Abb Takk News
Abbtakk Pakistan MOST POPULAR News Ticker Pakistan Top News TRENDING

SC adjourns Panamagate hearing till tomorrow; JI’s counsel completes arguments

ISLAMABAD:  The counsel of Prime Minister daughter Maryam Nawaz submitted reply in Supreme Court during the Panamagate case haring on Tuesday, which was rejected by the court for the fact that it did not carry the signature of Maryam Nawaz.

During Tuesday hearing of the case, Jamaat-e-Islami’s counsel Taufiq Asif Advocate completed his arguments. The JI’s counsel invited the ire of the bench for repeatedly quoting Zafar Ali shah case. One of the member of the bench while addressing the JI counsel remarked that you had made mockery of the case.

After JI’s counsel completed his arguments, Maryam Nawaz’s counsel Shahid Hamid started his arguments in the case. At the outset he told the court he would complete his arguments within two days.

He submitted reply on behalf of his client. In her reply, denied signing any documents relating the ownership of Nelson or Nescol . She took the plea that Mossack Fonseca was not a court which letter can determine the ownership of the companies. She once again denied allegations she was the beneficial owner of London properties.

She added that she had the legal right to raise more questions over the authenticity of the documents submitted by PTI. She added that she would prove the documents submitted by PTI wrong during the hearing. Maryam said that Hussain Nawaz was her elder brother and was very much dear to her.  As per her reply, she tied the knot with a serving Pakistan Army captain Safdar in 1992, which, according to her, joined civil service later. She added that her husband was a regular taxpayer since 1986. She added that whatever precious gift her father gave to her were out of paternal love.  She added that since 1992 she had never been dependent on her father.

While advancing arguments before the bench, Shahid Hamid said that her client was accused of being dependent on his father. He added that she was also charged that her husband did not mentioned the gift she received from her father in declaration of assets and income submitted with ECP. The counsel said that Captain Safder had separately submitted Maryam Nawaz assets and liabilities. Justice Ejazul Hassan remarked that Safder was also accused of not showing Maryam’s assets in his tax returns. The judge  enquired from the counsel whether it was legally mandatory to submit wife assets with tax returns. The counsel replied that it was not mandatory as per law because Maryam was herself a taxpayer. He further said the  tax returns were submitted along with nomination papers with ECP.

Earlier in the day, the JI counsel invited the ire of the bench when he quoted Zafar Ali Shah case.  The decision in the Zafar Ali Shah case had said that the London flats belong to the Sharif family,” Advocate Asif insisted, as he tried to establish the relevance of using the judgement as a precedent.

The bench reminded the lawyer that the decision reached in the Zafar Ali Shah case did not, in fact, acknowledge Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s ownership of the London flats.

The bench also expressed anger at the counsel for bringing the case up again, noting that he was insistent on referring to the case seemingly without having even read its decision.  Advocate Asif had told the bench that he wished to revisit arguments made by Khalid Anwar in the Zafar Ali Shah case.

“Tell us the court’s findings, do not tell us what the lawyer’s position was,” Justice Khosa, who is presiding over the five-member bench of the apex court, admonished Asif.

“I will establish that Khalid Anwar was the defending lawyer [for Nawaz Sharif],” Asif insisted, which led to another grilling.

“Who was Khalid Anwar representing in the case?” Justice Sheikh Azmat asked, to which the counsel had to concede that Khalid Anwar was, in fact, representing Zafar Ali Shah.

“No, you do not even know. You have not even read the court’s decision but are [insisting on] referring to it.” Justice Azmat raged. Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan, in turn, told the lawyer that he had “made a mockery of the case.” “Khalid Anwar was not Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer, he was the petitioner’s lawyer,” the judge repeated.

“You have caused as much damage to your client as you possibly could,” Justice Azmat Saeed added.

The court told the lawyer that he had not been able to establish any relationship between the references he was making and the ownership of the London flats. “One thing is clear: the London flats were not mentioned in that decision,” Justice Khosa observed.

Concluding his arguments, Advocate Asif told the court that “there are serious doubts regarding the Dubai mill” in an apparent reference to the Gulf Steel Mills set up in Dubai in 1974.

“What good will come from these doubts?” Justice Khosa asked the lawyer.

Asif then told the court that he suspects the London flats were bought by selling the Gulf Steel Mills and asked the court to order the prime minister to present himself for cross-examination in this regard.

“All the petitioners should be given the chance to cross-examine Nawaz Sharif,” he said.

Justice Khosa told the advocate that the bench would decide on the matter after hearing the arguments of all the petitioners.

“We will call Nawaz Sharif if there is a need for it,” he assured.

Further hearing of the case was adjourned till tomorrow.