ISLAMABAD: Claiming the privilege, counsel for Prime Minister (PM) contended before the top court that the PM’s speech in Parliament could be adjudicated under Article 66, which says the parliament’s proceedings could not be challenged in any court of law. During the course of the hearing of the Panamagate case, which resumed on Monday before a five-judge larger bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the PM’s speech was devoid of lies, discrepancies or misstatements. However, he contended, if the contradiction found, even then the PM was not liable to any court under Article 66 (privileges of members). Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that Article 62 was also part of the constitution just as Article 66 was. Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that on one hand, there was an admission to the contents of speech, while on the other hand, the PM sought immunity, contrary to what he said in the same speech that he does not need any immunity. Justice Khosa remarked that the case in hand was different as it was not about liability; rather the statement relied upon supporting documents. The matter wasn’t not only about speech, but also concerned the properties in London, he observed. The PM’s counsel Makhdoom said that prior to disqualification of any member, a declaration from the competent court of law is required, adding SC did not have jurisdiction to hold an inquiry in the matter. Makhdoom further argued that in all previous cases, the disqualification of parliamentarians was done after the evidences were recorded. During the course of the hearing, Makhdoom cited multiple cases of fake degrees and argued that whoever was disqualified was by appropriate court. He also mentioned the disqualification of former PM Yousaf Raza Gilani, which came out of a contempt case for not complying the court’s order regarding letter to Swiss Bank, and argued that he was disqualified after the evidence and prior declaration. To this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that there was a dual nationality case in which there was no prior declaration of court. Responding to this, the PM’s counsel Makhdoom said that Article 63 (1) was nebulous in connection with dual nationality, adding members were disqualified on the admission of their dual nationality and the court had examined each case and passed judgment. However, the court cannot disqualify on mere statements. Justice Azmat observed that the cases being cited were self-evident that the top court had the jurisdiction to take up the disqualification matter, adding that apparently, the court has jurisdiction even in the absence of admission. To this, Makhdoom said the purpose of citation was not to challenge the jurisdiction ‘for the time being’ adding submission is in the context that speech made by PM, disqualification under Article 62 does not support. He argued that the scope of inquiry will be difficult. Justice Khosa observed that over a period of time, Article 62 had evolved because there is no definite provision and no set pattern. The court has interpreted the 62 and 63 on the basis of each case, he observed. Makhdoom said that this court would interpret them in the light of wisdom, adding if we see precedent to precedent in each case, a full determination was made by the court of competent authority. In the rental power case, he said, the Lahore High Court had observed that declaration of the court was necessary. The court, however, had given observations against then prime minister Raja Pervez Ashraf but he was not disqualified. He referred to Sher Afghan Niyazi reference against Imran Khan regarding his disqualification on the Sita White case and argued that Imran Khan had said before the Election Commission that the provisions of Article 62 and the corresponding provisions apply to a person prior to his election and the nomination papers of former president Rafeeq Tarar were rejected on the basis of his speeches against judiciary. In that case the court had accepted the appeal saying that if it were to accept press clippings, number of members would stand de-seated.