Don’t want to set dangerous precedent of disqualifying PM on mere assumption: SC

Don’t want to set dangerous precedent of disqualifying PM on mere assumption: SC

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court on Tuesday gave comments that “If the Prime
Minister was disqualified on insignificant presumption it would set an unsafe point
of reference and we would prefer not to set such point of reference.”

The larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa heard Panamagate case.

At the very beginning of the hearing to, the presiding judge Asif Saeed Khosa pulled back his
remarks over Article 62 and 63 of the constitution given amid yesterday’s hearing. The judge
expressed his regret over the comment.

PTI’s lead counsel Naeem Bukhari proceeded with his contentions. He included that
Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has arranged a report against Ishaq Dar on government
evasion, which was wrote by previous FIA Director Rehman Malik.

He also included that the report had been sent to the then President Rafique Tarar,
Chief Justice of Pakistan and National Accountability Bureau (NAB) yet no step was made on the report.

On this, Justice Gulzar Ahmed cautioned Bukhari to stay kept to the principle case
and just response to whatever was being asked from him.

The PTI direct once against repeated that Dar had admitted to money laundering. Upon this,
Justice Azmat Saeed while tending to the PTI direct stated: “Bukhari Sahib fulfill this court
as opposed to making speech to the country. You are forcing us to take choice on the basis of
sentiment with no proof. The report you are alluding to has been dismisses by even
FIA itself and how we can give judgment on such report.”

At one phase, Justice Khosa commented: “Bukhari Sahib, your exploration is
unprecedented. Be that as it may, what the utilization of it when you have himself
requested that the summit court research the matter first and after that give choice by
shaping trail court. Right now, the matter under the court is a constitutional question of
exclusion, so how we can hold trial.”

Upon this, Bukhari said that the lead advice was Hamid Khan and he was really an
“extra” legal counselor in the matter. “After recusition of Hamid Khan from the case,
the entire weight was moved on his shoulders,” he answered.

On this, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheik commented in a lighter vein: ” Bukhari Sahib
now you have gone to the pitch, I will encourage you to not to play by leaving the wrinkle.”

Proceeding with his contention, Bukhari told the court that the Prime Minister’s children
begun their organizations in the wake of offering Jeddah Mills. He included that
there were 20 million lakes in 12 organizations of Hassan Nawaz which invalidated
the position of the Prime Minister.

Upon this Justice Azmat Saeed asked from Bukhair whether anyplace on the
planet any court had given choice on the premise of Panama breaks. He additionally
asked from the PTI guide whether any court can give choice without reasonable trial? Upon this,
Bukhari answered “you may begin this.” To which Justice Ejaz Afzal commented that
“Excluding the leader on minor suspicion would be a risky legal point of reference and we
would prefer not to set any such point of reference.”

He doubted with reference to whether it is proper to give judgment on records which
did not satisfy the lawful necessities.

During Tuesday’s hearing, fascinating contentions was traded between PTI counsel
Naeem Bukhari and Justice Azmat Saeed Sheik. At a certain point Justice Azmat Saeed
while tending to Bukahir said that on the off chance that you need we will encourage you
to some degree. Bukhari answered: “You just made obstacles for me during the hearing
and some of your remarks even hurt me.” Upon this, Justice Azmat Saeed said that he was
sad for harming him, adding that their point was to get to the bottom of the matter and uncover reality.

He additionally said that they didn’t need just to listen to the advice’s contentions
and give judgment on the basis of it.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that Qatari’s letter appeared to like hearsay, including
that you may bring up issues over it legitimate status.

Later the court suspended further hearing till Wednesday.

Written by 

Related posts

Leave a Comment

error: Content is protected !!