SC urged to probe allegations of manipulation in Panamagate

The Islamabad Bar Affiliation has really useful that the Supreme Court docket direct the federal authorities to nominate an inquiry fee to confirm the allegations made by former Islamabad Excessive Court docket (IHC) decide Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui concerning the manipulation of judicial proceedings by businesses within the Panama case.

As one of many petitioners within the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui case, the Islamabad Bar Affiliation, by way of its counsel Salahuddin Ahmed, has submitted written arguments to the apex court docket.

Within the submissions, Ahmed opposed the concept of referring the matter of the previous IHC decide again to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for a contemporary inquiry.

Within the written submission, counsel Salahuddin Ahmed states, “This Court docket could direct the Federal Authorities to nominate a Fee of Inquiry headed by a Decide of this Court docket underneath the Commissions of Inquiry Act 2017 to inquire into the matter and confirm the veracity or in any other case of the Respondent No.3’s allegations and make suggestions as to any motion underneath regulation to be taken by acceptable our bodies/boards towards the Respondent No.3 or the Respondent Nos.4, 6 and seven or another particular person. This Court docket has, on quite a few events, directed the formation of Commissions to establish information/make suggestions/implement court docket instructions.”

Learn extra: Procedures act ‘strengthened judiciary’, says SC

The bar additionally really useful that any inquiry to be performed in relation to the allegations of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui ought to be performed by this court docket itself underneath its ample powers of Article 184 (3) learn with Article 187 (1) of the Structure and acceptable instructions for additional motion could also be handed thereafter.

“Whether it is thought of enterprise the train instantly earlier than this Court docket is just too time-consuming, this Court docket has express powers underneath Order 32 of the Supreme Court docket Guidelines 1980 (learn with Order XXVI Guidelines 9 and 10 CPC) to difficulty commissions for investigation “for the aim of elucidating any matter in dispute” and the fee’s report could thereafter be handled as proof for the aim of any additional orders.”

Additionally it is submitted that in both case, the general public curiosity requires that any preliminary dedication of the veracity or in any other case of the allegations shouldn’t merely be for the needs of creating the historic report. Moderately, to make sure deterrence sooner or later, the wrongdoer/s have to be visited by acceptable proceedings and penalties.

“The answer doesn’t lie, nonetheless, to ship the matter for enquiry to the SJC – a discussion board that not enjoys any constitutional jurisdiction over the matter (and which, in any case, doesn’t have the facility to even give its opinion or cross any suggestions in relation to non-judicial officers alleged to be concerned),” it added.

It’s acknowledged that if Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s allegations of Lt.  Gen. (R) Faiz Hameed and Brigadier (retd) Irfan Ramay are true, then they’ve prima facie, dedicated, “felony contempt of court docket (obstructing or prejudicing the course of justice) throughout the which means of part 2 (d), 3 and 6 of the Contempt of Court docket Ordinance 2003, offences underneath sections 162, 163, 166 and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code.  (As per part 161 PPC, the gratification talked about in part 162 and 163 PPC needn’t essentially be pecuniary in nature.”

Furthermore, the time period “public servant” outlined underneath part 21 PPC consists of any commissioned army officer and each decide.), perjury of their assertion earlier than this Court docket punishable underneath sections 191, 193 and 199 PPC, violated their Oath of Workplace underneath Schedule III to the Structure and their relevant service guidelines, rules and self-discipline.

Equally, if Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s allegations are true Justice (R) Anwar Kasi, has prima facie dedicated felony contempt of court docket throughout the which means of part 2 (d), 3 and 6 of the Contempt of Court docket Ordinance 2003, offences underneath sections 162, 166 and 186 of the PPC, perjury in his assertion earlier than this court docket punishable underneath part 191, 193 and 199 PPC, violated his oath of workplace underneath Schedule III to the Structure.

However, if ex-IHC decide allegations are false, he has prima facie dedicated judicial contempt of court docket by bringing the judiciary in disrepute and scandalising a decide throughout the which means of part 2 (c) and three of the Contempt of Court docket Ordinance 2003, perjury in his assertion earlier than this court docket punishable underneath part 191, 193 and 199 PPC, defamed, the respondents No.4, 6 and seven and liable to each civil proceedings underneath the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and felony proceedings underneath part 499 and 500 PPC.

The counsel submitted that the petitioners admit the character of allegations made by Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui are such that they need to not merely be left hanging within the air.

“There’s a clear public significance in figuring out their reality or in any other case. Nonetheless, the matter doesn’t finish there.

“If Respondent No.3 was telling the reality; public curiosity calls for acceptable motion be taken towards the army and judicial officers who violated their respective constitutional oaths apart from violating the regulation.

Equally, if he was not telling the reality and has falsely maligned not solely particular person judicial and army officers however the judiciary as a complete, he ought to face additional penalties prescribed underneath regulation (and never merely removing from service)”

The counsel states that with a view to enable court docket martial proceedings towards retired military officers, there’s a particular legislative provision permitting the identical if proceedings are commenced inside six months of retirement. To deliver an identical change in relation to superior court docket judges and the jurisdiction of the SJC, an modification to the structure can be mandatory, says the written submission.