Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion
- Thread starter war&peace
- Start date
- Status
QatariPrince
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
ISLAMABAD: Legal wizards of the Sharif family have expressed fears that strong observations made by the five-member Supreme Court in the Panamagate verdict against members of the ruling family might create prejudice in the investigation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
A senior PML-N leader told The Express Tribune that legal minds of the ruling party and the Sharif family’s legal team have started deliberations over whether to file a review petition or not against the April 20 judgment.
He also revealed that the legal team had strong reservations over the observations made by every member of the larger bench against members of the ruling family, particularly Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
“We fail to understand why the SC judges have given observations before the outcome of the JIT’s investigation.”
Likewise, the senior PML-N leader stated that when the SC judges were saying that they could not examine evidence at this stage, then why they had considered and given observations on it, believing that the judgment should not be delivered on personal likes and dislikes.
A senior PML-N lawyer, who was initially part of the legal team, believes that the respondents must file a review petition; otherwise the JIT’s investigation will be prejudiced.
In this regard counsel for Prime Minister Makhoom Ali Khan, who lives in Karachi, arrived in Islamabad on Monday.
On the other hand, a senior PTI leader told The Express Tribune that the party’s legal team has recommended the leadership not to file a review petition as they should only monitor the JIT’s investigation so that 60 days timeline could not be extended.
It is also learnt that the Supreme Court office has sought three names from each department regarding formation of the JIT to probe the Panamagate case.
Sources said that a letter has been sent by the SC office to the FIA, NAB, the State Bank, SECP, the ISI and the MI for recommending three names for the constitution of the JIT.
The SC judgment had asked heads of these departments to send in their respective nominees within seven days so that they can be placed before the bench for nomination and approval. The seven days deadline is going to end on Thursday.
It is also learnt that all these departments have started consultations to shortlist their respective nominees.
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Rauf Klasra on CJ statement about dissenting notes.. Must watch
@PakSword @Guvera @Baghial
https://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthr...Asif-Khosa-ke-liye-tareefon-ke-pul-bandh-diye
@PakSword @Guvera @Baghial
https://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthr...Asif-Khosa-ke-liye-tareefon-ke-pul-bandh-diye
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
I hope....what is said in this report ...is not true.. It says tht Justice Khosa and Advocate might not be part of this bench...
But Justice Khosa tu khud keh chukay hain ke main chairman NAB ke against reference is liye file nahi karraha..becoz i am member of supreme judicial council...
Ab agar CJ unhien supreme judicial council se..is case ke liye alag kartay hain..it will be grave injustice... I hope this is not true.. Justice Khosa is a member of SJC.. He should be there... Unki wajah se advocate ko bhi SJC main bardasht kar lein ge
El_Swordsmen
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2016
- Messages
- 991
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Boomin' Bomber I.J.
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
What happened to the condition that no new evidence shall be accepted by the JIT? What are they going to investigate anyhow?
PakSword
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 19,505
- Reaction score
- 103
- Country
- Location
Honorable Justice Ejaz Afzal Muzalleh Aleh Farmatay hain:
A reading of Article 4 of the Constitution would reveal that no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do. While a reading of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the ROPA would reveal that none of them requires any member of Parliament to account for his assets or those of his dependents even if they are disproportionate to his known means of income. Section 12(2)(f) of the ROPA requires him to disclose his assets and those of his spouse and dependents and not the means whereby such assets are acquired. Where none of the provisions of the Constitution or the Act dealing with disqualifications requires a member of Parliament to account for his assets and those of his dependents, even if they are disproportionate to his known means of income, how could this Court on its own or on a petition of any person under Article 184(3) of the Constitution require him to do that......
@Farah Sohail @Verve @Arsalan
A reading of Article 4 of the Constitution would reveal that no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do. While a reading of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the ROPA would reveal that none of them requires any member of Parliament to account for his assets or those of his dependents even if they are disproportionate to his known means of income. Section 12(2)(f) of the ROPA requires him to disclose his assets and those of his spouse and dependents and not the means whereby such assets are acquired. Where none of the provisions of the Constitution or the Act dealing with disqualifications requires a member of Parliament to account for his assets and those of his dependents, even if they are disproportionate to his known means of income, how could this Court on its own or on a petition of any person under Article 184(3) of the Constitution require him to do that......
@Farah Sohail @Verve @Arsalan
Baghial
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2017
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
This Act may be called the Representation of the People Act,1976.
ISLAMABAD, May 25 (APP): PTI MNA disqualified by SC; re-election in NA-162
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an Election Tribunal verdict and disqualified Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s Member National Assembly (MNA) Rai Hassan Nawaz elected from NA-162 Checha Watni.
The court also ordered re-election in the constituency. The three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali heard the case filed by Rai Hassan Nawaz against his disqualification by an ET.
The Election Tribunal disqualified Hassan Nawaz for concealing details of his assets on the application of his opponent candidate Haji Yaqoob.
The court ordered re-election in the constituency and disposed of the case.
ISLAMABAD, May 25 (APP): PTI MNA disqualified by SC; re-election in NA-162
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an Election Tribunal verdict and disqualified Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s Member National Assembly (MNA) Rai Hassan Nawaz elected from NA-162 Checha Watni.
The court also ordered re-election in the constituency. The three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali heard the case filed by Rai Hassan Nawaz against his disqualification by an ET.
The Election Tribunal disqualified Hassan Nawaz for concealing details of his assets on the application of his opponent candidate Haji Yaqoob.
The court ordered re-election in the constituency and disposed of the case.
QatariPrince
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
When the Panama verdict was announced images of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif celebrating with his family were splattered across the media with Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz has distributed sweets among its followers.
Five days after the verdict, reports have emerged that Nawaz Sharif seems to be ‘unhappy’ with the team of lawyers who represented his family in the Panama case, it was pointed out in Geo News show Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath on Tuesday.
Speaking on the issues, Geo News special correspondent Zahid Gishkori remarked that Nawaz Sharif had to evaluate why the verdict was not completely in his favour.
Reports suggest that PM Nawaz Sharif was disappointed with his legal team, and hasn’t even talked to them or engaged in any legal consultancy since the verdict was announced, remarked the special correspondent.
Read more: Detailed Supreme Court verdict on Panama Papers case
Sources revealed that the senior lawyer, representing the Sharif family, had given them wrong advice. The Sharif family had provided the legal team with all the necessary documents yet two of the lawyers did not present them in front of the court.
Moreover, PM Nawaz Sharif is also said to be upset over the manner the legal team presented the Qatari letter in the court, said Gishkori.
He added, the Sharif family has all the required documents and will present them in front of Joint-Investigation Team, according to the source.
Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan Salman Akram Raja, who represented Nawaz Sharif’s sons, has also not made any statement since the verdict was announced, it was pointed out in the show.
On January 4, PM and his children had submitted documents in SC notifying a change of counsel in the Panamagate case. According to the documents, Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan Makhdoom Ali Khan, would represent the PM instead of Salman Aslam Butt.
Hassan and Hussain Nawaz were to be represented by Salman Akram Raja, while Shahid Hamid will represent Maryam Nawaz and Ishaq Dar
Five days after the verdict, reports have emerged that Nawaz Sharif seems to be ‘unhappy’ with the team of lawyers who represented his family in the Panama case, it was pointed out in Geo News show Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath on Tuesday.
Speaking on the issues, Geo News special correspondent Zahid Gishkori remarked that Nawaz Sharif had to evaluate why the verdict was not completely in his favour.
Reports suggest that PM Nawaz Sharif was disappointed with his legal team, and hasn’t even talked to them or engaged in any legal consultancy since the verdict was announced, remarked the special correspondent.
Read more: Detailed Supreme Court verdict on Panama Papers case
Sources revealed that the senior lawyer, representing the Sharif family, had given them wrong advice. The Sharif family had provided the legal team with all the necessary documents yet two of the lawyers did not present them in front of the court.
Moreover, PM Nawaz Sharif is also said to be upset over the manner the legal team presented the Qatari letter in the court, said Gishkori.
He added, the Sharif family has all the required documents and will present them in front of Joint-Investigation Team, according to the source.
Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan Salman Akram Raja, who represented Nawaz Sharif’s sons, has also not made any statement since the verdict was announced, it was pointed out in the show.
On January 4, PM and his children had submitted documents in SC notifying a change of counsel in the Panamagate case. According to the documents, Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan Makhdoom Ali Khan, would represent the PM instead of Salman Aslam Butt.
Hassan and Hussain Nawaz were to be represented by Salman Akram Raja, while Shahid Hamid will represent Maryam Nawaz and Ishaq Dar
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Honorable Justice Ejaz Afzal Muzalleh Aleh Farmatay hain:
A reading of Article 4 of the Constitution would reveal that no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do. While a reading of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and Section 99 of the ROPA would reveal that none of them requires any member of Parliament to account for his assets or those of his dependents even if they are disproportionate to his known means of income. Section 12(2)(f) of the ROPA requires him to disclose his assets and those of his spouse and dependents and not the means whereby such assets are acquired. Where none of the provisions of the Constitution or the Act dealing with disqualifications requires a member of Parliament to account for his assets and those of his dependents, even if they are disproportionate to his known means of income, how could this Court on its own or on a petition of any person under Article 184(3) of the Constitution require him to do that......
@Farah Sohail @Verve @Arsalan
Ye aap ne aaj parha???
Main ne tu 2-3 din pehle hi parh liya tha
Is liye hi kaha tha ke is ke liye Advocate ka title waqayi bilkol fit hai Afterall he has earned this title through his sheer hardwork and committmentAb bench main aisy judges ke hotay huay...Justice Khosa harsh tone main verdict na likhtay tu kia kartay???
QatariPrince
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,494
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
JIT ko bhi puncture lag rahy hain
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
If this news is true...tu lagta hai ke
Wajid Zia must be a corrupt person..ke sirf wohi Nawaz Sharif ke mayar par poora utra..JIT ke liye...aur baqi ko chutti par bhej diya
Acha hua...ab ye majority judges ko bhi pata lagay aur woh bhi expose hon ke unhon ne kiya topi drama kiya hai, qoum ke saath
Boomin' Bomber I.J.
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2017
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Amidst all this confusion and air of insecurity, I find Ch. Ghulam Rasool, a breath of fresh air and hope. I love his DNA programme on 24 News HD. Tonight he has declared NS will finally be resigning in a week or two. CH. Sahib did not say so, but I believe it might have been the price the PM has to pay to clear his daughter's name from Dawn Leaks.
PakSword
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 19,505
- Reaction score
- 103
- Country
- Location
We should always read completely opposite of what Ishaq Dar says..
Afsos hua buhat.. Lekin ziada nahi hua kyun ke it was expected.
@Farah Sohail
Farah Sohail
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 7,228
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
- Status
