ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday directed Sharif family to explain contradiction in statements to defend itself in Panama Papers case.
A five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa resumed the case hearing in which, Justice Khosa asked that: “Is there any record of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s statement regarding starting business in 2005?”
He further said that no one will escape from the legal action except Sirajul Haq if court starts disqualifying people on interviews and statements.
Justice Khosa said that Panama Leaks case is of honesty, not flats.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Naeem Bukhari told the court that trust deed was made after the issue was raised in SC.
Earlier, before a brief duration break, Justice Azmat Saeed said Naeem Bukhari is ‘flirting’ with legal questions. He ordered PTI counsel to stay in rostrum until the bench’s satisfaction.
‘The court asked 16 questions, none of which was responded by you’, Justice Azmat Saeed said to Naeem Bukhari.
The PTI lawyer claimed that Hussain Nawaz gave Rs 810 million as gift to Nawaz Sharif who didn’t pay tax on that precious gift on which, Justice Aijaz-ul-Ahsan said that it’s not necessary for Hussain Nawaz to pay tax as he is not living in Pakistan.
A son can give gifts to his father likewise a father can also give surprises to his son, he added.
Naeem Bukhari argued that Sharif family has not provided any record regarding bank transactions on which, Justice Aijaz inquired that: “Is presenting money trail responsibility of Nawaz Sharif when the property belonged to Qatari family?”
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa advised Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Naeem Bokhari to file a reference with National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry to reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.
“We can call the chairman of NAB and ask him why he did not fulfill his responsibilities.”
Justice Khosa was referring to a case in which now Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had submitted a handwritten statement to a magistrate in 2000 alleging that the Sharif brothers had used the Hudaibiyah Paper Mills as a cover for money laundering during the late 90s.
In 2014, an accountability court judge had rejected an application filed by NAB requesting the reopening of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills and Raiwind Assets references.
The court observed that NAB had not given proper opportunity to the Sharif family to join the investigations and justify their assets.
Justice Khosa also admonished Advocate Naeem Bokhari for steering the focus of the case away from the London flats towards the Hudaibiya Paper Mills.
“First in the case you spoke about the London flats. Now, you have jumped towards the confessional statement of Ishaq Dar.”
Justice Ejaz ul Hasan pointed out to the counsel that his arguments had failed to make clear whether or not Maryam Nawaz is a dependent of her father.
Naeem told the court that the London flats were bought under Maryam Nawaz’s name between 1993 to 1996. He added that at the time of the transaction, Maryam Nawaz was underage and had no source of income.
The advocate alleged that Maryam Nawaz was made the beneficiary as a smokescreen, whereas the PM is the real owner of the flats.
He told the apex court that, in a similar manner, the PM set up mills in Jeddah and Dubai by using benami transactions.
Justice Khosa pointed out that the burden of proof lies with the PTI since they have the evidence. He added that it was the party’s responsibility to show how the companies were bought, who made them and where did the money come from.
The judge advised that a document in this regard should be submitted in the apex court.
Justice Khosa told Naeem Bokhari that if the Supreme Court sends the references regarding the case to NAB, it will no longer be able to hold hearings on the Panamagate case, in accordance with Article 184.
He further advised Naeem that the responsibility was upon him to either separate the two cases or ensure they are heard simultaneously.
Justice Ejaz ul Hasan, however, advised the advocate that if the two cases are joined, the Panamagate case will become ‘muddy’.
