What's new

Panama Case - Post Verdict Discussion and Updates

Surprise over SC judge remarks on Sharif verdict
Nasir IqbalUpdated March 21, 2018
Facebook Count162
Twitter Share

35
ISLAMABAD: Many were left surprised when during the hearing of a case on Tuesday a Supreme Court judge wondered that the Panama Papers case involved the Sharif family-owned four upscale Avenfield flats in London, but former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified for holding an iqama (work permit) of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

“The Panama Papers case was about London flats, but the judgement came on the iqama,” observed Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who is a member of the three-judge Supreme Court bench which has taken up an appeal of Shakeel Awan, a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) member who lost the 2013 elections from Rawalpindi’s NA-55 constituency against Awami Muslim League head Sheikh Rashid Ahmed.

The bench is headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed.

The court, however, reserved its ruling after hearing both sides.

Justice Qazi Faez Isa says Panama Papers case was about London flats, but judgement came on UAE Iqama

Justice Isa’s observation came when Advocate Sheikh Ilyas, representing Mr Awan, mentioned the last year’s Panama Papers judgement to bolster his arguments against Mr Ahmed.

The apex court disqualified Mr Sharif as member of the National Assembly in the Panama Papers case by invoking Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

The last time the Panama Papers verdict was highlighted was when the Supreme Court heard PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi’s petition in which he sought disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chairman Imran Khan and secretary general Jahangir Khan Tareen.

Mr Tareen was eventually disqualified by the apex court.

Advocate Ilyas argued that the case involved concealment of assets by Mr Ahmed who mentioned in his nomination papers for the 2013 general elections that he owned 983 kanals of land although he actually owned 1,081 kanals of land.

Similarly, he said, Mr Ahmed showed the purchase of one kanal of land in the Bahria Gold City for over Rs10 million when the booking price of the land was over Rs48m whereas the current market price of the same land was Rs60m.

The lawyer further said that Mr Ahmed had shown rent of his properties as his source of income in addition to Rs2.2 million profit from his bank accounts. But, he added, his bank statement reflected Rs5.3m from which Rs2.2m profit was not plausible.

He contended that the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976, obligated all intending candidates to disclose their entire assets.

He said the Supreme Court judgement in the Panama Papers case was the latest verdict over the concealment of assets in which Mr Ahmed was also one of the petitioners.

At this, Justice Saeed observed that the court was waiting for the mentioning of the Panama Papers case judgement.

Whether the concept of strict liability had been settled in the Panama Papers case judgement, wondered Justice Isa, saying would not the principles and guidelines laid down in the verdict also apply in other cases.

Justice Saeed, however, asked whether the respondents in the Panama Papers case had ever accepted their mistake.

If the rule of strict liability was to be followed then Mr Ahmed would also stand disqualified, observed Justice Isa, saying that the Panama Papers case judgement did not discuss or had any mention about accepting mistake or error.

“Are you saying that if Mr Ahmed committed a mistake, we should disqualify him following Panama verdict,” the court inquired.

Advocate Abdur Rashid Awan who represented Mr Ahmed, however, disputed that his client had ever concealed any assets, saying that it could be a miscalculation.

He said his client had mentioned all details of his properties, including his agriculture lands, in his nomination papers. But, he added, errors did take place while filing nomination papers.

The Panama Papers case judgement concerned concealment of assets, but in this case his client never concealed any assets, he claimed.

On this Justice Isa observed that the document he was mentioning was never referred to or discussed. He regretted that contesting elections in Pakistan was becoming tougher and difficult day by day and the most difficult aspect was filing of nomination papers.

The judge also referred to a recent statement in which US President Donald Trump had stated that he would never show his income tax returns.

Published in Dawn, March 21st, 2018
 
I told on this thread long time back.. (I think in December last year) how Nawaz was trying to create a divide in judiciary.. So you can't argue with judges when there are malicious designs in their minds..
I thought you forgot what QFI did in December.

My point to mention the following in my post from events of November-December 2017 was because of you agreeing with QFI so I pointed out that it's not just a simple statement of a judge but should be seen with in context of his earlier actions:
So I agree with justice qazi faeez isa

What Qazi Faiz has stated is not that simple. Even CJP explained the reasons for Panama judgement in IK case but the comments by Justice Faiz should be understood with earlier remarks made by judges relating to JIT not being such gems after all and then in Hudaibya case barring mention of Panama verdict observations of Justice Khosa...

Anyways the reason ggiven by the three judges states that Hudaibya case is time barred when all the legal community and laws of the whole world agrees that CRIMINAL CASES ARE NOT TIME BARRED! PERIOD.

So such remarks against iqama verdict by such a judge is ironic to say the least...and I'm writing this much due to respect for SCP.

I accept your argument? Only ask For what purpose two more months granted instead of a instant decision after 6 months of trial
Another answer, shorter this time: because the case was delayed due to delay tactics by Sharifs. Just Google news about first PAYSHEE and London yatras along with appeals on combining cases and what not if it's called CHOCHI, lol.
 
because of you agreeing with QFI so I pointed out that it's not just a simple statement of a judge but should be seen with in context of his earlier actions:
I was being sarcastic of course.. loll
 
I was being sarcastic of course.. loll
o_O...Touche, lol.:enjoy:


As I mentioned earlier meri Jan: Do you know How he came to the exact conclusion about Nawaz not mentioning Iqama by mistake or deliberately?

How did the judge Qazi Faiz Issa decide that Nawaz Sharif "forgot to mention Iqama" or he "omited iqama by mistake" in his papers or is it all a hypotheses or guess of the judge - as he was not part of Panama Bench???

Justice Qazi Faiz Issa was part of that bench too on Hudaibya, remember? The reason given by the three judges states that Hudaibya case is time barred when all the legal community and laws of the whole world agrees that CRIMINAL CASES ARE NOT TIME BARRED! PERIOD.

So such remarks against iqama verdict by such a judge is ironic to say the least...and I'm writing this much due to respect for SCP.

I hope you get it despite your obvious disability that I can't sympathize with enough :-)
 
29136980_581180872235327_6334704566921410136_n.jpg
 
Lets do a test...let's let them loose on the "SAFE" :angry: streets of Kasur...after all, the CM and his spokesman from Kasur both want us to believe that it has become such a safe city since Zainabs killer has been caught.:hitwall:

What about the killers of other 4 girls who's dna didn't match with Zainabs killer???
Nobody in our ratings driven and manjan selling media cares or talks about Kasur anymore.
 
ڈاکٹرزکیمطابق کلثوم نوازکےعلاج سےمتعلق فیصلےکیلیےانکےشوہرکایہاں ہوناضروری ہے،حسین نواز

ہماری دعا،خواہش ہے کہ نوازشریف لندن آجائیں کیونکہ یہ عام معاملہ نہیں،حسین نواز
 
Wrote a post, expanding further about QFI dissenting comment but then saw exactly the same points being discussed by Rauf Klasra and Aamir Mateen so instead of Another boring long post, plz watch the vid of the pros:

My post was more or less the same as discussed in above video and I have it saved too as I was adding and reviewing while watching PSL. Later on I was looking for a vid from hudaibya case rejection time but found this one from today so I didn't post my writing. Also because some might say that I wrote it after watching the program, lol, it is so much similar...

But here is just the end part:

P.S. Just for those roti ko chochi imposters who act as if they are innocent, inquisitive posters...

Only PMLN Goons can assume that Iqama and Panama are unrelated and disqualification is on wrong grounds...

On the contrary, those without a blindfold, consider the verdict - not wrong at all but just a little confined than what it could have been - a much much stronger punishment, as there were much more grounds for not just and only Iqama but perjury and forgery.

Instead of dissenting, may be some one who considers sitting PMs Iqama not related to Panama, should award Bakvas Sharif with Tamgha Husn-e-Karkardagi or Tamgha-e-imtiaz for being a servant in another country instead of handing him a Disqualification.
 
Last edited:
the tooi and its lies. was it not so when this bastard tooi was in power around 2016 when fuel suddenly ran out?
 
جسٹس قاضی نے جو کچھ بھی کہا - اور جس مقصد سے بھی کہا - حقیقت میں یہ لوگ خود بھی پریشان ہیں کہ نواز کو ہم نے کیوں نکالا
یہ بلکل وہی کچھ ہو رہا ہے جیسے آج تک جوڈیشری اب اپنے جیوڈیشل مرڈر کے گناہ پر نادم ہے - اسی طرح ان میں مونہوں سے آھستہ آھستہ نکلنا شروع ہو ہی جاۓ گا کہ انہوں نے کیا کیا ہے


Copy a very Apt Comment from another Forum.
Ye aik judge ki raye hay jaisey pehly faisley mein raye mukhtalif thi isko pira haq hasil hy par is sey na jurm badla na saza
I accept your argument? Only ask For what purpose two more months granted instead of a instant decision after 6 months of trial?
In the light of new references more time was requested so both parties can have more time it has nothing to do with them ngs going No n favor of Sharifs really they are in a heap of dump right now and what my sources in court told me Redly smacked them silly dont believe what geo told you it was a lie
 

:lol:

Guys @Farah Sohail and @Shane I watch Rauf Klasra on your suggestion, now you will have to watch this clip of Amir Liaquat..

Although I hate him.. but man!:rofl::bunny:

@Zibago @Path-Finder @Dastaan
:lol: Strike one already :pop:

Horses for courses... Fruit of the season...it's only a temporary arrangement if Aamir Liaqat is not sincere or is he?

We all know the answer to that so grab your bag and enjoy the ride while it lasts:pop:...I hope IK never invites him for breakfast though,;) .
 

:lol:

Guys @Farah Sohail and @Shane I watch Rauf Klasra on your suggestion, now you will have to watch this clip of Amir Liaquat..

Although I hate him.. but man!:rofl::bunny:

@Zibago @Path-Finder @Dastaan


Ufffff... ye tu almost impossible task de diya aap ne.. :( :angry:

I can not tolerate this man, for even a second :(

Wrote a post, expanding further about QFI dissenting comment but then saw exactly the same points being discussed by Rauf Klasra and Aamir Mateen so instead of Another boring long post, plz watch the vid of the pros:

My post was more or less the same as discussed in above video and I have it saved too as I was adding and reviewing while watching PSL. Later on I was looking for a vid from hudaibya case rejection time but found this one from today so I didn't post my writing. Also because some might say that I wrote it after watching the program, lol, it is so much similar...

But here is just the end part:

P.S. Just for those roti ko chochi imposters who act as if they are innocent, inquisitive posters...

Only PMLN Goons can assume that Iqama and Panama are unrelated and disqualification is on wrong grounds...

On the contrary, those without a blindfold, consider the verdict - not wrong at all but just a little confined than what it could have been - a much much stronger punishment, as there were much more grounds for not just and only Iqama but perjury and forgery.

Instead of dissenting, may be some one who considers sitting PMs Iqama not related to Panama, should award Bakvas Sharif with Tamgha Husn-e-Karkardagi or Tamgha-e-imtiaz for being a servant in another country instead of handing him a Disqualification.

Dont get me even started on Qazi Faez Isa :angry::angry:.. i can go on and on ...abt Qazi Faez Isa..but dont know ..whether it would be appropriate to talk here....

The less said abt him, the better:angry:
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom