ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) nine questions including how and under what circumstances, it had de-linked its petition from other petitions in the Panama Leaks case.

A two-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan issued a written order in the petition filed by Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami Sirajul Haq praying for directing the Federation to initiate an inquiry into the Panama Leaks. Advocate Tariq Asad (late) had filed the petition in Panama Leaks. The bench had heard the matter on June 9.

The court in its written order, however, noted that this petition was filed by Tariq Asad, Advocate, in person, but during the hearing, nobody had turned up to pursue this matter. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in Const. Petition No.28/2016 that petitioner Tariq Asad has passed away so the court in that eventuality, dismissed petition his due to non-prosecution.?????? All Civil Misc. applications concerning this Const. Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous, says the court order.

The court, however, had heard the petition of Jamaat-e-Islami and its counsel “Though, the question of maintainability under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, would have been relevant but we note that vide order dated 03.11.2016, this issue had been decided and it was found that all the petitions (fixed on that date including this petition) were maintainable”, says the written order. The court noted that all the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Const.P.26&28/16 2 petitioners as well as the respondents also agree that this no longer is an issue requiring determination.

The court noted down in its order that the learned counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) was asked to answer nine questions; 1-How and under what circumstances was this petition de-linked from the other petitions at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and what was the purpose for requesting to detach these petitions from others? “We note that this petition was filed much earlier than those petitions which were later decided by a 5-Member Bench of this Court” says the written order. 2-Whether the matter in hand is not covered by the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 (Ordinance 2001) with regard to the tax liability of the concerned persons? 3- Whether the liability of tax is not within the purview of the officers of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) under the Ordinance 2001? 4- Whether the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), directions of SBP and the Foreign Exchange Manual are not relevant with regard to money sent abroad for the purchase of said properties? 5-Whether FBR, SBP and other relevant departments do not have their own hierarchy for deciding matters and their final orders may ultimately be challenged before the High Court and this Court? 6- Whether the petitioner approached the SBP, FBR, FIA, Anti-Corruption Department, etc. against the persons named in Panama Leaks? 7- Whether in the presence of existing statutory bodies and institutions, a commission as sought should be constituted for inquiring into the matter in hand? 8- Will the working of the said statutory bodies not be affected if the proposed commission opines otherwise?

And whether an order for the constitution of a commission can be passed without issuing notice to or hearing those 436 persons named in the Panama Leaks. The court noted down in its written order that learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time, in order to answer the above said queries. With consent, to come up after one month”, the written order concluded.