Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion

[Mansoon]

You entertain the notion 'presume guilty until proven innocent' or not?

Yes you are guilty of hoarding money abroad unless you can prove legal money trail

 

[Zibago]

Yes you are guilty of hoarding money abroad unless you can prove legal money trail

They used this line in Swiss case hypocrisy thy name is Baboon and ghulam e baboon

 

[Arsalan]

True, but it is also fair to say PTI supporters are also very predictable too, hence people quick to assume.

Yeah fair to say as long as it is fair to say that PMLN supports in particular are far far more easy to judge and point out. I mean, all it takes in a word or two against corruptions and they all take it personally!! God knows what is wrong with all these people. I mean, seriously,,, no opposition guys could have accused them of corruption as much as they label themselves with the tag by reacting to the word. Kaan kharay, ankhain bahr and naak s dhuaan!!
Try this with someone you will notice that
May Allah help us all.

'Innocent until proven guilty' is for crime like murder, robbery, theft but not corruption? That would mean anyone can be accused of corruption of whether they did the crime or not. Basically, onus is on them alleged ones to prove their innocent instead of those who have accused should be the one to back with evidence sounds normal to you?

It is like this. I accuse you for corruption and you are gonna have to prove your innocent in the court. Does that sound fair to you considering i am the one who has accused you, therefore onus is on me to prove my accusation against with evidence to back it up. That's how the justice system works.

Sorry but are we talking about NORMAL or LEGAL? I though you were talking about how things are and not how they should be. Legally, in corruptions charges, the onus is on the accused to prove his/her innocence and that comes in form of documentation and tax returns and all that. On other hand, if you are talking about "normal" and how things should be then i agree. The onus should be on the one who is accusing the other to prove what he is saying. However in that case of "should be" there should be no doubts to begin with. People can see the hatred of gov. towards army, they can see the messed up policies, they know about all that corruptions, they know about the poultry business, audi franchise, chipboard factory, sugar mills, property and all those things and that "should be" enough to thrown out the gov. but legally, IT IS NOT!! (and PTI must understand this). Frankly, if we go by the "should be" logic or the normal or common sense approach, i do not see ANYONE from this country who can be elected as the PM on this country!!

In other word, what you are suggesting is already being implied. It is called blasphemy law where the system works on 'presume guilty without evidence to back until proven innocent [onus on themselves to back with evidence]'. Most have been jailed under false allegation without evidence, whereas those who accused others weren't even asked to provide the evidence to back with.

Well actually, in blasphemy laws, the onus is ON THE PERSON WHO IS accusing. Not the one who is being accused. Like the murder.theft cases. If we are not following them or implementing that then that is OUR mistake and our fault, not fault of the law. It is not the law here that is the problem, it is how we are implementing it the wrong way. That is why i have quite a lot against the Blasphemy laws in our country.

 

[Verve]

The burden of proof is on the State bank, related banks, FBR an other state institutions ,
The accused (PM) will be guilty if above institutions fail to provide an input that matches claims of the accused(PM).
Burden of proof is on the accused as mentioned below on NAB ordinance.



9 (a) A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices-
(iv) if he by corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse 3* or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage; or

(v) if he or any of his dependents or benamidar owns, possesses, or has 4[acquired] right or title in any [“assets or holds irrevocable power of attorney in respect of any assets] orpecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, which he cannot 1[reasonably] account for [or maintains a standard of living beyond that which is commensurate with his sources of income]; or

(vi) 2[if he misuses his authority so as to gain any benefit or favour for himself or any other person, or 3[renders or attempts to render] 4[or willfully fails to exercise his authority to prevent the grant, or rendition of any undue benefit or favour which he could have prevented by exercising his authority];

(vii) if he has issued any directive, policy, or any SRO (Statutory Regulatory Order) or any other order which grants or [attempts to grant] any [undue] concession or benefit in any taxation matter or law or otherwise so as to benefit himself or any relative or associate or a benamidar 1[or any other person]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


14. (a) Where in any trail of [an offence under clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-section (a) of section 9] it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person any gratification, other than legal remuneration, or any valuable thing, or any pecuniary advantage from a person or any agent of a person, for any favour shown or promised to be shown by the accused, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for, himself or some other person, as the case may be, as a motive or a reward such as is specified in section 161 to 163 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), or, as the case may be, without consideration, or for a consideration which he, believed to be inadequate.

5[ (d) [In any trial] of an offence under [clauses (vi) and (vii) of section 9], the burden of proof that he used his authority, or issued any directive, or authorised the issuance of any policy or statutory rule or order (SRO), or made any grant or allowed any concession, in the public interest, fairly, justly, and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment under which the authority was used, directive or policy or rule or order was issued or grant was made or concession was allowed shall lie on [the accused], and in the absence of such proof the accused shall be guilty of the offence, and his conviction shall not be invalid by the reason that it is based solely on such presumption:]


http://www.nab.gov.pk/Downloads/nao.asp#Corruption_12

Thank you!

@Fallen King above is what I've said all along but you are an expert at twisting words. Now respond to this extract from NAB Ordinance. Do you agree with it (although you've already said that you do)?

 

[Team. Moonis Elahi]

nothing will happens with this case. SC will issue clean chit to #GONAWAZGO

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

Trump ka mazaq uraney waley ye na bhulain hamara pm noora ha .

 

[Emmie]

Now to answer your questions regarding journalists of Panama leaks

1) SC can summon any one. IMPO They should be summoned as they were the whistle blowers.
How the court looks into this is upto the learned judges.

2) If summoned they would have to come or send their legal representative.

3) If they do not stand on what they said they would loose all their credibility and also liable to defamation suites not just from Pakistan but other States.

4) They publish a detail report which is public document.

5) Admissibility of pubic documents as well as others is bases on case to case basis and discretionary powers .
defecto decision can continue by

6) SC can still give an ex-party ruling.

I beg to disagree.
1) Supreme court can summon anyone provided one who's to be summoned is within the jurisdiction of apex court, the apex court has no jurisdiction beyond Pakistani boarders. The Court however can order government of Pakistan through AGP to contact/request ICIJ for its position/statement in connection with revealed documents (already on hand though not so official in eyes of the court) -- it is still ICIJ discretion to respond. 2) Summon can't be issued therefore legal representation is totally out of question, however if requested by the government ICIJ may participate. SC can summon Omar Cheema who's ICIJ representative in Pakistan, how he responds is yet to be seen. 3) Defamation suit against ICIJ is not subjected to its denial, ICIJ can be sued in USA even in current setting. 4) No, report is not a public document, public document per se is a document issued by state/branches of the state . 5) Public document is a legal document and is admissible by all means. 6) ICIJ is not a party to the petitions, why would SC pass an ex parte judgment or judgement passed would be ex parte?

 

[Finer]

Yeah fair to say as long as it is fair to say that PMLN supports in particular are far far more easy to judge and point out. I mean, all it takes in a word or two against corruptions and they all take it personally!! God knows what is wrong with all these people. I mean, seriously,,, no opposition guys could have accused them of corruption as much as they label themselves with the tag by reacting to the word. Kaan kharay, ankhain bahr and naak s dhuaan!!
Try this with someone you will notice that
May Allah help us all.

I beg to differ on this case. Sure, you might have point on true supporters of PMLN. Despite of that, most of them have nothing to do with PMLN and anyone with right intention questions the policy of PTI is often deemed as noora, pro-corrupters and worse, just as you are doing right now.

Sorry but are we talking about NORMAL or LEGAL? I though you were talking about how things are and not how they should be. Legally, in corruptions charges, the onus is on the accused to prove his/her innocence and that comes in form of documentation and tax returns and all that. On other hand, if you are talking about "normal" and how things should be then i agree. The onus should be on the one who is accusing the other to prove what he is saying. However in that case of "should be" there should be no doubts to begin with. People can see the hatred of gov. towards army, they can see the messed up policies, they know about all that corruptions, they know about the poultry business, audi franchise, chipboard factory, sugar mills, property and all those things and that "should be" enough to thrown out the gov. but legally, IT IS NOT!! (and PTI must understand this). Frankly, if we go by the "should be" logic or the normal or common sense approach, i do not see ANYONE from this country who can be elected as the PM on this country!!

On bold;

That's what i am talking about except you have switched them both. Legally, the accused can claim 'innocent until proven guilty' hence the popular slogan in all over the world. That's your rights.

Prosecution department have to bring the concrete evidence to back with their cases. That's why it takes days, months and years if needed to build the case based on the corruption charge.

On the rest, you just describe the situation which is not topic here. I don't digress from the useful topic at this moment.

Well actually, in blasphemy laws, the onus is ON THE PERSON WHO IS accusing. Not the one who is being accused. Like the murder.theft cases. If we are not following them or implementing that then that is OUR mistake and our fault, not fault of the law. It is not the law here that is the problem, it is how we are implementing it the wrong way. That is why i have quite a lot against the Blasphemy laws in our country.

Except that is not the case given blasphemy law is based on 'presume guilty until proven innocent' which had several accused figures sentenced to the life imprisonment without even trial. Accusers continue to get away.

And as for the legality, that was the version you thought apparently isn't and quite coincide with the protocol of Blasphemy law. That's why you are gravely wrong about this.

Also why Khawaja Asif's charge is also cleared. Because there was no case to begin with. Despite your examples with banks, that is still weak, and can be considered conjecture or speculative at best. No money paper trail, no case. That is unfortunately brutal truth in today's world. But it stands to reason that is based on 'innocent until proven guilty' whereas most PTI have already declared PMLN as corrupted party based on 'presume guilty until proven innocent'. That's where PTI has gotten wrong including Imran Khan given his long history of promoting conspiracy theory with the list of mindless allegation which none of them have been proven true.

Thank you!

@Fallen King above is what I've said all along but you are an expert at twisting words. Now respond to this extract from NAB Ordinance. Do you agree with it (although you've already said that you do)?

You are confused so i am gonna let this statement off the hook, but i am truly glad you are not lawyer. That's all.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

If you do not mind may i ask you something?

Do you read the complete post with a calm head before hitting that reply button?

I mean, sawal mashriq jawab maghrib

Bahi jan, i am not saying that the SC or judges are biased on unbiased. I dont know any of them personally!! What i was saying was:


(Wait, do not hit the reply button. Please continue reading)

Not the SC but the institutions that will actually be conducting the investigations. Or are you saying that an unbiased judge himself will open account books and match the logs? I am talking about the institutions who will be given that task.

(Wait, do not hit the reply button. Please continue reading)
As for the SC calling panama leak journalists, you say SC can summon ANYONE!! NOT FOREIGN REPORTERS of Panama papers!!!! They are not bound by our law or our courts myray dost. That answers the point 2 to 6 as well. You are talking as if those reporters were/are Pakistani citizens who will have to obey what SC is saying.

In the end i will like to say a very important thing,, WAIT, DO NOT HIT THAT REPLY BUTTON. Go through the post again and SEE what is being said. Read it again and then yuo may get a clearer picture.

Sir,
I do read the entire post then reply.

You miss understood what I wanted to reply.
There are mainly three ways that inquiry can be done.
1) Institutions made under legal systems. i.e Police, FBI etc
2) Institution made under court order. i.e Tribunals, Commissions or Ombudsmen
3) Get assistance from Any Person or Group of Persons to act as assistant of the court.

However recently this route has been taken.
4) The Netherlands paid a hefty amount to acquire all the documents regarding their nationals from these journalists so that they can prosecute there nationals. Same thing can be done by the SC.

Over and above these the Judges are going to scan and skim all the documents that have been provided. If time is available then they are going to read each and every document word by word.

As far as Jurisdiction of Court is concerned then it has the power to summon any person in the world. However there are limitations and procedures.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to summon Panama Leaks Journalist is due to the fact they have evidences of corruption. They have worked on the case and then published these in news papers making them a public document.

If they can not prove that what they claim is true then they can be served legal notice of defamation.

How can the journalist testify?
There are again many ways to get their testimonials. Some common ways that have been accepted world wide are:
1) Supreme Court of one country contacts the Supreme Court of the other country directly.
2) Supreme Court orders the Government of Pakistan to write a letter to the other Government.
3) Send a judge to record testimonial.
4) Today video call and video recordings can also be used.
5) These journalists can come to Pakistan and record their statements.

Which mode they wish to take is up to the SC and journalist.

Sir you are confusing Testifying with accusing or charging.
To testify they can be called but to charge them on a crime that they have done in a third country you can not call.

I beg to disagree.
1) Supreme court can summon anyone provided one who's to be summoned is within the jurisdiction of apex court, the apex court has no jurisdiction beyond Pakistani boarders. The Court however can order government of Pakistan through AGP to contact/request ICIJ for its position/statement in connection with revealed documents (already on hand though not so official in eyes of the court) -- it is still ICIJ discretion to respond. 2) Summon can't be issued therefore legal representation is totally out of question, however if requested by the government ICIJ may participate. SC can summon Omar Cheema who's ICIJ representative in Pakistan, how he responds is yet to be seen. 3) Defamation suit against ICIJ is not subjected to its denial, ICIJ can be sued in USA even in current setting. 4) No, report is not a public document, public document per se is a document issued by state/branches of the state . 5) Public document is a legal document and is admissible by all means. 6) ICIJ is not a party to the petitions, why would SC pass an ex parte judgment or judgement passed would be ex parte?

Sir,
ICIJ does not have jurisdiction as it usually deals with disputes between states, unless the news paper that published these leaks is Government owned.

Moreover in the last 20 years most the maters that have reached ICIJ have been resolved through out of court settlements.

It is interesting you mentioned Mr. Cheema because he might be able to provide more information on International Law on Money Laundering. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/money-laundering/Instruments-Standards.html

And

UNCAC (United Nations Convention Against Corruption)
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html#UNCACfulltext

Still how would ICJ implement her orders as we see Japan has been explicitly stopped to hunt wales but still they continue.

USA is not a signatory of ICJ or any other International Court, hence can sue these institutions.

 

[war&peace]

I beg to disagree.
1) Supreme court can summon anyone provided one who's to be summoned is within the jurisdiction of apex court, the apex court has no jurisdiction beyond Pakistani boarders. The Court however can order government of Pakistan through AGP to contact/request ICIJ for its position/statement in connection with revealed documents (already on hand though not so official in eyes of the court) -- it is still ICIJ discretion to respond. 2) Summon can't be issued therefore legal representation is totally out of question, however if requested by the government ICIJ may participate. SC can summon Omar Cheema who's ICIJ representative in Pakistan, how he responds is yet to be seen. 3) Defamation suit against ICIJ is not subjected to its denial, ICIJ can be sued in USA even in current setting. 4) No, report is not a public document, public document per se is a document issued by state/branches of the state . 5) Public document is a legal document and is admissible by all means. 6) ICIJ is not a party to the petitions, why would SC pass an ex parte judgment or judgement passed would be ex parte?

And if the govt is reluctant in contacting ICIJ, then it can persecute it under contempt of the court and disqualify the PM as was done in Yusuf Raza Geelani's case

 

[Arsalan]

Sir,
I do read the entire post then reply.

You miss understood what I wanted to reply.
There are mainly three ways that inquiry can be done.
1) Institutions made under legal systems. i.e Police, FBI etc
2) Institution made under court order. i.e Tribunals, Commissions or Ombudsmen
3) Get assistance from Any Person or Group of Persons to act as assistant of the court.

However recently this route has been taken.
4) The Netherlands paid a hefty amount to acquire all the documents regarding their nationals from these journalists so that they can prosecute there nationals. Same thing can be done by the SC.

Over and above these the Judges are going to scan and skim all the documents that have been provided. If time is available then they are going to read each and every document word by word.

As far as Jurisdiction of Court is concerned then it has the power to summon any person in the world. However there are limitations and procedures.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to summon Panama Leaks Journalist is due to the fact they have evidences of corruption. They have worked on the case and then published these in news papers making them a public document.

If they can not prove that what they claim is true then they can be served legal notice of defamation.

How can the journalist testify?
There are again many ways to get their testimonials. Some common ways that have been accepted world wide are:
1) Supreme Court of one country contacts the Supreme Court of the other country directly.
2) Supreme Court orders the Government of Pakistan to write a letter to the other Government.
3) Send a judge to record testimonial.
4) Today video call and video recordings can also be used.
5) These journalists can come to Pakistan and record their statements.

Which mode they wish to take is up to the SC and journalist.

Sir you are confusing Testifying with accusing or charging.
To testify they can be called but to charge them on a crime that they have done in a third country you can not call.

It is even more surprising if you do!!

It was the transparency of system in point 1, 2 and 3 that i was talking about. Not SC or the Chief Justice and was doing so from the first post. I am not sure where that point of " we need to trust in SC" came from. Anyway.

For point, NO, we WONT be spending "heft amount" to bring in those journalists. Secondly, please note that they are not legally bound to help us anyway. All we can do is request them. Corruption or no corruption, defamation or whatever!! Please, this is real world. There are terrorists who very responsible for innocent deaths who are not living free in other countries, we couldn't do ANYTHING about them what can we do about these journalists stating that they defamed our country? This is real world and the game is NOT played by the book.

For all those procedures, you seriously think we have that much clout?


I am sorry to state the obvious but the fact is you are talking about ideal situation. Day dreaming of sorts. This is NOT how it works and we all know that. The best we can hope and pray for is that the internal investigations are fruitful and the truth comes to light. There wont be anything beyond that.

I beg to differ on this case. Sure, you might have point on true supporters of PMLN. Despite of that, most of them have nothing to do with PMLN and anyone with right intention questions the policy of PTI is often deemed as noora, pro-corrupters and worse, just as you are doing right now.

Oh no no, i am not taking sides here. Just stating what i experience on daily basis. I live in Faisalabad and all you need to do it to go the the clock tower in the city and just say "Corruption mulk ko tabah kr dy ge". You will see how people start getting aggressive and abusive!! . The best of them, the most sensible ones will just limt themsleves to defending PMLN not thinking that the statement was a simple fact and no party was mentioned in that statement.

I have, on number of times, tried this in a gathering of PMLN supporters (Fsd have a majority of them and i know quite a lot of them as friends and family). It is ALWAYS fun. Reminds me of a joke:
"A PTI supporter and a PMLN supporter were watching a football match and both were supporting Germany. At half time with the game still goalless the PTI supporter state "Yaar, germany naa koi gola ni kia " The PMLN supporter flared in anger "To KPK mein PTI na kya kr lea ha"

On bold;

That's what i am talking about except you have switched them both. Legally, the accused can claim 'innocent until proven guilty' hence the popular slogan in all over the world. That's your rights.

Prosecution department have to bring the concrete evidence to back with their cases. That's why it takes days, months and years if needed to build the case based on the corruption charge.

On the rest, you just describe the situation which is not topic here. I don't digress from the useful topic at this moment.

Bahi jan do not take this personally. I was merely correcting you on one small point. Not sure why you took it so negatively. The point was that the "innocent until prove guilty" is not true in corruption charges, LEGALLY!!! Just telling you a fact nothing else.

Except that is not the case given blasphemy law is based on 'presume guilty until proven innocent' which had several accused figures sentenced to the life imprisonment without even trial. Accusers continue to get away.

And as for the legality, that was the version you thought apparently isn't and quite coincide with the protocol of Blasphemy law. That's why you are gravely wrong about this.

Sir that is NOT the law!! Read the law bahi and you will find that this is not what the law says. The problem is that this is HOW we are implementing it. There is a difference if you understand. I am not saying that just to disagree, understand that i have no reason to disagree for the sake of it, not with you. Was just trying to correct you on this account but i guess i have done my part.

Please do not mind and i do not mean to be offensive but i do not understand, bringing in Khawaja Asif with that point about Blasphemy law and mixing them all...... still you were saying that the other guy is confused.

I rest my case. If interested you can take a look at the law and you will understand what i was trying to say and may correct yourself on this. That is all i wanted.

Regards!

 

[Emmie]

Sir,
ICIJ does not have jurisdiction as it usually deals with disputes between states, unless the news paper that published these leaks is Government owned.

Moreover in the last 20 years most the maters that have reached ICIJ have been resolved through out of court settlements.

It is interesting you mentioned Mr. Cheema because he might be able to provide more information on International Law on Money Laundering. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/money-laundering/Instruments-Standards.html

And

UNCAC (United Nations Convention Against Corruption)
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html#UNCACfulltext

Still how would ICJ implement her orders as we see Japan has been explicitly stopped to hunt wales but still they continue.

USA is not a signatory of ICJ or any other International Court, hence can sue these institutions

ICIJ is acronym for International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which is a US based organisation focusing on issues like cross-border crime, corruption, and the accountability of power. Needless to remind it was ICIJ which released the data alias Panama leaks. It's not a legal body, now please reread my post and reply accordingly.

 

[Finer]

Too long post

It is not just about Nawaz Sharif and his party. Even you and i are entitled for 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is only way the system can work and does work in the real world. I am not concerned about the court because the case never had chance to begin with. That being said, if they did corruption in real life, they won't be escape from the wrath of Allah. That's guaranteed. Besides, Allah did promise victory against corruption and greater Pakistan ahead as soon as 100 years of process is completed. So be patient as Allah promise is near.

I have, on number of times, tried this in a gathering of PMLN supporters (Fsd have a majority of them and i know quite a lot of them as friends and family). It is ALWAYS fun. Reminds me of a joke:
"A PTI supporter and a PMLN supporter were watching a football match and both were supporting Germany. At half time with the game still goalless the PTI supporter state "Yaar, germany naa koi gola ni kia " The PMLN supporter flared in anger "To KPK mein PTI na kya kr lea ha"

I will take your words for it given your experience with PMLN supporters.

Bahi jan do not take this personally. I was merely correcting you on one small point. Not sure why you took it so negatively. The point was that the "innocent until prove guilty" is not true in corruption charges, LEGALLY!!! Just telling you a fact nothing else.


Sir that is NOT the law!! Read the law bahi and you will find that this is not what the law says. The problem is that this is HOW we are implementing it. There is a difference if you understand. I am not saying that just to disagree, understand that i have no reason to disagree for the sake of it, not with you. Was just trying to correct you on this account but i guess i have done my part.

Relax, i am not offended. I am sorry if i appeared to be seem that way. We are just having fun and civilized debate. That's all.


'Innocent until proven guilty' protocol is applied all over the world. That's why even the allegedly criminals get away due to lack of evidences. That protocol is also accordance within Islamic system. Prosecutors have to bring the evidence, concrete evidence that can tie the case connecting with money paper trail and whatnot. I believe in the evidence since we are not acquainted with the life and truth. That's why judge rules in according with the evidences on front given the limitation of judge. Otherwise, it will be chaos.

What you are suggesting might qualify for tax accountability at best. Even then, it is extremely weak knowing the tax-free system as most people don't bother to pay in Pakistan - nothing to do with the tax accountability case.

 

[SBD-3]

Shaikh Rahseed's allegations turn out to be a bunch of made up lies

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

ICIJ is acronym for International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which is a US based organisation focusing on issues like cross-border crime, corruption, and the accountability of power. Needless to remind it was ICIJ which released the data alias Panama leaks. It's not a legal body, now please reread my post and reply accordingly.

Sir,
I know what ICIJ is. That was the reason I specified it does not have jurisdiction. What they have done in the past 20 yrs from 1997 is related to International Disputes.

Here is the link. https://www.icij.org/about
Please see What we do? Para 2.

Now if you see these stories they were all settled out of court.

Then I mentioned about Mr. Cheema and suggested he might be able to give information regarding Laws made by United Nations. And how they have been interpreted in various other countries hence mention the relevant Laws.

Sir ICIJ is a project of Center of Public Integrity, which is a legal body.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/about/our-organization

Now releasing leaks or news which is not true would become a crime under US Laws. So what ever they investigate has to be reported on facts which indicate that all the research they carry out is checked and cross checked. Record is also maintained.

Sir indirectly ICIJ becomes a legal body because of the parentage. Now please inform me if my reply was appropriate or not.

It is even more surprising if you do!!

It was the transparency of system in point 1, 2 and 3 that i was talking about. Not SC or the Chief Justice and was doing so from the first post. I am not sure where that point of " we need to trust in SC" came from. Anyway.

For point, NO, we WONT be spending "heft amount" to bring in those journalists. Secondly, please note that they are not legally bound to help us anyway. All we can do is request them. Corruption or no corruption, defamation or whatever!! Please, this is real world. There are terrorists who very responsible for innocent deaths who are not living free in other countries, we couldn't do ANYTHING about them what can we do about these journalists stating that they defamed our country? This is real world and the game is NOT played by the book.

For all those procedures, you seriously think we have that much clout?


I am sorry to state the obvious but the fact is you are talking about ideal situation. Day dreaming of sorts. This is NOT how it works and we all know that. The best we can hope and pray for is that the internal investigations are fruitful and the truth comes to light. There wont be anything beyond that.


Oh no no, i am not taking sides here. Just stating what i experience on daily basis. I live in Faisalabad and all you need to do it to go the the clock tower in the city and just say "Corruption mulk ko tabah kr dy ge". You will see how people start getting aggressive and abusive!! . The best of them, the most sensible ones will just limt themsleves to defending PMLN not thinking that the statement was a simple fact and no party was mentioned in that statement.

I have, on number of times, tried this in a gathering of PMLN supporters (Fsd have a majority of them and i know quite a lot of them as friends and family). It is ALWAYS fun. Reminds me of a joke:
"A PTI supporter and a PMLN supporter were watching a football match and both were supporting Germany. At half time with the game still goalless the PTI supporter state "Yaar, germany naa koi gola ni kia " The PMLN supporter flared in anger "To KPK mein PTI na kya kr lea ha"


Bahi jan do not take this personally. I was merely correcting you on one small point. Not sure why you took it so negatively. The point was that the "innocent until prove guilty" is not true in corruption charges, LEGALLY!!! Just telling you a fact nothing else.


Sir that is NOT the law!! Read the law bahi and you will find that this is not what the law says. The problem is that this is HOW we are implementing it. There is a difference if you understand. I am not saying that just to disagree, understand that i have no reason to disagree for the sake of it, not with you. Was just trying to correct you on this account but i guess i have done my part.

Please do not mind and i do not mean to be offensive but i do not understand, bringing in Khawaja Asif with that point about Blasphemy law and mixing them all...... still you were saying that the other guy is confused.

I rest my case. If interested you can take a look at the law and you will understand what i was trying to say and may correct yourself on this. That is all i wanted.

Regards!

Sir my post only highlighted what might be possible. May be the Court decides something that comes out out of the blue.