Islamabad (July 20, 2017): The three-member bench of the apex court on Thursday resumed hearing of Panama implantation case.
The special implementation bench is being headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprised Justice Ejazul Ahsan and Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh.
Click Play Button to Watch this Video
Counsel of Prime Minister’s children Salman Akram Raja is advancing argument before the bench.
Raja had submitted new documents in the court, which show Hassan and Hussain as owner of London flats.
Yesterday, counsel for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif tried to draw a distinction between owning an asset and deriving benefits from it, maintaining that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) had not accused his client of abusing his authority or committing corruption.
“The court has to be very cautious while deciding the matter, since whatever we are saying against the prime minister is based on inferences drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence,” Khawaja Harris Ahmed told a three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan while wrapping up his arguments.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, however, inquired whether it was possible that the person enjoying or benefiting from an asset was, in fact, the benami owner.
Justice Khan noted that the court was aware of the definitions and concepts, since it had been hearing the matter for several days.
He also reminded the counsel that the real issue was the source of funds for the four upscale Avenfield apartments, which had surfaced in 1993, when the PM’s children did not have the means to acquire them.
Advocate Salman Akram Raja, who represents the PM’s children, had said that he would submit certain documents acquired from Abu Dhabi customs to show that scrap and machinery from the Gulf Steel Mills did move from Dubai after its liquidation.
Dr Tariq Hassan, appearing on behalf of Ishaq Dar, was told by the court to submit documents instead of a summary to establish the minister did file income tax returns between 1981-82 and 2001-02, as well as wealth tax returns from 1985 to 2007.
The court was not happy with the assertion that the FBR could not provide these returns to the JIT because the record had been taken away by NAB and asked for some documents showing the handing over and taking over of these documents.
Justice Ahsan said that if his client was looking for a shortcut, it would not be granted at this stage and he would have the opportunity to redress his grievance at an appropriate trial court.
The court also reminded the counsel that if Mr Dar’s confessional statement in the Hudabiya case was considered withdrawn, his status as co-accused would be restored and the pardon granted to him would be considered withdrawn.
Related News
http://abbtakk.tv/en/accountability-a-must-for-strengthening-democracy-ji-chief/
