Web Desk
The Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed its curiosity regarding the decision of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) to separate its main case from its petition during the Panama Papers hearings. The JI had sought an investigation against 436 individuals, including a particular family, accused of concealing wealth in foreign offshore companies.
Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, heading a two-judge bench, questioned the reasons behind the separation of the JI petition after 24 hearings during the Panama Papers proceedings. He further pondered whether the intention was to keep the focus solely on a specific family. Justice Masood implied that there may be hidden motives behind the separation of the case.
The JI had filed a pending petition in August 2016, and on November 3, 2017, the party submitted an application to remind the Supreme Court about its pending plea. Although the judge did not elaborate further, he remarked that there seemed to be more to the situation than met the eye.
In July 2017, a five-judge bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, disqualified former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for life based on the Panama Papers revelations, highlighting his lack of honesty as a politician.
During the recent hearing, when the court questioned the significance of pursuing the 436 individuals mentioned in the Panama Papers for the country’s benefit, JI counsel Muhammad Ishtiaq Ahmed Raja, representing the JI, argued that the issue involved public money. Justice Masood retorted by asking why the JI did not raise these concerns when the case was initially separated after 24 hearings.
The counsel expressed regret that the investigating agencies had issued notices to the 436 individuals but no progress had been made since then. The court reminded the counsel that the investigating agencies had already submitted their responses to the court when the JI had separated its cases.
At the beginning of the hearing, the JI chief requested the formation of a judicial commission to investigate the matter. However, Justice Masood questioned why it had taken the petitioner so long to raise these concerns.
The court observed that among the 436 individuals mentioned in the Panama Papers leaks, the names of certain business personalities were also included. This led to the court wondering whether the petitioner intended to drive the business class away from the country.
Additionally, the court questioned why investigating agencies such as the National Accountability Bureau, the Federal Investigation Agency, and anti-corruption departments were not approached to investigate the individuals implicated in the Panama Papers.
The court expressed surprise that the petitioner had not reached out to any investigating agency despite seven years having passed since the Panama Papers case decision. The court questioned whether the petitioner genuinely believed that the nation’s wealth had been laundered outside the country.
In 2016, a five-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa had segregated the case at the JI’s request, as the grounds taken in the plea were too broad. The court referred to the law regarding Article 184(3) concerning suo motu powers and raised questions about the admissibility of cases under the court’s original jurisdiction.
Justice Masood postponed the proceedings for a month, stating that the court could not make a decision without hearing the 436 individuals accused of concealing wealth in offshore companies.
