LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday sought reply from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) after the prime minister (PM) submitted his reply to a petition.
Later, Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah postponed hearing until December 1.
National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq and the Law Ministry also submitted their replies justifying the impugned decision and requested to dismiss the petition. On Wednesday, Salman Butt submitted reply on behalf of the PM. In his reply, the PM not only challenged the territorial but also the constitutional jurisdiction of the LHC to take up the petition.
Nawaz submitted that contents of Panama Papers had no credibility/standing in the eyes of law and are inadmissible in evidence before a court as it was based on news clippings. He stated that the speaker duly passed the impugned order in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Article 63(2) of the constitution.
He stated that the reference filed before the speaker was devoid of any merit and substance and has been rightly dismissed by the speaker. He also stated that the court in a number of judgments had held that such a decision by the speaker could not be raised in a court.
He denied the allegations of obtaining loans and any of the London-based property referred to him in the reference dismissed by Ayaz Sadiq. The PM stated that he had not defaulted in any of his obligation towards any financial institution as alleged by the petitioner.
He reiterated his stance that Hassan Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz and Maryam Sardar were not his dependent. He stated that the petitioner failed to substantiate the incorrect, false and misconceived revelations made in the Panama papers through credible, cogent and admissible evidence.
He stated that no adverse order has been passed against him in any of the judgements of the court cited by the petitioner in the reference. He also stated that the petitioner was not locus standi (aggrieved person) and could not become party against the PM.
He requested to dismiss the petition for being not maintainable and to burden the petitioner with heavy cost for initiating a false and frivolous litigation.
Justice and Democratic Party (JDP) member Umar Farooq had challenged the PM’s eligibility as a lawmaker. He said Ayaz Sadiq had dismissed as not maintainable all references against the PM on the basis of Panama leaks revelations wherein the premier’s sons and daughter were accused of running offshore companies with the money allegedly not declared to the tax authorities and their assets abroad.
He submitted that the PM was bound to declare his offshore companies and property abroad to the ECP, but he failed to do so, which rendered him disqualified to be a member of the National Assembly. He said the speaker did not address at least 15 questions set in the reference and those on which he ruled, deviated from the actual context of the matter.
He submitted that the speaker while dealing with the reference, had overstepped his authority by exercising judicial powers and decided the issue, which fell in the ECP’s jurisdiction. He said the speaker was bound to put the references before the ECP.
He said the PM had to disclose the source of his income when the foreign assets of his family had become an admitted fact. He said the court had already held a person is bound to prove his innocence when his relation by any means is associated with the resources amassed illegally. He asserted that in light of the court’s command the issue of terms of reference for Panama inquiry would have also been solved automatically as it would have become legal binding on the PM to establish conformity in the sources of his assets and that of his other family members.
The petitioner requested the court to declare the speaker’s decision as null and void.
.jpg)
