ISLAMABAD: All hell broke loose during the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) meeting on Tuesday, where lawmakers from the treasury and opposition benches launched verbal attacks on each other over the Panama Papers disclosures and some members walked out of the session in retaliation. PAC Chairman Khurshid Shah had called the committee’s meeting over the Panama revelations, but Law Secretary Karamat Hussain Niazi told the committee that discussion on the topic “falls outside the purview” of the committee. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) legislators Mian Abdul Manan and Shaikh Rohail Asghar were very vocal during the whole meeting, and tried to counter Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmad and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s Arif Alvi and Shafqat Mehmood. Before staging a walkout, Sheikh Rashid said if the PAC was unable to discuss Panama Papers (according to the law secretary), why the meeting was called in the first place. On this, Khurshid Shah told the committee that the PAC could discuss any matter, which had financial implications. “Anything may be discussed here subject to the provision of evidence.” The PAC was informed that neither the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) nor the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had initiated any investigation into the Panamagate, and only the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had issued notices to some 230 individuals whose addresses were available with it. The committee directed the departments concerned to collect more information on the issue, and postponed the meeting for a month. In the beginning, Arif Alvi compared the response of Indian and Pakistani governments over the issue by saying that in India a few departments quickly made a cell and began investigation into the Panamagate. He said there were reports that some Pakistanis had purchased properties in Gulf countries: an issue that merits discussion in the meeting. Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) lawmaker Naveed Qamar said that money was sent abroad for establishment of offshore companies, and asked whether it was moved legally or illegally. He said that the government departments needed to stop the illegal flight of money from Pakistan. Speaking on the occasion, Sheikh Rashid said that for the first time the PAC had completed its quorum, which showed the interest of legislators in the matter. The PML-N’s lawmaker Mian Abdul Manan kept on interrupting Sheikh Rashid throughout his speech. Meanwhile, the law secretary told the committee that under rule 203, the PAC could not discuss the Panama disclosures. Responding to him, Khurshid Shah said it has financial implication and the PAC could discuss it. He said that not discussing the Panama disclosures would be tantamount to legalising corruption. FBR Chairman Nisar Muhammad Khan informed the committee that the board had started issuing some notices to individuals whose names appeared in the Panama leaks. About Pakistani investment in Dubai’s real estate sector, he said the UAE government was not cooperating in this regard. About Panama Papers, he said there was need for proper laws to check it. “We sent notices to some individuals whose names appeared in the disclosures and asked a few questions from them; some responded, while a majority of them is yet to respond.” On the other hand, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) Chairman Zafarul Haq Hijazi informed the PAC that the commission had not put restrictions on investment abroad. He said that some Pakistani companies had invested in foreign firms, but not in offshore companies. He said that the SECP was thoroughly monitoring these companies and if found guilty of illegal practices, action would be taken against them accordingly. State Bank of Pakistan Governor Ashraf Mehmood Wathra told the PAC that establishment of offshore company was a legal business in the world. He said that even in Pakistan, an investment of around $2.37 billion had been done through offshore companies. He also disclosed that some 10 Panama companies had invested $13 million in Pakistan. He also said that any money went abroad through banking channel was legal.