Islamabad: Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has filed another review petition against the July 28 judgement of the Supreme Court in the Panama Papers case, asking the court to declare the verdict void and revoke it. In a report by Terence J Sigamony in “The Nation” today, Nawaz Sharif has raised almost similar points in the review petition yesterday, which he had identified in his earlier three petitions and the review petitions of his children and the son-in-law.
Besides PTI chief Imran Khan, the ousted premier has made the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Law and Interior Secretaries, the FBR chairman and others as respondents. Challenging the verdict, Nawaz Sharif in his fresh review petition argued that not drawing a salary and not declaring it could not be made the basis for disqualification. He said that his disqualification under section 99(f) of ROPA and Article 62(1)(f) for non-disclosure of income from Capital FZE in the nomination papers for general elections 2013 “suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record”. He raised following points in support of his assertion: (a) He asked how his disqualification came about on the basis of matters concerning Capital FZE when there was no mention of the firm in the original petition against the Sharif family filed by the plaintiffs. This ground was not included in the constitutional petitions of Imran Khan, Sheikh Rasheed and Siraj ul Haq, he added. (b) Citing Pakistan’s income tax laws, according to which a salary is that which has been received by a filer, Nawaz maintained he could not be disqualified even if he were to declare his salary from his son’s company. (c) The former prime minister said a relevant forum existed to deal with the matter of not declaration of assets, and had the Supreme Court referred the matter to that forum [Election Commission], he would have had the chance to defend himself. (d) No notice of taking up this ground to disqualify him was ever issued by the court nor was he called upon to make any submission on the jurisdictional or legal aspects of this issue, he said.
(e) Nawaz Sharif also pointed out that the judgment for his disqualification was issued on the ‘admission’ of his counsel but the bench did not consider his written submission regarding the matter. In his review petition, Nawaz also objected that defendants’ reservations regarding the joint investigation team were dismissed without due consideration and raised following points: (a) The nomination and approval of the JIT members was marred by a controversy originating a WhatsApp call. (b) The implementation bench did not consider the biasness of two members of the JIT, brought to their notice and bench rejected the objections of the Hussain Nawaz. (c) The bench also did not stop the video recording of witness statements. (d) On the other hand, the bench considering the request of the JIT ordered for action against the SECP chairman for fudging with the record. According to “The Nation” report, the ex-PM submitted that the request, made in the judgment to chief justice, for nominating the apex court judge to supervise and monitor the filing of references in the NAB and then the proceedings of the accountability court tantamount to arrogating the apex court role. The petitioner has objected to the commendations and appreciations of the work of the JIT members and their subordinate staff and termed it a gross transgression of his fundamental rights to fair trial and foreclosing his right to challenge the credibility and biasness of the JIT members. Nawaz has contended that the JIT has not filed a complete report despite the court orders, and the investigation team overstepped its authority conferred upon them by the three-judge bench. He has said that the bench directions to the NAB to file multiple references against him and his children tantamount to assuming the functions of the NAB chairman and the judge of the accountability court. The ex-premier maintained that asking the trial court to wrap up its proceedings within six months would affect the verdict. No law in Pakistan allowed for the monitoring of a trial court and thus the SC’s orders to conduct such monitoring were against the law, he asserted. Nawaz Sharif has already filed three review petitions against the verdict announced by the five-member Supreme Court bench on April 20. In the latest plea, he said that majority judgment of April 20 had six parts. First, the constitution of the JIT; second, investigation and collection of evidence by the JIT members; third, direction to Nawaz Sharif, Hussain and Hassan to appear and associate themselves with the JIT and when required; fourth, direction to the JIT to submit the investigation report fortnightly; fifth, consideration of matter for the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif upon receipt of the reports and sixth, the request to Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute a special bench to ensure the implementation of judgment.
