ISLAMABAD: The Watan Party has once again approached the top court, challenging its ruling on Panamagate-related petitions, wherein the court had ruled that the court shall itself draft the terms of reference (ToRs) if the parties did not reach a consensus for the Panamagate commission.
Watan Party’s Barrister Zafarullah Khan on Saturday filed an application, requesting to become a party to the case.
On November 1, the top court had dismissed Zafarullah’s plea with the observations that the court had already refused to form the commission, adding it was premature and “does not call for exercising court’s jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) at this juncture”.
Now, Zafarullah requested the top court to allow him to become a party to the Panamagate proceedings, keeping in view the law points so involved, which are not taken care of, including the jurisdiction of the top court.
Barrister Zafarullah made Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his children Maryam, Hassan and Hussain, his son-in-law Captain (r) Muhammad Safdar, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and others as respondents.
The appellant stated that he was the locus standi (privileged to become a party) whose presence before the court was necessary to enable the court to factually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the proceedings.
The CJP, while hearing the case on Tuesday, said a single member bench consisting of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court would be constituted for investigation into the scandal, adding that the commission would have all the powers.
In the application filed by Barrister Zafarullah Khan, who supports constitution of a parliamentary committee or panel to look into the Panamagate, has submitted that the court can’t constitute a commission since the Enquiry Commission Bill 2016 is already pending in parliament for approval.
He stated that the Supreme Court could not frame its own ToRs in the case of conflicting views between the opposition and the government. The applicant stated that it was difficult to understand how the Supreme Court could interfere in the legislative functions of parliament. “It’s not in court’s jurisdiction to hear a dispute between political family,” he said, adding that such cases could be exploited by anti-judiciary elements. He further stated that parliament was the only lawmaking forum and was responsible for the people of Pakistan, adding that courts were to act on their passed laws. “The Supreme Court or any other court cannot suggest or recommend any law to be promulgated,” the application stated.
Zafarullah further stated that in fact there would be no difficulty if this function was performed by the parliamentary committee without any interference by law.
He stated that if gossips and rumours were written in foreign journals by anybody then the whole nation was at risk, as people would be guilty until they were proven otherwise.
“This might be the best way to squeeze money out of our pockets and, later on, to take possession of these properties in the name of corruption,” the application stated.
The appellant further stated, “We need to have solid proof … to declare that money so obtained was illegal.”
It may be mentioned here that a five-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Anwar Zaheer Jamali, would resume hearing of the Panamagate case tomorrow (Monday) in which various parties would submit their ToRs for the probe commission. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has already submitted its ToRs, while
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his son-in-law Captain (r) Safdar, though their lawyer Salman Butt, have already submitted replies in the court.
