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

[Farah Sohail]

Interesting developments, agar qasoor waar hain tu throw them out of assembly, nobody shud be bigger then the Justice & same goes for Chairmen NAB

True..if even IK or Jehangir Tareen or anyone else has done something wrong..then they should also be disqualified.. If they are innocent..then good..

However theres one more interesting thing.. I think this petition will also be under 184/3... So lets see...what the majority side in this case decises tht whether SC in this article can disqualify someone one directly... Infact a part of me, wants SC to decide, what Justice Khosa and justice G ulzar declared tht yes, we can disqualify anyone under article 184/3...

Because ..is precedent se phir baqi sab assembly members bhi 62/63 par disqualify hosakein ge.. Agar ek kisi ki qurbani se aisa precedent set hojaata hai..tu its a good thing.. Although Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar have already given many references in their judgment, tht such precedents afe there, when SC has directly disqualifued ppl.. So precedent is already ther

Regd Chairman NAB.. We atleast have one vote in our favor there. Justice Khosa is there in SJC.. Lekin masla ye hai ke advocate bhi supreme judicial council ke member hain

Oh acha.. Just heard......SJC, 16th May ko sirf yeh decide karay gi.....ke Chairman NAB ke against PTI ka reference...admissible hai ya nahi? If they decide ke..ye reference admissible hai...uske baad phir further proceedings hongiii...

 

[Guvera]

True..if even IK or Jehangir Tareen or anyone else has done something wrong..then they should also be disqualified.. If they are innocent..then good..

However theres one more interesting thing.. I think this petition will also be under 184/3... So lets see...what the majority side in this case decises tht whether SC in this article can disqualify someone one directly... Infact a part of me, wants SC to decide, what Justice Khosa and justice G ulzar declared tht yes, we can disqualify anyone under article 184/3...

Because ..is precedent se phir baqi sab assembly members bhi 62/63 par disqualify hosakein ge.. Agar ek kisi ki qurbani se aisa precedent set hojaata hai..tu its a good thing.. Although Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar have already given many references in their judgment, tht such precedents afe there, when SC has directly disqualifued ppl.. So precedent is already ther

Regd Chairman NAB.. We atleast have one vote in our favor there. Justice Khosa is there in SJC.. Lekin masla ye hai ke advocate bhi supreme judicial council ke member hain

Oh acha.. Just heard......SJC, 16th May ko sirf yeh decide karay gi.....ke Chairman NAB ke against PTI ka reference...admissible hai ya nahi? If they decide ke..ye reference admissible hai...uske baad phir further proceedings hongiii...

Advocate ko tu Allah pochay ga

 

[Farah Sohail]

Advocate ko tu Allah pochay ga

Mujhe tu ye darr hai ke 16th May ko advocate..Chairman NAB ke against reference ki admissibility par hi sawaal na uthaa dey is ne panama case mian bhi apnay remarks se aisy sawaal bhtt dafa uthaanay ki koshish ki thee.. Advocate ki poori koshish thee ke panama case petition suni hi na jaye........Abhi 16th May ko tu admissibility decide honi hai.. Wahan advocate garbar na kar dey advocate se kuch bhi expect kiya jasakta hai

 

[Arsalan]

SC has fixed hearing of Hanif Abbasi's petition against Imran Khan and Jehangir Tareen's offshore companies...

Its a 3member bench headed by CJ Saqib Nisar, and includes Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and Justice Faisal Arab.. Hearing will start from 3rd May... So no member of panama case is here...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1302134429862206

@PakSword @Guvera @Arsalan

SC has also fixed hearing of PTI's reference against Chairman NAB in Supreme Judicial Council on 16th May, to decide whether its admissible or not? If they decide on admissibility..uske baad Chairman NAB ko notice jaayega

https://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthr...airman-NAB-from-the-post-approved-for-hearing.

Good. I hope justice is served and no JIT is required this time. Whatever the truth is shall be brought to light!!

 

[Guvera]

Mujhe tu ye darr hai ke 16th May ko advocate..Chairman NAB ke against reference ki admissibility par hi sawaal na uthaa dey is ne panama case mian bhi apnay remarks se aisy sawaal bhtt dafa uthaanay ki koshish ki thee.. Advocate ki poori koshish thee ke panama case petition suni hi na jaye........Abhi 16th May ko tu admissibility decide honi hai.. Wahan advocate garbar na kar dey advocate se kuch bhi expect kiya jasakta hai

Yehi ghanemat hai ke Advocate aglay saal retire hojyega warna tu pata nahi kia kia gul khilata yeh admi

 

[Farah Sohail]

Yehi ghanemat hai ke Advocate aglay saal retire hojyega warna tu pata nahi kia kia gul khilata yeh admi

Waqayi.. As @PakSword said. Advocate....dharti pe bojh hai.... Jitni jaldi is dharti pe bojh se chutkaara milay... Utna hi acha hai..

 

[Panther 57]

However theres one more interesting thing.. I think this petition will also be under 184/3... So lets see...what the majority side in this case decises tht whether SC in this article can disqualify someone one directly... Infact a part of me, wants SC to decide, what Justice Khosa and justice G ulzar declared tht yes, we can disqualify anyone under article 184/3...

Justice Gulzar has thrashed the logic of majority opinion of court jurisdiction and authority. THE one also appears to be a similar case as referred to by Justice Gulzar through a play talking about soul. Justice Khosa has been very eloquent and sententious. He explicitly explained his point of view on disqualification. So did justice Gulzar dilated on jurisdiction under 184. The majority opinion was not corroborated with sufficient arguments, logic and reference.

In my opinion majority decision is technical justice and not "complete justice" as desired under 184 and fundamental rights of citizens.

 

[Farah Sohail]

Justice Gulzar has thrashed the logic of majority opinion of court jurisdiction and authority. THE one also appears to be a similar case as referred to by Justice Gulzar through a play talking about soul. Justice Khosa has been very eloquent and sententious. He explicitly explained his point of view on disqualification. So did justice Gulzar dilated on jurisdiction under 184. The majority opinion was not corroborated with sufficient arguments, logic and reference.

In my opinion majority decision is technical justice and not "complete justice" as desired under 184 and fundamental rights of citizens.

Very true.. Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar gave proper legal references and justification on direct disqualification and jurisdiction of SC, under 184/3 in this regard.... Justice Khosa also mentioned article 187 of the constituition, which talks abt doing complete justice .. He said SC is court of justice, unlike other courts, which are only courts of law..

I wouldnt even call majority verdict as technical "justice" .. Rather only technical application of law...

 

[PakSword]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

lollll...

https://twitter.com/x/status/857934550009208832

Beginning of the end?

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[fatman17]

Pressure mounts

 

[Realistic Change]

View attachment 393580View attachment 393581View attachment 393582View attachment 393583
Pressure mounts

"This is not more than 1,500 - I have counted it myself"

~ Parvez Rashid

 

[Panther 57]

Very true.. Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar gave proper legal references and justification on direct disqualification and jurisdiction of SC, under 184/3 in this regard.... Justice Khosa also mentioned article 187 of the constituition, which talks abt doing complete justice .. He said SC is court of justice, unlike other courts, which are only courts of law..

I wouldnt even call majority verdict as technical "justice" .. Rather only technical application of law...

After having read complete judgement I feel that rumors of 4:1 against MNS appear to be correct, with Justice Ejaz Ahmed Khan representing 1. He has negated all available material on the matter and indirectly talked about maintainability. It gives the background of Justice Gulzar's elaborate discussion on jurisdiction. Impliedly he has contested Justice Ejaz Khan. Justice Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejaz ul Ahsan has concurred with all the material evidence endorsed by Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar and at the end refrained from declaring MNS disqualified. In my opinion following is the merit list because of its quality.
1. Justice Khosa - Absolutely unconventional judgement and very well articulated
2. Justice Gulzar -Thorough explanation of this understanding on point of law
3. Justice Azmat Saeed -
4. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan - A typical judgement dished out of courts
5. Justice Ejaz Khan - Total denial of everything.

 

[Farah Sohail]

After having read complete judgement I feel that rumors of 4:1 against MNS appear to be correct, with Justice Ejaz Ahmed Khan representing 1. He has negated all available material on the matter and indirectly talked about maintainability. It gives the background of Justice Gulzar's elaborate discussion on jurisdiction. Impliedly he has contested Justice Ejaz Khan. Justice Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejaz ul Ahsan has concurred with all the material evidence endorsed by Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar and at the end refrained from declaring MNS disqualified. In my opinion following is the merit list because of its quality.
1. Justice Khosa - Absolutely unconventional judgement and very well articulated
2. Justice Gulzar -Thorough explanation of this understanding on point of law
3. Justice Azmat Saeed -
4. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan - A typical judgement dished out of courts
5. Justice Ejaz Khan - Total denial of everything.

I have read two dissenting judgments, and verdict of Advocate Ijaz AFzal.. After reading advocate's judgment..I felt shocked at..at what length he could go..to defend corruption? esp when Advocate said tht PM is not required by law to declare his assets and neither he is required to explain how they were acquired? ..like..what the hell? Though I havent read pakora judge..but I know some arguments of pakora judge's verdict ....where he says tht...article 62/63 deals with legal honesty and not moral honesty? Like...what? What is he even trying to say? Does he mean....tht its ok...for a PM to be morally dishonest before the nation, and SC...and it has legal cover? most importantly..how will legal and moral honesty be differentiated?

I think advocate and pakora gave most absurd and lame arguments....

I have heard tht Justice Ijazul Ahsan's judgment is very similar to tht of Justice Khosa and Gulzar, but he disagreed on the conclusion...

Pakora has talked abt media debate too.. Us se bhi unhein problem thee..l think main goal of advocate and pakora, was some how .to try and bail out the PM...by giving weird and unreasonable arguments......esp Advocate wrote his judgment with no other objective in his mind...

 

[BHarwana]

Panama sa bara drama ho gaya hai. Dawnleaks Army has rejected the report

 

[Arsalan]

Panama sa bara drama ho gaya hai. Dawnleaks Army has rejected the report

NPML!!

NEW Pakistan Muslim League. Because if anyone thing that with NS gone the PMLN will become a beacon of hope and progress, perhaps he have never heard about Khawaja Saad. Khawaja Asif, Pervaiz Rasheed, Abid Sher ALi, TAlal Chaudray, Chaudray Nisar, RANA SANAULLAH and goon like these. The list is very very long.