‘THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMMUNITY AND PRIVILEGE’

Wait for the judgement, SC tells parties

‘You don’t know the difference between immunity and privilege,’ said a visibly irritated Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed while admonishing Advocate Taufeeq Asif, Jamaat-e-Islami’s (JI) counsel, who kept on arguing that prime minister enjoys no immunity in the Panama Papers case in the Supreme Court here on Monday.

Justice Sheikh added that he thinks that he is doing this all to get an adjournment.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who heads the five-member bench, said the parties should wait for the final verdict of the apex court in the case instead of delivering speeches or resorting to political commentary outside the court.

Asif’s main focus remained on a technicality as to whether the speech was in pursuance of the rules and procedures of the National Assembly. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed reminded the counsel that the Article 69 of Constitution of Pakistan (Courts not to inquire into the proceedings of Parliament) clearly states that Supreme Court can’t call into question any proceedings of Parliament on the ground of irregularity of procedure.

Advocate Taufeeq Asif counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami continuing his arguments said that parliamentary immunity, according to Article 66, is only for the legislative process.

Asif said that there should be a ban on television talk shows and news discussions about the Panama Papers case. Justice Khosa remarked that a lot had been done and now everyone should wait for the court’s judgment instead of discussing it on the media.

The bench and the counsel failed to see eye to eye as judges kept on reminding Asif not to repeat his arguments. The counsel found it hard to keep his voice low and temper in place. At one point, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed reminded him that increasing one’s voice doesn’t work out well. ‘Arguments should have weight,’ he said.

‘The Sharif family has hired different counsels to save itself and is hiding behind technicalities,’ argued Asif.

‘Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s address in parliament was of personal nature,’ argued Asif. ‘Then why did you file it under Article 184(3) if it was a personal matter,’ remarked Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed. Justice Sheikh reminded the counsel not to argue against himself and plead his case with clarity.

‘Nawaz Sharif said in his speech that he has piles of evidence. Now where is that evidence?’ asked Asif. Justice Khosa remarked that the PM’s legal team has piled up a wall of arguments. He also told him to read relevant parts of the speech. ‘I want to read the whole speech,’ replied the counsel. ‘Go ahead then,’ remarked Justice Khosa.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that the PM’s lawyer had refused to produce a money trail as he maintained that the London Flats were not owned by the PM.

Justice Gulzar asked the JI’s counsel to establish a link between the Prime Minister and the Sharif family business.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that Nawaz Sharif maintains that his name has not been included in the Panama Papers.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that during proceedings the judges ask questions to understand the case. These questions should not be taken as remarks, he said. While Advocate Taufeeq Asif argued at length about the ‘hidden’ documents that are not presented before the court, Justice Khosa asked him to ‘tell us was hidden’ specifically.

Taufeeq Asif tried to shift the ‘onus of proof’ on the Sharif family. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed reminded him that in inquisitional litigation, there is no onus of proof. It is shouldered by either party in adversarial litigation,’ he remarked.

On Monday, the PTI side of the aisle looked deserted in the courtroom as PTI supremo Imran Khan, Jehangir Tarin, Shah Mehmood Qureshi and others were absent. Imran Khan came in the second half and after staying for 20-25 minutes left the courtroom along with his entourage.

Things weren’t much different on the PML-N side either. Dr Musaddaq Malik, Senator Chaudhary Tanveer and Barrister Zafarullah Khan were the only prominent leaders in the courtroom. Defence Minister Khwaja Asif, Talal Chaudhary and Daniyal Aziz joined in later.

Once again, PTI counsel, Advocate Naeem Bukhari wasn’t present in the court. The hearing was later adjourned till today (Tuesday).