ISLAMABAD: A member of the larger bench hearing Panamagate case Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh on Monday remarked that Sharif family had not submitted many documents in the court, saying that had they submitted the required documents the PTI counsel would have not got the chance to raise many questions.
The judge remarked that the bench wanted to get to the bottom of the matter in a bid to dig out facts and truth in the case.
The larger bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa heard the Panamagate case.
On Monday the PTI’s counsel continued his arguments. The PTI’s lead counsel Naeem Bukhari submitted that the Prime Minister did not mention the Qatari Prince’s letter and investment in his reply submitted in the court and his speech made on the floor of the house.
On this Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that whether it was necessary for the Prime Minister to tell every point of his defense in the Parliament. He questioned that if the properties were of Qatari prince, then how Sharif family can provide the money trail.
In his argument, Bukhari said that Maryum Nawaz was dependent on Prime Minister as Captain (retd) Safdar had no tax number before 2013 which mean he did not pay any income tax from 2010 to 2013.
On this, Justice Ejazul Hassan questioned the PTI counsel whether there was any discrepancy between the income and taxable income. Bukhari replied that how a person can bring up his wife when his income was zero.
When the PTI counsel mentioned the gifts purportedly received by the Prime Minister from his son, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh remarked the he had to provide evidences of exchange of gifts and the the unknown sources.
Justice Ejazul Hassan inquired from Naeem Bukhari whether he had the documents substantiating his claim that Hussain Nawaz was beneficial owner of the companies.
To which Bukhari replied that they had no document except trust deed the Qatari letter. He argued that if the court rejected the Qatari letter, then the ownership claim of Hussain Nawaz will become untrue.
On this Justice Ejazul Hassan said that at this point they can not reject the Qatari letter. He remarked that the Sharif family had lacked many documents and their counsels had to respond to many questions. He further said that this was a journey to explore truth and the nation wanted to know what was true.
During the hearing, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa advised PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari to file a reference with National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.
He remarked that the court can call the chairman of NAB and ask him why he did not fulfil his responsibilities.
Justice Khosa was referring to a case in which now Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had reportedly 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.
Justice Khosa also admonished Advocate Naeem Bukhari 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,” he judge remarked.
Justice Khosa further advised Bukhari 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’.
Later the court adjourned further hearing of the case till tomorrow.