Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion

[Moonlight]

because you are paindo

Wallah it's being better than being his fan.

Is ke bete ko fever bhi ho to kehta Qaymat ke nishani

 

[Realistic Change]

That is what I was referring to as precedent:

If some MNA has undeclared bank account (in nomination papers) in Al Rajhi Bank with balance of SAR 750,000

Then how could selective application of Artcile 184/3 be justified - either reinstate all previously disqualified and strike down relevant articles or apply on $harif too

https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/93887-SC-disqualifies-PML-N-MNA-for-concealing-assets

SC disqualifies PML-N MNA for concealing assets

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday disqualified Justice (retd) Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema, the returned candidate of the ruling PML-N from NA-101 Gujranwala-VII, for concealing assets and directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to de-notify his membership and hold fresh election in the constituency.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, suspended the election tribunal’s verdict and ordered re-polling in the constituency where Cheema was declared the winning candidate in 2013 general elections. Cheema had bagged 9,9191 votes, defeating his opponent Muhammad Ahmed Chatha of PML-J by a margin of 40,000 votes.

Mr. Chatha challenged the result in the election tribunal alleging that his opponent Justice (R) Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema had not disclosed the details of his assets in the nomination papers.

The tribunal however rejected his plea and later on Mr. Chatha challenged the tribunal’s verdict in the Supreme Court. On Monday, during the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Ahmed Chatha argued before the court that Mr. Cheema had concealed his assets in the nomination form. The counsel for Mr. Cheema argued that his client had not mentioned details of assets and bank accounts which were not related to him.

He further submitted that his client had no mala fide intention to do so adding that his client could not be disqualified on this. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the court ordered re-polling and directed the ECP to de-notify the membership of Mr. Cheema.

 

[VCheng]

If I am not wrong you are one of the member sir who thinks Pakistan has zero justice. And see today a sitting PM is being accountable in Supreme Court along with his partners in crimes.
And now you are bringing negativity in with claiming the people of Pakistan only respect or support SC when it gives verdict against PM. A wrong thought of you.

Members here are just giving their opinions/analysis and trust me they have better understanding of the matter than so many jourons out there.

Ps: long time no see

All I am saying is to give the SC time to work on due process. My post was written with that in mind, nothing else. Being fair is very hard to do.

 

[El Sidd]

Wallah it's being better than being his fan.

Is ke bete ko fever bhi ho to kehta Qaymat ke nishani

hahaha

yes... wese illness ka kaseer hona waqai me nishani hai lol

i dont know about fan or pedestal fan or ac or ventilator but atleast he is consistent on issues like transparency and nation building...

Paindo to khair hum bhi hain.... laken asli wale..not like your cookie wale paindoo...the real googiaan wale paindo

 

[Farah Sohail]

Heard that Dr. Dhabardhoos today was implying something fishy. What's the story? @PakSword @Farah Sohail

Dr Dhabardoos ki baaton par yaqeen na kiya karein.. Jis din se inhon ne JIT members par ilzaam lagaya tha, uske baad se main ne inka program dekhna chor diya hai bilkol

 

[Realistic Change]

I think it's time to take a little hiatus

 

[Emmie]

You mean dr. Qaymat? You watch him? You must have a great level of sabar

I can't tolerate him.

Lol! No, I don't watch him, a friend of mine shared his thoughts an hour ago.

 

[PakSword]

But my issue..is..if Justice Khosa and Gulzar could make some additions based on JIT report..then they would have been part of this bench now....jab JIT report par arguments horahay hain dono sides se.. JO cheez inke saamnay discuss hi nahi horahi, aur dono sides ke arguments nahi horahay unke saamnay..i dont think they can judge or give verdict based on tht... Its as if..ke JIT report ko unhon ne dekhna hi nahi hai..

Here, my opinion is different. When the three member bench will admit any evidences (if they can record evidences) against shareefs, these evidences can be considered by the rest of the two judges. They don't need to grill anyone, but merely on the basis of evidences presented by JIT and accepted by the implementation bench, no one can stop them from making any changes in their verdict.

Lekin unka previous verdict count zuroor hoga.. Amir Mateen and Mohd Malick were in SC today.. H said Justice zijazul Ahsan used the term interim order for previous verdict..and said ke 5 member bench ke saamnay jo material diya gaya tha...aur jo ab material aaya..hai..is sab ko hum dekhein ge..woh pehle jo statements di theen..woh gum nahi hogayi hain.. S Amir Mateen and Mohd Malick said tht its clear now tht 5 member bench hi verdict announce karay ga.. S i think ..Justice zkhosa and Gulzar's verdict will be counted..Justice Khosa will announce the decision, but those two judges wont be able to make any further additions in their previous verdict..

Maza aayega.. Justice Khosa will once again say, pehlay verdict parh lena uss ke baad shor machana.. then he will start announcing.. NS is not sadiq ameen (in the opinion of majority of judges) and stands DQ..

Uss se ziada maza uss waqt aaye, jab Saad Rafiq aur Khwaja Asif phir bhi mithai baantain..

If some MNA has undeclared bank account (in nomination papers) in Al Rajhi Bank with balance of SAR 750,000

Then how could selective application of Artcile 184/3 be justified - either reinstate all previously disqualified and strike down relevant articles or apply on $harif too

But I have read somewhere that Khuwaja Haris told the court that NS declared Saudi Account?

 

[Shot-Caller]

Dr Dhabardoos ki baaton par yaqeen na kiya karein.. Jis din se inhon ne JIT members par ilzaam lagaya tha, uske baad se main ne inka program dekhna chor diya hai bilkol

Who is this pakora judge you have been talking about?

 

[PakSword]

Who is this pakora judge you have been talking about?

Sh Azmat Saeed,,

Zabardast..

Bowler is Imran Khan, Maulana ki dono taangon ke beech se ball guzar kar NS ki naak par lagegi.. aur NS dislodge hojaega.. nateejay main Maulana bhi pavilion wapis laut jaeingay..

Kia dimaagh hai yaar..

 

[Emmie]

That is what I was referring to as precedent:

If some MNA has undeclared bank account (in nomination papers) in Al Rajhi Bank with balance of SAR 750,000

Then how could selective application of Artcile 184/3 be justified - either reinstate all previously disqualified and strike down relevant articles or apply on $harif too

https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/93887-SC-disqualifies-PML-N-MNA-for-concealing-assets

SC disqualifies PML-N MNA for concealing assets

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday disqualified Justice (retd) Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema, the returned candidate of the ruling PML-N from NA-101 Gujranwala-VII, for concealing assets and directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to de-notify his membership and hold fresh election in the constituency.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, suspended the election tribunal’s verdict and ordered re-polling in the constituency where Cheema was declared the winning candidate in 2013 general elections. Cheema had bagged 9,9191 votes, defeating his opponent Muhammad Ahmed Chatha of PML-J by a margin of 40,000 votes.

Mr. Chatha challenged the result in the election tribunal alleging that his opponent Justice (R) Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema had not disclosed the details of his assets in the nomination papers.

The tribunal however rejected his plea and later on Mr. Chatha challenged the tribunal’s verdict in the Supreme Court. On Monday, during the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner Muhammad Ahmed Chatha argued before the court that Mr. Cheema had concealed his assets in the nomination form. The counsel for Mr. Cheema argued that his client had not mentioned details of assets and bank accounts which were not related to him.

He further submitted that his client had no mala fide intention to do so adding that his client could not be disqualified on this. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the court ordered re-polling and directed the ECP to de-notify the membership of Mr. Cheema.

I am afraid two cases are entirely different. One you just quoted was brought to SC under it's appellant jurisdiction while one being heard, Panama scam case, was brought to SC under 184(3) which falls within the original jurisdiction of SC in matters related to public importance. "How far jurisdiction under 184(3) can be extended" question which three judges of the bench have been asking from day one.

 

[Realistic Change]

Here, my opinion is different. When the three member bench will admit any evidences (if they can record evidences) against shareefs, these evidences can be considered by the rest of the two judges. They don't need to grill anyone, but merely on the basis of evidences presented by JIT and accepted by the implementation bench, no one can stop them from making any changes in their verdict.



Maza aayega.. Justice Khosa will once again say, pehlay verdict parh lena uss ke baad shor machana.. then he will start announcing.. NS is not sadiq ameen (in the opinion of majority of judges) and stands DQ..

Uss se ziada maza uss waqt aaye, jab Saad Rafiq aur Khwaja Asif phir bhi mithai baantain..




But I have read somewhere that Khuwaja Haris told the court that NS declared Saudi Account?

Haris-totle ke kaan mey sarghoshi ki ho tou yakeen kar leitey hain - wagarna ECP sey tou it was kept secret in 2013.

I am amazed how much $harif and his family fantasize about being Erdogan - feeling they couldn't become like him (Erdogan) so they settled at becoming just .... Khurdurdagaan.

@Farah Sohail @PakSword @Moonlight @Imad.Khan @Guvera @Verve @Boomin' Bomber I.J. @Syed1. @Peregrine_Falcon

 

[Farah Sohail]

Here, my opinion is different. When the three member bench will admit any evidences (if they can record evidences) against shareefs, these evidences can be considered by the rest of the two judges. They don't need to grill anyone, but merely on the basis of evidences presented by JIT and accepted by the implementation bench, no one can stop them from making any changes in their verdict.

My opinion is different... Justice Khosa is a judge.. Its a basic legal principle ke koi bhi judge one sided opinion sunn kar verdict nahi de sakta.. Dono sides ke arguments hotay hain, behas hoti hai,,uske baad judge verdict detay hain.. Ye jo aapki opinion hai, ke if 3 member bench admits evidence aur uski basis par Justice Khosa aur Gulzar addition kardein..mujhe is liye theek nahi lagti ke koi bhi judge kabhi kisi doosray par depend nahi karta..usay apni ek apni independent opinion deni hoti hai.. Ye nahi hosakta ke koi judge case na sunay aur woh doosray ki opinion blindly accept kar le.. Ek hi bench ke saamnay case chal raha hota aur judges main split hoti hai, tu koi judge blindly kaisy doosray judge ki opinion accept karsakta hai, jab uske saamnay arguments na huay hon? Even panama case man hi Justice Khosa and Gulzar dissented with these judges...ab JIT ki report par arguments sunay baghair kaisy....woh blindly kaisy verdict de saktay hain? Agar sirf blindly JIT report ki basis par verdict banta tu yeh 3 judges dobara JIT. Report par hearing na karrahay hotay.. Simply keh detay ke hum ne JIT banwaayi thee..ab report aagayi..hum is par apni samajh ke mutabiq faisla de detay hain.. Lekin nahi.. JIT report open court main discuss horahi hai, dono sides ke arguments sunein ge..uske baad hi woh JIT report ki basis par verdict dein ge.. Is liye mujhe nahi lagta ke ye possible hai JIT report par arguments sunay baghair Justice Khosa aur Gulzar apnay previous verdict main additions karsakein

Ye tu almost har routine case main hota hai bench ki taraf se ek hi verdict likha jaata hai aur judges us par sign kartay hain...but tht happens when all judges have heard the case personally aur jo majority judges ki opinion hoti hai, woh koi ek judge likh deta hai..

 

[PakSword]

I am afraid two cases are entirely different. One you just quoted was brought to SC under it's appellant jurisdiction while one being heard, Panama scam case, was brought to SC under 184(3) which falls within the original jurisdiction of SC in matters related to public importance. "How far jurisdiction under 184(3) can be extended" question which three judges of the bench have been asking from day one.

Many people say that SC can go to "any extent" under 184(3)?

 

[Farah Sohail]

Who is this pakora judge you have been talking about?

Pakora judge is Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed

Advocate is Justice Ejaz Afzal

@Emmie i think.. Humein is thread ke first page par ye info bhi update kar dena chahye.. Har thoray din baad members advocate aur pakora ke baaray main poochtay hain