ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Saturday returned a petition moved amid much fanfare by the Jamaat-i-Islami demanding an inquiry into the Panama Papers leaks with the registrar office terming it ‘frivolous’.
“This petition prima facie appears to be a frivolous petition within the contemplation of Order XVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980,” said an order issued by the registrar office.
The registrar under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, Order XVII, is empowered to refuse to receive a petition on the grounds that it has not been filed in accordance with the rules or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter.
Under the same rules, the petitioner can move an appeal within a fortnight which may then be heard by a judge of the apex court in his chambers.
“We are moving an appeal against the decision of the registrar office next week under the Supreme Court rules,” said Advocate Asad Manzoor Butt while talking to Dawn.
To Mr Butt, who drafted the JI petition, the objections raised by the court office appeared to be not correct. He said the petition was in order since “we fulfilled all the legal requirements needed for the filing of the same. But the registrar treated it casually without going into details”.
Earlier on May 13, the court had returned a somewhat similar request made by the federal government seeking appointment of a commission of inquiry to probe into the Panamagate scam.
The reason the court had cited while declining to accept the request was that any such commission formed under the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 1956 would be a toothless body, which would serve no useful purpose, except giving a bad name to it.
The court had also declared the terms of reference sent by the government, apparently under public pressure, as “wide and open-ended” that may make the commission take years to conclude its proceedings.
The JI petition which was filed by its emir Sirajul Haq on Aug 24 had asked the court to declare as an offence the illegal transfer of the national wealth for making investments in offshore companies under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999. The Supreme Court should also order holding trial of those who made investments through corrupt means by a commission of inquiry under the laws of Pakistan, including NAO, and by the FIA, etc.
The petition had contended that though Pakistan was rendering sacrifices because of the war on terror, government officials and legal entities, including some citizens, were involved in making investments in offshore companies through illegal and corrupt means.
The registrar office in its order said that the petitioner had approached the apex court without going first to an appropriate forum available to him for the same relief.
The petitioner had also not provided any justification for not approaching any other forum, said the registrar’s order which was handed over to Advocate on Record Chaudhry Akhtar Ali.
Similarly, the certificate provided by the petitioner along with his petition does not fulfil the requirements of the certificate as required under Rule 6 of Order XXV of Supreme Court rules. The Rule 6 required the applicant to state in clear terms whether the petitioner had moved the high court concerned for the same relief and if so what was the result.
Published in Dawn, August 28th, 2016
