminal to continue as PM. Princess Maryam has already been handpicked as his successor. And the dumb masses of Punjab are going to reelect these crooks in 2018. Motu Gang will forever rule this country.
 
WebGuru said:
So guys after this program Shahid Masood is up for another ban from Pemra on Toheen-e-Adalat :)) He just indirectly accused judges ke faisla beech main kaheen dhaber doos hua hai otherwise Maryam name was mentioned and there were directions about how NAB etc are going to to investigate the case but they are gone missing...
Click to expand...

Shahid Masood has a point. 2 things which dont make sense are:

  1. Almost all of the institutions which will be investigating the PM, comes under the PM. How can they investigate their superior? Either the supreme court should have make those institutions completely independent OR suspend PM until the investigations are completed. The current makeup is a farce.
    <br>
  2. Maryam Nawaz will not be investigated when she was the biggest liar of all. So supreme court has basically given her clean chit. Now she can continue her political career and in case for some strange reason Nawaz Sharif is disqualified then Maryam Nawaz will carry on his legacy and become next Prime Minister of Pakistan.
 
From an outside perspective, this is a total win for PM Nawaz Sharif, Any investigation in which 5 out of 6 are in Govt. control is bound to save him. Even if everything goes Apocalyptic for Nawaz, his daughter will still become the PM. So, his party people are right in distributing sweets. Court judges need to have courage, even a small High Court judge had the courage to look into eyes of Indira Gandhi and disqualify her:

https://swarajyamag.com/politics/th...-indira-gandhi-and-whose-judgment-shook-india
 
Reddy said:
From an outside perspective, this is a total win for PM Nawaz Sharif, Any investigation in which 5 out of 6 are in Govt. control is bound to save him. Even if everything goes Apocalyptic for Nawaz, his daughter will still become the PM. So, his party people are right in distributing sweets. Court judges need to have courage, even a small High Court judge had the courage to look into eyes of Indira Gandhi and disqualify her:

https://swarajyamag.com/politics/th...-indira-gandhi-and-whose-judgment-shook-india
Click to expand...

Hence why democracy in your nation is flourishing with loyal leaders while we are stuck with idiotic looters.
 
This is worth a read guys. Respects for Justice Khosa sahib for having the audacity to call a spade a spade.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1328158/13-damning-remarks-made-by-justice-khosa-on-panamagate

13 damning remarks made by Justice Khosa on Panamagate

Below are excerpts from the dissenting notes of the Supreme Court’s Panamagate case, written by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.

Justice Khosa headed the five member bench which was split 2:3 in its verdict.

1. Justice Khosa opened with a quote from The Godfather.

“The popular 1969 novel ‘The Godfather’ by Mario Puzo recounted the violent tale of a Mafia family and the epigraph selected by the author was fascinating: Behind every great fortune there is a crime. — Balzac”

The judgement continues: “The novel was a popular sensation which was made into an acclaimed film. It is believed that this epigraph was inspired by a sentence that was written by Honoré de Balzac… as follows:

(The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed)

It is ironical and a sheer coincidence that the present case revolves around that very sentence attributed to Balzac...”

Justice Khosa later added:

"I may, therefore, be justified in raising an adverse inference in the matter. The fortune amassed by respondent No. 1 is indeed huge and no plausible or satisfactory explanation has been advanced in that regard. Honoré de Balzac may after all be right when he had said that behind every great fortune for which one is at a loss to account there is a crime."

"In the above mentioned sorry and unfortunate state of affairs a conclusion has appeared to me to be unavoidable and inescapable that in the matter of explaining the wealth and assets respondent No. 1 has not been honest to the nation, to the nation’s representatives in the National Assembly and even to this Court."

2. He said other institutions failed or refused to probe Nawaz

“These petitions had been entertained by this Court in the backdrop of an unfortunate refusal/failure on the part of all the relevant institutions in the country like the National Accountability Bureau, the Federal Investigation Agency, the State Bank of Pakistan, the Federal Board of Revenue, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and the Speaker of the National Assembly to inquire into or investigate the matter or to refer the matter to the Election Commission of Pakistan against respondent No. 1 [Nawaz Sharif].”

3. He said the court took up the case so a PM could not have a ‘field day’

“If this Court stops short of attending to the issue merely because it involves some disputed or intricate questions of fact then the message being sent would be that if a powerful and experienced Prime Minister of the country appoints his loyalists as heads of all the relevant institutions in the country which can inquire into or investigate the allegations of corruption, then a brazen blocking of such inquiry or investigation by such loyalists would practically render the Prime Minister immune from touchability or accountability and that surely would be nothing short of a disaster.”

“It is said that how highsoever you may be the law is above you. It is in such spirit of democracy, accountability and rule of law that this Court would not give a Prime Minister/Chief Executive of the Federation a field day merely because no other remedy is available or practicable to inquire into the allegations of corruption, etc. leveled against him or where such inquiry involves ascertainment of some facts.”

4. Khosa said Nawaz was not truthful

“It had not been disclosed as to how and through which resources the respondent’s father had established 6 new factories within 18 months of nationalization of Ittefaq Foundries, especially when statedly the entire savings of the respondent’s elders stood obliterated and wiped out."

“It is also strikingly noticeable that in that speech there was no mention whatsoever of setting up of any factory in Dubai which was sold in 1980. That speech also failed to disclose any detail of the funds available or procured for setting up of the factory near Makkah.”

“It was maintained in that speech that the funds generated through sale of the factory near Makkah were utilized by respondent No. 1’s sons namely Mr. Hassan Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif for setting up their business. It had been maintained by respondent No. 1 that through that speech he had made the entire background of his family’s business clear to his countrymen and that he had informed them about all the important stages of the family’s journey in business. “

“He had proclaimed that what he had disclosed were the “true” facts. I have, however, found that that was not the case and unfortunately respondent No. 1 had economized with the truth on that occasion.”

"Even a layman can appreciate, and one does not have to be a lawman to conclude, that what had been told to the nation, the National Assembly or even this Court about how the relevant properties in London had been acquired was not the truth. A pedestrian in Pakistan Chowk, Dera Ghazi Khan (a counterpart of Lord Denning’s man on the Clapham omnibus) may not have any difficulty in reaching that conclusion."

5. How were London properties acquired?

“There was absolutely no explanation offered in that speech as to how the relevant four properties in London had been acquired and respondent No. 1 had never stated on that occasion that he had no concern with the ownership of those properties or that no money belonging to him had been utilized for their acquisition.

"On April 22, 2016 respondent No. 1 addressed the nation again on the subject on radio and television but that speech did not contain any specific information about the resources or assets of the respondent and his family. Again, no explanation whatsoever was offered in that speech as to how the properties in London had been acquired."

6. Dubai factory was not mentioned in PM’s first or second address

"On May 16, 2016 respondent No. 1 read out a written speech in the National Assembly which was broadcast and telecast live on radio and television and this is what he said on that occasion: [4:19] A careful reading of that speech made by respondent No. 1 shows that it was for the first time that any mention had been made therein by the respondent to setting up and sale of a factory in Dubai as no mention of the same had been made by the respondent in his first or second address to the nation on the issue."

"It had been stated in the latest speech that in the year 1999 the entire record of the family’s business had been taken away by the authorities and the same had not been returned despite repeated requests but later on in the same speech respondent No. 1 had categorically stated that the entire record and documents pertaining to the Dubai and Jeddah factories was available and that such record could be produced before any committee or forum!"

7. Factory in Makkah or Jeddah, asks Khosa

“The first address to the nation mentioned setting up of a steel factory near Makkah but the speech made in the National Assembly referred to a steel factory in Jeddah. In the first address to the nation respondent No. 1 had claimed that the proceeds of sale of the steel factory near Makkah had been utilized by his two sons for setting up their business but in the speech made in the National Assembly he had changed his earlier stance and had maintained that the generated resources had been utilized for “purchase” of the flats in London."

"Even in that speech respondent No. 1 had never stated that he had no concern with the ownership of those properties or that no money belonging to him had been utilized for their acquisition.”

8. PM said the record was available, his lawyer said it wasn’t

"The story about “purchase” of the relevant properties in London had taken yet another turn at a subsequent stage. 78. Although it had specifically and repeatedly been said by respondent No. 1 on the floor of the National Assembly in the above mentioned speech that the entire record relevant to the setting up and sale of the factories in Dubai and Jeddah was available and would be produced whenever required yet when this Court required Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, Sr. ASC, the then learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on December 07, 2016 to produce or show the said record he simply stated that no such record existed or was available and that the statement made by respondent No. 1 in the National Assembly in that respect was merely a “political statement”!"

"It may be pertinent to mention here that in the evening preceding the said stand taken by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 before this Court an interview was telecast on Geo News television wherein Mr. Haroon Pasha, the chief financial advisor of respondent No. 1 and his family, had stated before the host namely Mr. Shahzeb Khanzada that the entire record about Dubai and Jeddah factories was available and that the said record had been handed over to respondent No. 1’s lawyers and now it was for those lawyers to present it before the Court."

9. Khosa ‘shocked’ by attempt to suppress facts

"In one of his interviews with Mr. Javed Chaudhry on Express News television on March 07, 2016 Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif, respondent No. 7, had also categorically maintained that the entire record pertaining to acquisition of the four properties in London was available with the family and the same would be produced before any court looking into the matter. Such state of affairs has been found by me to be nothing but shocking as it tends to be an attempt to suppress the relevant facts and the truth and to mislead the Court. Mr. Haroon Pasha and Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif have never denied or contradicted the contents of the above mentioned interviews."

"There may be many definitions of the word ‘honest’ but deliberate withholding or suppression of truth is not one of them and the same is in fact an antithesis of honesty. I am, therefore, constrained to declare that respondent No. 1 has not been honest to the nation, to the representatives of the nation in the National Assembly and to this Court in the matter of explaining possession and acquisition of the relevant four properties in London."

10. Story about Qatar business was an afterthought

"Even the story about investment in real estate business in Qatar and the subsequent settlement of that business was also, thus, nothing but an afterthought. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in his three speeches mentioned above and also in his concise statements submitted before this Court respondent No. 1 had never said a word about any investment by his father in any real estate business in Qatar and funds generated through a settlement of that investment being utilized for acquisition of the properties in London whereas through their concise statements submitted before this Court by his children that was the only source of funds through which the said properties had been acquired in the name of respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif."

11. Hassan Nawaz was rolling in money: Khosa
"All those businesses of respondent No. 8 (Hassan Nawaz) were going on and the said respondent was rolling in money in England for many years before June 2005 when, according to respondent No. 1 (Nawaz Sharif), the sale proceeds of the factory in Jeddah had been given to his sons for setting up their business. Nothing has been produced by respondent No. 1 before this Court to rebut the above mentioned documents based upon the British public record."

12. Story about Al-Thani family lost credibility

"That story about investment in the real estate business of Al-Thani family in Qatar has taken many turns in this case and has, thus, lost its credibility. In their first concise statement jointly filed by respondent No. 1’s children they had never mentioned that story."

"In their subsequent concise statements they adopted that story as their only story. However, in their last Joint and Further Concise Statement (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 432 of 2017 filed on January 23, 2017) the sons of respondent No. 1 gave the story another twist. The previous story was about an “investment” made by late Mian Muhammad Sharif in the real estate business of Al-Thani family in Qatar but through their last story advanced through the above mentioned concise statement it was maintained by respondent No. 1’s sons that the proceeds of sale of the factory in Dubai (12 million Dirhams) had been “placed” with Sheikh Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani who “retained” the amount with an assurance of just and equitable return."

"According to the latest story there was no investment involved in the matter and the services of a member of Al-Thani family of Qatar had been utilized only for parking of the relevant amount with him, probably as a bank!"

"It appears that close friendship between Al-Thani family of Qatar and respondent No. 1 and his family has stood the test of time. It is proverbial that a friend in need is a friend indeed. Being a foreign dignitary Mr. Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani is held by me in high esteem yet the information about him available on the Internet is unfortunately quite uncharitable."

13. Nawaz and his family have been nothing but evasive: Khosa

"On the basis of the discussion made in the earlier part of this judgment the explanations advanced by respondent No. 1 in respect of the four properties in London and even in respect of his and his family’s businesses and resources have been found by me to be nothing but evasive and the statements made by him in that regard have appeared to me to be contradictory to each other. The explanations advanced by him have also been found by me to have remained utterly unproved through any independent evidence or material and, hence, the same were quite likely to be untrue. Even the children of respondent No. 1 have not been able to bring anything on the record to show that the explanations advanced by respondent No. 1 were or could be true and correct.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Two judges voting for Nawaz being disqualified shows the people have lost faith in him yet he refuses to resign. Only hope now is the next election until which there will be no change. This 60 or 70 days investigation will lead to nothing too. The judges have only embarrassed themselves by promising a "tareekhi faisla" but giving nothing at all.
 
people are missing something in this verdict, the full verdict is 540 pages long, its obvious that they are celebrating it without reading the whole verdict....
PMLN were hoping atleast for a commision. its not a commision, its a JIT, its very different from a normal commisions.
JIT is for criminals, and if the NS & Co found guilty in JIT, thn NS & Co will have to face jail time etc ....

you can bypass NAB,FBR etc etc, but you cant bypass the ISI and MI .... they will tear you apart from inside out ....
 
Last edited:
Lonewarrior said:
people are missing something in this verdict, the full verdict is 540 pages long, its obvious that they are celebrating it without reading the whole verdict....
PMLN were hoping atleast for a commision. its not a commision, its a JIT, its very different from a normal commisions.
JIT is for criminals, and if the NS & Co found guilty in JIT, thn NS & Co will have to face jail time etc ....

you can bypass NAB,FBR etc etc, but you cant bypass the ISI and MI .... they will tear you apart from inside out ....
Click to expand...

Sir you honestly think a grade 20 officer will have the kajunas to question a sitting Prime Minister?

He would be transferred the very next morning to a far off district in Baluchistan or to the deserts of Sindh.
 
Syed1 said:
Sir you honestly think a grade 20 officer will have the kajunas to question a sitting Prime Minister?

He would be transferred the very next morning to a far off district in Baluchistan or to the deserts of Sindh.
Click to expand...

I just know that if ISI and MI members are in the JIT , thn you will have some hope .... becoz if the SC judges cant find out that NS is innocent, thn imagine what ISI and MI can do with there sources ..... and ISI and MI dont served NS .... they served the country ....
NS is Accused in this case , he dont have any leverage on JIT , especially on ISI and MI .... :)
 
Lonewarrior said:
I just know that if ISI and MI members are in the JIT , thn you will have some hope .... becoz if the SC judges cant find out that NS is innocent, thn imagine what ISI and MI can do with there sources ..... and ISI and MI dont served NS .... they served the country ....
NS is Accused in this case , he dont have any leverage on JIT , especially on ISI and MI .... :)
Click to expand...

6 members of JIT. Even if 2 are ISI and MI, the other 4 will favour Nawaz. The majority decision will go in Nawaz's favour.
 
Syed1 said:
6 members of JIT. Even if 2 are ISI and MI, the other 4 will favour Nawaz. The majority decision will go in Nawaz's favour.
Click to expand...

I believe there will be 7 members in JIT, even if its 6, the JIT will not give any verdict directly, so majority decision doesnt matter here.
what JIT usually dos, it collects the proofs and investigate criminals matters, they submit thre report in the end to the SC in 60 days, and the SC will announce there final verdict based on Proofs and Investigation in the JIT report, directly or form a new bench to announce it....
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PanamaCase?src=hash">#PanamaCase</a> <a href="https://t.co/E20TaeSy3o">pic.twitter.com/E20TaeSy3o</a></p>— Hamza Ali Abbasi (@iamhamzaabbasi) <a href="https://twitter.com/iamhamzaabbasi/status/855158768568602630">April 20, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Sharif family will have to give answers of these questions in JIT: (ager unko celebration se fursat mil gae ho to...)

C97TjZPXUAAImNy.jpg:large
 
According to Amir Mateen "SC clears Maryam only as dependent of NS. She'll be probed for corruption along with Dad & Brothers"

C97DPteV0AEZk_I.jpg
 
PM Nawaz Sharif 'is not honest with nation' : Justice Khosa

ISLAMABAD: Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who was leading the five-judge bench on the Panamagate, declared on Thursday that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif “is not honest with the Supreme Court and nation”.

Justice Khosa, while authoring the 192-page judgment, disqualified the prime minister, but his views belong to the minority opinion and, therefore, have no binding effect on anyone.

The judge observed that the prime minister had deliberately suppressed relevant facts or he had conveniently allowed himself to go along with a false story advanced by his children.

“Apart from that the alternate story about ‘purchase’ of the relevant properties in London propounded by him, which runs completely contrary to the story about acquisition of the said properties on the basis of a settlement of the business in Qatar, had not been substantiated by respondent No 1 (PM) through any tangible material,” he further observed.

The judge wondered that how a PM’s son (Hussain Nawaz), who is settled in Saudi Arabia, with two wives and about half a dozen children, had been sending gifts of millions of rupees in cash to his father on a regular basis, and that too to a father who “is quite rich and very famous”.

“This phenomenon is difficult to comprehend.”

The justice, who authored the minority judgment, said: “The PM has failed to produce anything before this court: how the money was generated and transferred to Dubai for setting up a factory there; where the proceeds of the sale of the factory in Dubai were kept or utilised between 1980 and 2000; how the money was generated and transferred to Jeddah for setting up a factory there; and then how the proceeds of the sale of the factory in Jeddah were transferred to London for the “purchase” of relevant properties there.

“No banking transaction and no money trail has been referred to or established by him.”

“Respondent No 1 is our elected representative and our prime minister, and we expected him to take us into confidence in the above-mentioned matters so that he could come out clean in the matter, but unfortunately he has done nothing before us so as to clear his name or confirm his probity, the justice said.

“Apart from that when a court of law requires a person to explain his position in respect of something, particularly when he had himself repeatedly volunteered to explain his position before any court or forum inquiring into the same, his silence before the court or adopting an evasive approach reflects adversely upon his bona fide and honesty in the matter,” he added.

Justice Khosa observed: “The will of Mian Muhammad Sharif has been brought on record by the PM and his children to show as to why and how the entire proceeds of the stated settlement of the real estate business of late Mian Muhammad Sharif in Qatar had been handed over to his grandson who was not his heir and all the heirs of the deceased had been deprived of such proceeds. The family settlement qua inheritance of late Mian Muhammad Sharif had come about in the year 2009.

“There was, thus, a real likelihood that the relevant properties in London had actually been purchased or acquired by the respondent No 1, but [the] ownership of the same had been shown in the name of one of his sons, namely Mr Hussain Nawaz, and that respondent No 1 has not been honest in his oscillating and vacillating explanations advanced in that respect at different stages.”

Justice Khosa observed that money laundering was an allegation which was not new to the PM and his close relative Ishaq Dar.

“I understand that a lot of effort must have gone into digging out the relevant details and a lot of resources of the state must have been consumed in the entire exercise. I have, however, felt agonised by the fact that the matter had later on been hushed up, brushed under the carpet and never pursued by any quarter with the result that the facts asserted in that report could not be ascertained or verified by any court of competent jurisdiction. It appears that politics had trumped accountability and discretion had the better of public interest.”

Justice Khosa says that when persons in high-public offices brazenly and unabashedly cling on to offices or power despite having been involved or implicated in serious scandals of corruption or immoral conduct, impairing their high moral authority, then the only way to oust or drive them out is to provide for a legal mechanism for their ouster and this is probably why in our country suitable provisions had been introduced in Article 62 of the Constitution and the relevant election laws through appropriate amendments.

“The issue of corruption and corrupt practices is essentially a criminal law issue but when it arises in the electoral context of a constitutional or statutory qualification or disqualification, then such an issue becomes a quasi criminal issue,” the justice wrote in his judgment.

“When dealing with a quasi criminal issue, it is impossible not to be guided in the matter by the broader principles applicable to the criminal law relating to corruption and corrupt practices which are inseparably linked with the issue of honesty of a person. As seen above, one of the basic features governing this field of the law is that where a public servant or a holder of a public office is in possession of an asset — either directly or through his dependents or Benamidars — then it is for him to account for that asset which is disproportionate to his known sources of income and a court dealing with the issue is to presume the absence of a satisfactory explanation.”

The judge observes that corruption at high places is not new, but the methods of corruption and concealing the proceeds of corruption have seen a dramatic change in recent times.

“Previously a corrupt official would make illegal money and then put the amount in his bank account or a bank account of someone close to him or would convert that amount into property.

“Such proceeds of corruption and the property acquired through the same were not difficult to detect and; therefore, the normal onus and standard of proof required in a criminal case, ie, the prosecution to prove its allegations beyond reasonable doubt and the accused person presumed to be innocent till proved guilty were applicable to the cases of corruption as well,” the justice observed.

“Things have, however, changed now. There are now tax havens available in different parts of the world and through creation of offshore companies not only tax is being evaded by concealing wealth, but even ill-gotten money is parked behind multiple veils of secrecy which are extremely difficult to lift or penetrate,” he adds.

Justice Khosa believes that the new development has forced legislatures around the world to modify the laws about the onus and standard of proof in cases of corruption and even courts and tribunals in different parts of the world are adopting different approaches for concluding as to whether the allegations of corruption leveled against an accused person have been established or not.

Justice Khosa observed that Nawaz Sharif had held the highest public offices since 1981 and in one of his interviews he had stated that he had decided to disassociate himself from the family business in 1997, although no material has been produced before us in support of such a claim.

“There is no denying the fact that at least between 1981 and 1997, the said respondent was actively engaged with his family business and was simultaneously enjoying the above-mentioned highest public offices. It is also an admitted fact that the relevant two offshore companies own the four properties in London from the years 1993/1996, which offshore companies are statedly owned by [the] Respondent No 1’s son, namely Mr Hussain Nawaz Sharif at least since the year 2006. The dependent and non-earning children of the Respondent No. 1 are admittedly in possession of the said properties in London since the years 1993/1996 and, thus, it is the respondent No 1 who is deemed to be in possession of those properties since the years 1993/1996.

“Nothing has been produced before this court either by the respondent No. 1 or his son to show that before the year 2006, the said offshore companies and the relevant properties were owned by somebody else.”

The judge says it is more likely than not that the said companies and properties were set up or taken over at a time when respondent No 1 was holding the above-mentioned highest public offices in Pakistan.

“Against this backdrop, a serious issue arises as to whether the PM has been an ‘Ameen’ while in charge of the resources of the motherland or not.”

He further says that all other courts in this country are courts of law whereas the SC is not just a court of law but also the court of ultimate justice.

The order referred to Plato’s statement that for the position of the king he would prefer a philosopher over a merchant because a philosopher is a visionary thinking about the future whereas a merchant may find it impossible not to keep his mundane business and property interests in mind even when administering the republic. “Plato was indeed a wise man.”

Justice Gulzar Ahmad, while endorsing Justice Khosa’s declaration, has noted that the PM did not make a clean breast and provided nothing to the court where it could have fairly concluded that “yes, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has nothing to do with these four London Flats”.

“Being faced with this scenario, the court cannot be expected to sit as a toothless body and become a mere spectator, but it has to rise above screen of technicalities and to give positive verdict for meeting the ends of justice and also to safeguard the fundamental rights of the people of Pakistan.

“It is thus declared that Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has not been Honest and Righteous in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and thus rendered himself disqualified from holding the office of a member of the National Assembly and ceasing to be the prime minister of Pakistan,” he observed.



Source: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1389686/pm-not-honest-nation-justice-khosa/
 
Remember Justice Khosa was the most senior Judge of this bench hearing the Panama case and he is the next CJ of Pakistan he disqualified the prime minister...
 
So this is the reason Maryam and family was celebrating yesterday haha
 
Abdul said:
Awh yet another loss for Imran Khan and PTI supporters.
Click to expand...

Indeed its. IMO, IK should have done with NS in 2014 Dharna, that was IK's biggest mistake ....

but will you plz tell me whats the meaning of "Godfather" ... ? :))
 
Last edited:
I shared the summary of Justice Khosa sahib. Below is the gist of the other side.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan in his main judgement in the Panama Papers leaks case regretted that the bulk of unauthenticated documents brought on record by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan were pitched against another bulk of unauthenticated documents submitted by the sons of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

`We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that a question of this nature in the absence of undisputed evidence cannot be decided by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution,` Justice Khan explained.

Though the trail of money was introduced through the letters of Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani (Qatari letter), how did it end up in the ownership of the flats still clamours for an explanation, the judgement regretted.

Justice Khan dealt with Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the Representation of People Act (RoPA) that deals with the disqualification of a member of parllament for not explaining his assets disproportionate to his 1(nown means of income.

He also cited Article 4 of the Constitution which suggests that no person can be compelled to do which the law does not require him to do. While Articles 62 and 63 and Section 99 of RoPA did not require any parliamentarian to account for his assets or those of his dependents even if they were disproportionate to his known means of income, Section 12(2 f) of RoPA required him to disclose his assets and those of his spouse and dependents, and not the means, Justice Khan said.

When none of the provisions of the Constitution or act dealing with disqualifications required any parliamentarian to account for his assets and those of his dependents, even if they were disproportionate to his known means of income, how could this court on its own or on a petition under Article 184(3) required him to declare that he was not honest and ameen, the judge wondered.

Thus this court cannot call the prime minister for his disqualification at least at this stage.

About the assets dispropor-tionate to known means of income, Justice Khan referred to Sections 9(a v), 10 and 15 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) and explained that any allegation levelled against the holder of public office under these provisions required an investigation and collection of evidence.

Such investigation is followed by a full-fledged trial before an accountability court for determination of such liability. But where neither the investigation agency probed the case, nor any of the witnesses has been examined and cross-examined in an accountability court nor any of the documents incriminating the person accused has been produced and proved in accordance with the requirements of Qanoon-i-Shahadat Order, 1984, nor any oral or documentary pieces of evidence incriminating the accused has been sif ted, no verdict disqualifying the holder of public office could be given by the Supreme Court in a proceeding under Article 184(3) on the basis of a record which is yet to be authenticated, the judgement held.

We must draw a line of distinction between the scope of jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) and that of the accountability court and between the disqualifications envisioned by Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of RoPA and the criminal liabilities envisioned by Sections 9, 10 and 15 of NAB Ordinance lest we condemn any parliamentarian on assumptions by defying the requirements of a fair trial and due process,` Justice Khan said.

`We cannot make a hotchpotch of the Constitution and the law by reading NAO and pass a judgement in a proceeding under Article 184(3) which could well be passed by the accountability court after a full-fledged trial.

`Nor could we lift Sections 9 and 15 of NAO, graft them onto Article 63 of the Constitution, construe them disqualifications and proceed to declare that the parliamentarian so proceeded against was not honest and ameen and as such is liable to be disqualified. A verdict of this nature would not only be unjust but coram non judice for want of jurisdiction and lawful authority,` Justice Khan said.

He also touched upon the disqualification in terms of Article62(1 f) of the Constitution for making speeches the prime minister delivered inside and outside parliament, especially in view of Article 66 of the Constitution that gives privilege to the parliamentarians.

Justice Khan observed that mere contradiction between the speeches of the prime minister and statements of his two sons did not prove any of his speeches false or untrue unless it was determined after examining and cross-examining.

`Once we hold that neither of the speeches of the prime minister could be used against him, the question of availability of privilege under Article 66 becomes irrelevant,` he observed.

Justice Khan summed up his judgement by stating that no aboveboard or undisputed documentary evidence was brought on the record to show that the prime minister defaulted in the payment of tax as far as his assets as declared in the tax returns were concerned; nothing significant had come forth against retired Capt Mohammad Safdar and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

Justice Sheikh Azmat in his judgement observed that the Panama Papers leaks attracted more public interest and media attention than anyone expected.

Some of such attention unfortunately was contaminated with factually incorrect opinions, legally fallacious concepts and predicted decisions, which were bounced around on the airwavesevery evening.

The temptation to restrain such media coverage and public comments was resisted. Freedom of expression and press was a right enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution and this court was bound to defend the same, Justice Saeed said, adding that an open court was the essence of `our legal system`. Restraining comments on the court proceedings would perhaps negate the very concept of the open court. Beinginsulted from all criticism, it can do more harm to an institution than a little unfair criticism.

In the present case, strong emotions were unleashed from both sides of the aisle but this court could not allow itself to succumb to populism and must remain steadfast to its oath, Justice Saeed said, adding that `we cannot be tempted to pronounce a popular decision but must decide all cases in accordance with law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will`.

Tragically, some of such legal fallacies of the often ill-informed and misguided public debate penetrated into the courtroom, Justice Saeed regretted.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan in his additional note observed that the people of Pakistan had a fundamental right to be governed inaccordance with the law by those who fulfilled the requirements of the Constitution and the law and whose financial dealings, earnings and expenditures were open to public scrutiny to show that they met the test of honesty, integrity, financial probity and bona fide dealings.

`It is high time that standards are set and systems put in place to develop a culture of accountability at all levels in order to cleanse our system and institutions from the evils of corruption, money laundering, loot and plunder of national resources by a few, irrespective of their rank or status in the system,` Justice Ahsan said.

Regrettably, most material questions remained unanswered or answered insufficiently by the prime minister and his children, Justice Ahsan said, adding that he was constrained to hold that he was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the prime minister and his children regarding the mode and manner in which the properties came in their possession and what were the sources of funds utilised for acquisition of the same.

Moreover, the source of funding for Azizia Steel Mills and Hill Metals Establishment in Saudi Arabia, Flagship Investments Limited and a number of other companies set up/taken over by Hassan Nawaz also needed to be established, in addition to the affairs of Capital FZE, Dubai, which also appeared to be owned

http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailNews.php?StoryText=21_04_2017_003_004
 
So, basically Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan although unsatisfied with sources of income showed judicial restraint and touched upon technicalities which force him not to disqualify PM at this stage.

Justice Azmat's additional quotes don't make any relevance. He seconded Ejaz Afzal's stance but i guess he was outspoken only during the hearings.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Hasan, remained completely unsatisfied with PM and his children's response but basically gave him one more chance to clearify.
 
So, overall i would say that although this judgement no where supports PM and his family, it is still very weak.

JIT is effectively a dead end. Why J.I.T and what is the purpose of having spy/intelligence agencies in this JIT to examine pure financial and legal matters ? Why military and intelligence agencies in financial/legal matters which is only task of civilians?
It would have been better to form a judicial commission with special powers to call and take help form other institutions whenever required.
 
Finally Imran Khan is also realizing creating JIT with officers who are under PM, is a farce. Asif Zardari figured this our right away. He is much more astute than Imran Khan. This judgement is a total win for PML-N. Already senior leader of PML-N said that it is not necessary for Nawaz Sharif to appear in JIT :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
I was distraught yesterday but like with all detailed judgements, the devil is in the detail. When does the JIT start to work to try to clear the Sharifs? But they have to find the legal money trail which doesnt exist and thats where the Nooras will come unstuck even with their own appointees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
srh said:
Finally Imran Khan is also realizing creating JIT with officers who are under PM, is a farce. Asif Zardari figured this our right away. He is much more astute than Imran Khan. This judgement is a total win for PML-N. Already senior leader of PML-N said that it is not necessary for Nawaz Sharif to appear in JIT :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Imran said it right away yesterday in his pc that PM should resign otherwise JIT is useless with PM sitting over it. And i can only laugh at you if you really think Zardari or PPP were going to do anything related to this case. They remained silent and became irrelevant in the end because they know PMLN got enough of things to use against PPP while Imran kept pressurizing and never forgot Panama until SC started hearing after 8 months.
 
Bewal Express said:
I was distraught yesterday but like with all detailed judgements, the devil is in the detail. When does the JIT start to work to try to clear the Sharifs? But they have to find the legal money trail which doesnt exist and thats where the Nooras will come unstuck even with their own appointees.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, JIT will only investigate and present their finding back to SC judges. There is no way judges will accept conflicting information and 2 can't possibly change their initial verdict of disqualification but other 3can definitely change based on new findings.

ONLY issue this whole thing may drag till next elections.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once the JIT is created, this supreme court bench of 5 judges presided by Justice Khosa will be dissolved.
Then the chief justice of Pakistan will create another bench for this case. He will not include the 2 judges who already give verdict against Nawaz Sharif in the new bench as those 2 judges have already given verdict. He may or may not include the other 3 judges in the bench who have not given the verdict. Its up to him. JIT will report its investigation to the new bench.

http://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2017-04-21&edition=LHR&id=3057246_21014292

Khail Khatam Paisa Hazam. Its a win for PML-N. [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION] [MENTION=58539]waqar goraya[/MENTION]
 
Last edited:
srh said:
Once the JIT is created, this supreme court bench of 5 judges presided by Justice Khosa will be dissolved.
Then the chief justice of Pakistan will create another bench for this case. He will not include the 2 judges who already give verdict against Nawaz Sharif in the new bench as those 2 judges have already given verdict. He may or may not include the other 3 judges in the bench who have not given the verdict. Its up to him. JIT will report its investigation to the new bench.

http://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2017-04-21&edition=LHR&id=3057246_21014292

Khail Khatam Paisa Hazam. Its a win for PML-N. [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION] [MENTION=58539]waqar goraya[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

Yes like I have told you multiple times before, it is a win for Nawaz Sharif and loss for Pakistan.
 
Syed1 said:
Yes like I have told you multiple times before, it is a win for Nawaz Sharif and loss for Pakistan.
Click to expand...

remember the chief justice of Pakistan used to work for Nawaz Sharif before. he is not impartial.

basically the supreme court has told Imran Khan that the only way to beat Nawaz Sharif is through elections.
 
srh said:
remember the chief justice of Pakistan used to work for Nawaz Sharif before. he is not impartial.

basically the supreme court has told Imran Khan that the only way to beat Nawaz Sharif is through elections.
Click to expand...

Same CJ excluded himself from sitting in Panama bench and selected 5 other judges so i am expecting better from him.
 
another problem: JIT will not investigate the lying of Nawaz Sharif on parliament floor. So Nawaz Sharif cannot be disqualified based on Article 62 and 63.
 
Listening to Rauf Klasra's program from last night. He says the decision is completely against them, those showing the victory sign will begin to realize it when the JIT begins.
 
srh said:
Once the JIT is created, this supreme court bench of 5 judges presided by Justice Khosa will be dissolved.
Then the chief justice of Pakistan will create another bench for this case. He will not include the 2 judges who already give verdict against Nawaz Sharif in the new bench as those 2 judges have already given verdict. He may or may not include the other 3 judges in the bench who have not given the verdict. Its up to him. JIT will report its investigation to the new bench.

http://e.dunya.com.pk/detail.php?date=2017-04-21&edition=LHR&id=3057246_21014292

Khail Khatam Paisa Hazam. Its a win for PML-N. [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=142451]Mian[/MENTION] [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION] [MENTION=58539]waqar goraya[/MENTION]
Click to expand...

He will get DQ but they will drag it on and on so near election time it'd be pointless as they'd done their tenure.
 
Army might be behind in saving Nawaz Sharif and giving clean chit to Maryam Nawaz.
 
I don't believe everything he says but just watch first 10 minutes or so to get shocked that how couple of senior journalists are predicting the outcome before actual announcement. [MENTION=21215]srh[/MENTION] [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION]

It is more believable than a conspiracy theory.
 
srh said:
Army might be behind in saving Nawaz Sharif and giving clean chit to Maryam Nawaz.
Click to expand...

I won't say that army is interfering in legal matters but it is true that DG ISI is related to Maryam Nawaz. Maryam's samdhi ( father in law of Maryam's child) is maternal uncle of Mrs. Naveed Mukhtar ( DG ISI ).
 
waqar goraya said:
I don't believe everything he says but just watch first 10 minutes or so to get shocked that how couple of senior journalists are predicting the outcome before actual announcement. [MENTION=21215]srh[/MENTION] [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION]

It is more believable than a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

I usually ignore everything Dr Shahid Masood says but he has point there, some people probably knew the verdict but nothing new here becaue it is quite common given there were 5 judges involved. I hope Dr sb is safe though, he was looking quite certain that his life is under threat and may not survive (he does exaggerate things but still you never know).
 
Waseem said:
I usually ignore everything Dr Shahid Masood says but he has point there, some people probably knew the verdict but nothing new here becaue it is quite common given there were 5 judges involved. I hope Dr sb is safe though, he was looking quite certain that his life is under threat and may not survive (he does exaggerate things but still you never know).
Click to expand...

Abdul Qayum Siddiqui of Geo has been court correspondence for over a decade and Salman Ghani is known to have close ties with Sharifs. So, after all the time the decision was not secure at all.
 
waqar goraya said:
I don't believe everything he says but just watch first 10 minutes or so to get shocked that how couple of senior journalists are predicting the outcome before actual announcement. [MENTION=21215]srh[/MENTION] [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION]

It is more believable than a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous stuff.
 
I am reading that Khosa had decided to resign midway after suspecting something iffy was going on.
 
Who was the judge who had a random heart surgery during the middle of the court case? More investigation needs to take place in it.
 
waqar goraya said:
I don't believe everything he says but just watch first 10 minutes or so to get shocked that how couple of senior journalists are predicting the outcome before actual announcement. [MENTION=21215]srh[/MENTION] [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION] [MENTION=135]Waseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=1269]Bewal Express[/MENTION] [MENTION=133397]WebGuru[/MENTION]

It is more believable than a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reason i believe the only change in this country can come through Streets and Roads or 'Rawalpindi'.

Going by our history Parliament and Courts always disappointed us.
 
[MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] Tariq Fatemi has left the country? Dawn Leaks NRO in progress :))
 
PM ought to resign however he would not as Zardari did not resign and he let his PM to get disqualified instead.

Similar fashion, IK preferred to send show cause to Justice (retd) Wajihuddin instead of firing his lotay.

No one is capable to demonstrate any courage.
 
WebGuru said:
This is one of the reason i believe the only change in this country can come through Streets and Roads or 'Rawalpindi'.

Going by our history Parliament and Courts always disappointed us.
Click to expand...

Rawalpindi has also its part in this system. Their interference in politics has never produced anything good.
 
I have a soft spot for the Sher however even i find it remarkable that Sharif is just carrying on here as if nothing has happened. At the very least she should step down and call for early elections. Let the electorate judge him and his party.
 
Gabbar Singh said:
I have a soft spot for the Sher however even i find it remarkable that Sharif is just carrying on here as if nothing has happened. At the very least she should step down and call for early elections. Let the electorate judge him and his party.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, they're celebrating as if he just won a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Rumours floating that something 'big' happened after the verdict was reserved and that Khosa wanted to resign midway after he sensed something fishy.

Rumours linking judges to cash and plots floating around too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Supreme Court snatches and divides PTI's reserved seats among ruling parties [Update@post86]
2
Replies
94
Views
3K
Bewal Express
B
BouncerGuy
The Supreme Court initiates an investigation after Imran Khan's video link picture goes viral [Update on post#3]
2
Replies
156
Views
6K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
The Bald Eagle
Banana republic or London plan? Supreme Court ruling on reserved seats cannot be implemented under new law: NA speaker Ayaz Sadiq
Replies
41
Views
2K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
The Bald Eagle
Top Indian fact-checker in court for post calling out hate speech
Replies
37
Views
2K
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
W
Nawaz Sharif, Yusuf Gilani and Asif Zardari’s legal battles reignited after SC verdict
Replies
4
Views
509
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
Back
Top