ALT LINK
Bilal Raza
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
ALT LINK
- Featured Thumbs
- https://i.imgur.com/wjqyCGv.jpg
Bachay koi nahi, saray baligh hain bachon ke bhi bachay hai, qanoon kehta hai 30 din main trial muka
- Thread starter Bilal Raza
- Start date
ALT LINK
Educationist
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Re: Bachay koi nahi, saray balig hai bachon ke bhi bachay hai, qnoon kehta hai 30 din main trail mukamal kerain - Justice Azmat Saeed to Khawaja Haris
Musafir123
Senator (1k+ posts)
https://www.siasat.pk/forum/showthread.php?578020-Bachay-koi-nahi-saray-balig-hai-bachon-ke-bhi-bachay-hai-qnoon-kehta-hai-30-din-main-trail-mukamal-kerain-Justice-Azmat-Saeed-to-Khawaja-Haris
The documents provided by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) looking into the Sharif family's businesses show that Nawaz Sharif did receive salary as the chairman of Capital FZE, said the Supreme Court judges on Thursday while hearing the review petitions against the Panama verdict.
The five-judge bench that decided upon the Panama case, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, continued hearing the review petitions filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his children and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar against the July 28 judgement. The bench also comprises justices Gulzar Ahmed, Ejaz Afzal, Azmat Saeed and Ijazul Ahsan.
Justice Ejaz Afzal said that the employment agreement stated that a salary of 10,000 dirhams had been set for Sharif.
"The JIT documents tell us that Sharif had an account to receive the salary," said Justice Ahsan, adding that according to the findings, [Sharif's] first salary was drawn on August 01, 2013.
Senior counsel Khawaja Haris, representing Nawaz Sharif, said that although his client was not backtracking from the employment agreement, he did not have a bank account for the purpose.
"The question is, how can the court accept verbally that Nawaz Sharif did not receive the salary?" questioned Justice Afzal, adding that a statement could not be accepted without scrutiny under the law of evidence.
Not every salary constitutes is an asset, Haris argued, adding that a salary is either in cash or deposited into bank.
"If a person eats a burger from an amount of money, the asset would belong to the burger-seller," Justice Saeed observed.
The counsel said he had been unable to find any precedents in which the court had applied Article 62(1)(f) to disqualify a public representative for not disclosing assets. The consitution does not specify the life-time limit of disqualification under Article 62, he claimed.
"Sharif did not merit disqualification only on the basis that although he had not withdrawn salary [from Capital FZE], it still consituted an asset [due to being a receivable]," he said.
The counsel contended that references could not be filed against the Sharif family on the basis of the JIT report, which he said was "incomplete".
"We did not issue the verdict in light of the JIT report," Justice Afzal responded, adding that court does not accept the report as credible evidence. He said the petitioners have the full right of defence in the accountability court.
The SC verdict of July 28 would not become a hindrance if some new revelation came on record during the trial, observed Justice Afzal.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa meanwhile observed that the apex court had in the past provided relief to Nawaz Sharif over violation of fundamental rights.
"Do not give the impression that the Supreme Court has become a complainant [against Sharif]," he said.
"Whenever cases were instituted against Sharif in violation of legal provisions, it was this Supreme Court that saved him."
'Disqualified for life?'
During Wednesday's hearing, the hea*ted debate on whether disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is for life briefly surfaced in the apex court.
The issue cropped up when Justice Afzal asked Haris to cite a precedent for permanent disqualification, when such a decision was handed down under Article 62(1)(f).
“Article 62(1)(f) is a new insertion in the Constitution, with its own implications and connotations that have far-reaching effects,” Justice Afzal had said, expressing the desire to hear out the counsel.
The issue came up when Haris asked why the apex court had handed down a lasting disqualification against his client in the Panama Papers case for merely receiving a salary as the chairman of Capital FZE, bypassing a fair trial without giving him the benefit of an appeal. This was done even though the petitioners never highlighted Capital FZE in their petition, he had said.
The counsel had also questioned the competence of all five judges to announce the final order of the court on July 28, when two were not part of the JIT implementation bench. However, Justice Khosa explained that the conclusion of the five judges on the question of Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification was the same, though their reasons were different.
Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1357628/j...receive-salary-from-capital-fze-supreme-court
The documents provided by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) looking into the Sharif family's businesses show that Nawaz Sharif did receive salary as the chairman of Capital FZE, said the Supreme Court judges on Thursday while hearing the review petitions against the Panama verdict.
The five-judge bench that decided upon the Panama case, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, continued hearing the review petitions filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his children and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar against the July 28 judgement. The bench also comprises justices Gulzar Ahmed, Ejaz Afzal, Azmat Saeed and Ijazul Ahsan.
Justice Ejaz Afzal said that the employment agreement stated that a salary of 10,000 dirhams had been set for Sharif.
"The JIT documents tell us that Sharif had an account to receive the salary," said Justice Ahsan, adding that according to the findings, [Sharif's] first salary was drawn on August 01, 2013.
Senior counsel Khawaja Haris, representing Nawaz Sharif, said that although his client was not backtracking from the employment agreement, he did not have a bank account for the purpose.
"The question is, how can the court accept verbally that Nawaz Sharif did not receive the salary?" questioned Justice Afzal, adding that a statement could not be accepted without scrutiny under the law of evidence.
Not every salary constitutes is an asset, Haris argued, adding that a salary is either in cash or deposited into bank.
"If a person eats a burger from an amount of money, the asset would belong to the burger-seller," Justice Saeed observed.
The counsel said he had been unable to find any precedents in which the court had applied Article 62(1)(f) to disqualify a public representative for not disclosing assets. The consitution does not specify the life-time limit of disqualification under Article 62, he claimed.
"Sharif did not merit disqualification only on the basis that although he had not withdrawn salary [from Capital FZE], it still consituted an asset [due to being a receivable]," he said.
The counsel contended that references could not be filed against the Sharif family on the basis of the JIT report, which he said was "incomplete".
"We did not issue the verdict in light of the JIT report," Justice Afzal responded, adding that court does not accept the report as credible evidence. He said the petitioners have the full right of defence in the accountability court.
The SC verdict of July 28 would not become a hindrance if some new revelation came on record during the trial, observed Justice Afzal.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa meanwhile observed that the apex court had in the past provided relief to Nawaz Sharif over violation of fundamental rights.
"Do not give the impression that the Supreme Court has become a complainant [against Sharif]," he said.
"Whenever cases were instituted against Sharif in violation of legal provisions, it was this Supreme Court that saved him."
'Disqualified for life?'
During Wednesday's hearing, the hea*ted debate on whether disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is for life briefly surfaced in the apex court.
The issue cropped up when Justice Afzal asked Haris to cite a precedent for permanent disqualification, when such a decision was handed down under Article 62(1)(f).
“Article 62(1)(f) is a new insertion in the Constitution, with its own implications and connotations that have far-reaching effects,” Justice Afzal had said, expressing the desire to hear out the counsel.
The issue came up when Haris asked why the apex court had handed down a lasting disqualification against his client in the Panama Papers case for merely receiving a salary as the chairman of Capital FZE, bypassing a fair trial without giving him the benefit of an appeal. This was done even though the petitioners never highlighted Capital FZE in their petition, he had said.
The counsel had also questioned the competence of all five judges to announce the final order of the court on July 28, when two were not part of the JIT implementation bench. However, Justice Khosa explained that the conclusion of the five judges on the question of Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification was the same, though their reasons were different.
Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/1357628/j...receive-salary-from-capital-fze-supreme-court
A Khokar
Voter (50+ posts)
Re: JIT documents show Nawaz did receive salary from Capital FZE: Supreme Court
Supreme Court Honourable Judges of Panama case Review petition are of the opinion that Hakama of FZE Capital which was made a base of Verdict of the Panama case is just a tip of an Iceberg. Details were not given at this stage; which is left open for Accountability Court Trial, to bring out as per JIT reports... to punish the accused.
Supreme Court Honourable Judges of Panama case Review petition are of the opinion that Hakama of FZE Capital which was made a base of Verdict of the Panama case is just a tip of an Iceberg. Details were not given at this stage; which is left open for Accountability Court Trial, to bring out as per JIT reports... to punish the accused.
A Khokar
Voter (50+ posts)
FZE Capital Hakama is Just a Tip of an ICEBERG of NS Corruption; Says Supreme Court
Supreme Court Honourable Judges of Panama case Review petition are of the opinion that Hakama of FZE Capital which was made a base of Verdict of the Panama case is just a tip of an Iceberg. Details were not given at this stage; which is left open for Accountability Court Trial, to bring out as per JIT reports... to punish the accused.
**
Supreme Court Honourable Judges of Panama case Review petition are of the opinion that Hakama of FZE Capital which was made a base of Verdict of the Panama case is just a tip of an Iceberg. Details were not given at this stage; which is left open for Accountability Court Trial, to bring out as per JIT reports... to punish the accused.
**
chandaa
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Re: JIT documents show Nawaz did receive salary from Capital FZE: Supreme Court
He received first salary on February 2007, read JIT report and you will be stunned that how bluntly this family lie to everyone. This family is composed of Habitual Liars :angry_smile:
He received first salary on February 2007, read JIT report and you will be stunned that how bluntly this family lie to everyone. This family is composed of Habitual Liars :angry_smile:
Champion 01
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Aur aik Corrupt bachay nay bivi kay hotay huey, apnay bachoon ki teacher ko bhi ghair lia tha, woh teacher ab is kay bachoon ki maan hey...ALHAMDOLILLAH
GreenMaple
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
50 saal kay bacharay to ho saktay hein, bachay nahin!
Awan-1
Minister (2k+ posts)
Es puray Mulk main sirf Nawaz Sharif family ka he Ahtasab koin?? 400 plus log hain Panama list main. Ab tau ouper say Ahtasab shuru kia ja chuka hay and Bay Qassor Wazir Azam ko gher bhee bhaj dia gia. Kab Ahtasab ho ga Jahingir Tareen jes ka 1000% similar case hay Nawaz Sharif kee Tarah. kab ho Ihtasab Imran aur Generals and bureaucrats ka. agir Judge goverment ka Ihtasab ker saktay hain tau dosorion logo kay case koin latka rahain hain. Bus Nawaz Shrif ko letkanay ke jeldi hay
Hate_Nooras
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Why are u complaining you dumb cuunt, who is stopping you from pursuing the other 400. Its your fuuckin govt, its your fuuckin NAB and you still cant do anything. You Nooras are thicker than piig shiit!
