Panama Case - Post Verdict Discussion and Updates

[PakSword]

I am just asking - you think that it was mellowed down decision or was it an expected one?

As the person, I am referring is Fed Minister and casual conversation re verdict (as in overall) was discussed and contributing factors.

Hence, I though I should get your and @PakSword ’s opinion on the matter.

It’s for understanding your point of view.

My opinion as I mentioned here before as well, the first verdict wasn't up to the expectations.

 

[Farah Sohail]

I am just asking - you think that it was mellowed down decision or was it an expected one?

As the person, I am referring is Fed Minister and casual conversation re verdict (as in overall) was discussed and contributing factors.

Hence, I though I should get your and @PakSword ’s opinion on the matter.

It’s for understanding your point of view.

Yea..you are right.. it did seem like a mellowed down version....
Though thankfully review verdict was much better...as far as tone and explanation of the verdict was concerned

---------------

Waisy if we see... in IK verdict.. judges have accepted and probed IK on Justice Khosa's version and interpretation of 62/63 tht is explanation regd source of acquisition of assets and if a public office holder is unable to justify source of funds for acquisition of assets..then member can be disqualified.. hence judges asked IK regd source of funding for london flat, bani gala property... if IK wouldnt have been ablr to satisfy the court...he could have been disqualified.. but Ik satisfied the court so he wasnt disqaulified..also here IK wasnt a public office holder..

Quoting from Justice Faisal Arab's note
Where an asset is acquired by a member or his spouse or any of his dependents after becoming a member and it surfaces through any source, which he has failed to disclose, the member in quo warranto proceedings can be called to explain the means of its acquisition. If he is unable to extend a judicially acceptable explanation, only then such non- disclosure would be regarded as a failure to pass the test of honestly as envisaged under Section 99 (1) (f) of RoPA read with Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Apart from being declared disqualified from holding his office, the member will also face charges for possessing wealth beyond his known sources of income. Thus concealment of an asset from the public eye that was acquired after entering upon office, for which the member is unable to give a judicially acceptable explanation, is to be treated as an act of concealment with dishonest intentions.


Kehnay ka matlab ye hai ke jo explanation/interpretation judges ne article 62/63 ki ki hai ...IK ke verdict main..woh wohi hia..jo Justice khosa aur Gulzar ne ki thee...ke if a public office holder is unable to satisfy a court on source of funding through which asset was acquird tu us par disqualification banti hai.....Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ki interpretation ko...inn judges ne bhi accept kiya hai tu log fuzool main criticise karrahay thay ke Justice Khosa ne moral judgment di hai.. Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ki interpretation tu inn judges ne bhi accept ki hai....Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ne bhi tu money trail par satisfy na karsaknay par NS ki disqualify kia tha.. iska matlab ke Justice khosa and Guzlar's interpretation of 62/63 is no longer a minority view/interpretation but it has become an accepted fact/version/interpretation of 62/63

 

[PakSword]

akram sheikh almaroof Qatari khat walay nai Panama case ka koi 100 baar hawala diya tha iss liyay IK k case main bhi phir nawaz sharif ki izzat krwa baitha. ye justice faisal arab nai usay samjhanay k liyay izafi note likha.

Advance payment is an asset in accounting terms whether the asset is transferred to the buyer's name or not.. The only advance which is not considered asset in some transactions is that which is non refundable..

anyway, lets enjoy "Kyun Nahi Nikala"...

@PakSword Aap ne IK ka verdict.....ab poora parh liya? Dil khush hogaya hoga na.....poora verdict parh kar?

Yes poora parh lia..

KYUN NAHI NIKALA .. KYUN NAHI NIKALA ki sadaein mere kaanon main goonj rahi hain..

 

[Farah Sohail]

Advance payment is an asset in accounting terms whether the asset is transferred to the buyer's name or not.. The only advance which is not considered asset in some transactions is that which is non refundable..

anyway, lets enjoy "Kyun Nahi Nikala"...

Waisy IK had declared it in 2014 in his statement of assets and liabilities in his income tax returns even in 2014... sirf election commission main naih kiya tha..in 2014 i think.. tu agar IK ne conceal karna hota tu income tax returns main kiun show karta?

Waisy IK case ke judges chaa gaye .. inhon ne panama verdict bhii iss tarah explain kia hia..jaisy ye khud panama bench ka part thay.. lagta hai ke inhein ek ek cheez rati hui thee

Yes poora parh lia..

KYUN NAHI NIKALA .. KYUN NAHI NIKALA ki sadaein mere kaanon main goonj rahi hain..

KYUN NAHI NIKALA ...lolll

Loved the verdict..
NS ki itni ziada beizzati ka nahi socha tha .. it was sooo unexpected

 

[PakSword]

Waisy IK had declared it in 2014 in his statement of assets and liabilities in his ncome tax returns even in 2014... sirf election commission main naih kiya tha..in 2014 i think.. tu agar IK ne concela karna hota tu income tax returns main kiun show karta?

Isi liey I said ke strict application of the law might have resulted in disqualification.. but judges knew that there wasn't any intention of wrongdoing..

KYUN NAHI NIKALA ...lolll

Loved the verdict..
NS ki itni ziada beizzati ka nahi socha tha .. it was sooo unexpected

Waisay yeh moron NS.. ghan chakkar main phans gaya hai..

kuchh arsay pehlay KYUN NIKALA KYUN NIKALA karta hua ISL se Raiwind gaya tha.. aur abb kuch arsay baad KYUN NAHI NIKALA KYUN NAHI NIKALA karta raiwind se ISL wapis aayega..

 

[Realistic Change]

Waisy IK had declared it in 2014 in his statement of assets and liabilities in his income tax returns even in 2014... sirf election commission main naih kiya tha..in 2014 i think.. tu agar IK ne conceal karna hota tu income tax returns main kiun show karta?

Waisy IK case ke judges chaa gaye .. inhon ne panama verdict bhii iss tarah explain kia hia..jaisy ye khud panama bench ka part thay.. lagta hai ke inhein ek ek cheez rati hui thee



KYUN NAHI NIKALA ...lolll

Loved the verdict..
NS ki itni ziada beizzati ka nahi socha tha .. it was sooo unexpected

Simplistically put - NS got lucky first time.

I remember @PakSword also pointed this out - NS and his entire family can be roasted and toasted in the case that he wouldn’t have been able to rant nikala for once!

Isi liey I said ke strict application of the law might have resulted in disqualification.. but judges knew that there wasn't any intention of wrongdoing..



Waisay yeh moron NS.. ghan chakkar main phans gaya hai..

kuchh arsay pehlay KYUN NIKALA KYUN NIKALA karta hua ISL se Raiwind gaya tha.. aur abb kuch arsay baad KYUN NAHI NIKALA KYUN NAHI NIKALA karta raiwind se ISL wapis aayega..

Application of any law can’t be done in vacuum - take the cases all around the world - if you see recent history of British or US courts to the tune of Al Gore’s defeat- one of their major concern is also avoiding a bigger debacle while remaining within the norms of law.

 

[PakSword]

Application of any law can’t be done in vacuum - take the cases all around the world - if you see recent history of British or US courts to the tune of Al Gore’s defeat- one of their major concern is also avoiding a bigger debacle while remaining within the norms of law.

Woh kia hai na strict application of law.. Paji Faez Isa ne.. Hudaibiya na khol kar..

 

[Realistic Change]

Woh kia hai na strict application of law.. Paji Faez Isa ne.. Hudaibiya na khol kar..

Lol - it will be launched - as I said before thora sabr tou karien

Plus as CJP said he believes every Judge is independent and it’s true that Saqib Nisar doesn’t micromanage Judges - that is 100% confirmed.

Iftikhar Ch was true micromanager and Saqib Nisar is not.

Where NS went wrong in his assessment was that CJP will be Saeed uz Zaman, Nasim Hassan - he was quite neutral (40% type lol) but Nawaz’s not heeding to messages sent from someone in Judiciary through Chota and Asad ur Rehman resulted in CJP becoming neutral 51%

 

[PakSword]

Where NS went wrong in his assessment was that CJP will be Saeed uz Zaman, Nasim Hassan - he was quite neutral (40% type lol) but Nawaz’s not heeding to messages sent from someone in Judiciary through Chota and Asad ur Rehman resulted in CJP becoming neutral 51%

You are spot on! @Farah Sohail

 

[Realistic Change]

Yea..you are right.. it did seem like a mellowed down version....
Though thankfully review verdict was much better...as far as tone and explanation of the verdict was concerned

---------------

Waisy if we see... in IK verdict.. judges have accepted and probed IK on Justice Khosa's version and interpretation of 62/63 tht is explanation regd source of acquisition of assets and if a public office holder is unable to justify source of funds for acquisition of assets..then member can be disqualified.. hence judges asked IK regd source of funding for london flat, bani gala property... if IK wouldnt have been ablr to satisfy the court...he could have been disqualified.. but Ik satisfied the court so he wasnt disqaulified..also here IK wasnt a public office holder..

Quoting from Justice Faisal Arab's note
Where an asset is acquired by a member or his spouse or any of his dependents after becoming a member and it surfaces through any source, which he has failed to disclose, the member in quo warranto proceedings can be called to explain the means of its acquisition. If he is unable to extend a judicially acceptable explanation, only then such non- disclosure would be regarded as a failure to pass the test of honestly as envisaged under Section 99 (1) (f) of RoPA read with Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution. Apart from being declared disqualified from holding his office, the member will also face charges for possessing wealth beyond his known sources of income. Thus concealment of an asset from the public eye that was acquired after entering upon office, for which the member is unable to give a judicially acceptable explanation, is to be treated as an act of concealment with dishonest intentions.


Kehnay ka matlab ye hai ke jo explanation/interpretation judges ne article 62/63 ki ki hai ...IK ke verdict main..woh wohi hia..jo Justice khosa aur Gulzar ne ki thee...ke if a public office holder is unable to satisfy a court on source of funding through which asset was acquird tu us par disqualification banti hai.....Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ki interpretation ko...inn judges ne bhi accept kiya hai tu log fuzool main criticise karrahay thay ke Justice Khosa ne moral judgment di hai.. Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ki interpretation tu inn judges ne bhi accept ki hai....Justice Khosa aur Gulzar ne bhi tu money trail par satisfy na karsaknay par NS ki disqualify kia tha.. iska matlab ke Justice khosa and Guzlar's interpretation of 62/63 is no longer a minority view/interpretation but it has become an accepted fact/version/interpretation of 62/63

Judicially Acceptable is the key! This gives tons of leeway - how it could be acquired?

So the background has tons and tons of weightage - One working at gas station vs one sitting in White House doesn’t have equal accountability parameters.

 

[Farah Sohail]

Where NS went wrong in his assessment was that CJP will be Saeed uz Zaman, Nasim Hassan - he was quite neutral (40% type lol) but Nawaz’s not heeding to messages sent from someone in Judiciary through Chota and Asad ur Rehman resulted in CJP becoming neutral 51%

@bold :o :o what was the message whichNS didnt pay heed to?

Iftikhar Ch was true micromanager and Saqib Nisar is not.

Mujhe sirf ek cheez aaj tak samajh nahi aayi.. why is J Khosa...a fan of Iftihkar Chaudhary?
Firstly on Iftikhar Ch's retirment.. J Khosa said ke i will proudly tell my grandchildren tht i worked with Iftikhar Ch..

Even if we ignore this as mere formal tribute on someone's retirment... but he has praised Iftikhar Ch atleast in two verdicts tht I read..one is his note in Y Raza Gilanis verdict and then...in 18/21st ammendment case..and this verdict was in 2015 that is much after If Ch's retirment.... he praised Iftikhar Ch on his refusing to bow down before a dictator...

Kiya.. J Khosa..aaj tak Iftikhar Ch ki asliyat naih jaan sakay? How? Esp after controversy related to Iftikhat Ch's son?

@PakSword @Realistic Change mujhe Justice Khosa..ki sirf ye baat aaj tak samajh naih aayi..that how is he still afan of Iftikhar Ch?

 

[PakSword]

@PakSword @Realistic Change mujhe Justice Khosa..ki sirf ye baat aaj tak samajh naih aayi..that how is he still afan of Iftikhar Ch?

I think Iftikhar Ch was a very strict judge.. who would have taken strict action by now against Baji and his followers.. on disrespecting SC..

 

[Farah Sohail]

I think Iftikhar Ch was a very strict judge.. who would have taken strict action by now against Baji and his followers.. on disrespecting SC..

Maybe he would have..if it was someone from PPP.... Iftikhar Ch was a very pro PML N judge...

I fail to understand why is J Khosa a fan of Iftikhar Ch?

 

[PakSword]

Maybe he would have..if it was someone from PPP.... Iftikhar Ch was a very pro PML N judge...

I fail to understand why is J Khosa a fan of Iftikhar Ch?

Aaj kal tou Iftikhar Ch. PMLN ke khilaaf boltay hain..

 

[Realistic Change]

@bold :o :o what was the message whichNS didnt pay heed to?



Mujhe sirf ek cheez aaj tak samajh nahi aayi.. why is J Khosa...a fan of Iftihkar Chaudhary?
Firstly on Iftikhar Ch's retirment.. J Khosa said ke i will proudly tell my grandchildren tht i worked with Iftikhar Ch..

Even if we ignore this as mere formal tribute on someone's retirment... but he has praised Iftikhar Ch atleast in two verdicts tht I read..one is his note in Y Raza Gilanis verdict and then...in 18/21st ammendment case..and this verdict was in 2015 that is much after If Ch's retirment.... he praised Iftikhar Ch on his refusing to bow down before a dictator...

Kiya.. J Khosa..aaj tak Iftikhar Ch ki asliyat naih jaan sakay? How? Esp after controversy related to Iftikhat Ch's son?

@PakSword @Realistic Change mujhe Justice Khosa..ki sirf ye baat aaj tak samajh naih aayi..that how is he still afan of Iftikhar Ch?

@bold :o :o what was the message whichNS didnt pay heed to?



Mujhe sirf ek cheez aaj tak samajh nahi aayi.. why is J Khosa...a fan of Iftihkar Chaudhary?
Firstly on Iftikhar Ch's retirment.. J Khosa said ke i will proudly tell my grandchildren tht i worked with Iftikhar Ch..

Even if we ignore this as mere formal tribute on someone's retirment... but he has praised Iftikhar Ch atleast in two verdicts tht I read..one is his note in Y Raza Gilanis verdict and then...in 18/21st ammendment case..and this verdict was in 2015 that is much after If Ch's retirment.... he praised Iftikhar Ch on his refusing to bow down before a dictator...

Kiya.. J Khosa..aaj tak Iftikhar Ch ki asliyat naih jaan sakay? How? Esp after controversy related to Iftikhat Ch's son?

@PakSword @Realistic Change mujhe Justice Khosa..ki sirf ye baat aaj tak samajh naih aayi..that how is he still afan of Iftikhar Ch?

Iftikhar Ch has done something which no other CJ in Pakistan did before him - he took on PM and even COAS to the task but his limits ended there.

He was like Musharraf initially (wrong analogy I know) but bear with me....he did several correct things and several bad things - he had a chance to build everything like Kalabagh Dam and all other political issues without thinking about implications but he thought it’s better to have political facade through Ch Brothers and then he derailed.

Long story short, Iftikhar Ch was right when he took on Musharraf and Zardari to a degree but when he became political CJP and started dreaming bigger - you know he was to be made President of Pakistan if Nawaz came to power - he was backstabbed but that doesn’t take credit from where his judicial activism did try to do what no other CJP ever attempted and had remained subservient to powers of that time.