ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday reserved the verdict of Panama Case as it wrapped up proceedings on the fifth day of the case hearing. The apex court observed that it will operate strictly within the confines of the law and not trample anyones individual rights. The date of the announcement of the verdict will be made public later.
The three-member special bench of Supreme Courts began its fifth-day proceedings of the implementation to JIT report today with the legal counsel for PM Nawazs children, Salman Akram Raja continuing with his arguments.
During the hearing which started around 9:30 am today, Raja informed the bench that there are several law firms in London that operate on Saturdays, to which the bench agreed.
The counsel also clarified before the bench that his predecessor, Akram Sheikh, there may have been a clerical error, on his predecessor, Akram Sheikhs part, which may have caused a confusion of dates regarding ownership of offshore companies by the premiers children.
We cannot even think of submitting false documents in court, claimed Raja.
During the hearing, the bench also presented the prime ministers counsel, Khawaja Harris, with the volume X of the JIT report. We will not show volume X to anyone right now, observed Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed adding that everything must be kept transparent.
The bench called upon PM Nawazs legal counsel, Khawaja Harris, to examine specific sections of the volume.Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that a lot of things will be made clear once volume 10 is examined.
Volume 10 of the report was kept confidential for the time being upon the JITs suggestion since it contained material pertaining to ongoing international cooperation in the investigation against the Sharif family.
Proceeding with the arguments, Raja claimed that the Qatari prince was not given the choice of recording his statement via video link.
During the court proceedings, Justice Ejaz was of the view that they will swim against the tide, within the confines of the law, if need be.
Moreover, the bench observed that action is taken under the relevant law if the assets of a public office holder are beyond the known income sources.
Justice Ijaz went on to add that the prime minister, in his speech in the National Assembly and before the nation claimed that he had all the required proof but nothing has been presented as proof for over a year.
The judge observed further that Capt (retd) Safdars assets declaration does not mention Maryams beneficial ownership of offshore companies.
Later, Finance Minister Ishaq Dars counsel Dr Tariq Hassan began presenting his arguments before the bench.
Dr Tariq Hassan apprised the bench that he has submitted 34-year records of Ishaq Dar which should satisfactorily answer all the courts queries.
Ijaz observed that keeping aside the Hudabiya Paper Mills case, there is sufficient material against Ishaq Dar.
Hassan claimed that he does not have the employment records of the finance minister, who at the time served as an adviser to a Middle Eastern royal family.
Justice Ejaz observed that the bench will review all the documents in detail.
Hassan argued that his Dar has become wary of all the scrutiny that has been ongoing adding that his client appeared before the JIT as a witness but it feels like that he was a suspect.
Justice Ijaz observed further that Dars son transferred funds to Hill Metals Establishment.
The deputy prosecutor general of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) then remarked that NAB is mulling reopening the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case and will make a decision in about a weeks time.
Later, PTIs legal counsel Naeem Bukhari began his arguments pertaining to the replies of the respondents.
Bukhari argued that Nawaz Sharif did not declare his association with FZE Capital. He is not sadiq and amin in front of the people, he said.
Upon being questioned by the bench that the other side claims the prime minister did not receive any salary, Bukhari claimed the proof of the premier receiving a salary exists.
Bukhari claimed that Nawaz Sharif concealed salary payments and his appointment as the chairman of FZE Capital adding that Hussain gifted Rs1 billion to his father.
Bokhari went on to claim that the PM lied in his speech in the National Assembly thus violating his oath.
Justice Ejaz inquired if public office holders can be privately employed, observing that judges are clearly not allowed to engage in private work while in office.
The additional attorney general apprised that there is no distinct restriction regarding this on the prime minister.
Bukhari, however, argued that this matter creates a conflict of interests.
Maryam is the frontwoman of her father, alleged Bukhari.
Justice Ejaz observed that it is yet to be determined whether prime ministers children had any source of income in the 1990s.
Following Bukhari, petitioner Sheikh Rashid presented his response to the respondents arguments saying that Nawaz Sharif made threatening remarks regarding the JIT which is paramount to contempt.
He claimed the money trail has not been presented despite the bench repeatedly asking for it adding that if the Qatari letter is excluded from the case, there is nothing in it.
On Thursday, the fourth consecutive hearing of the bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the judges observed that there was still an absence of money trail with regards to the London properties as well as the Azizia Steel Mills in Jeddah. Counsel for prime ministers children Salman Akram Raja also submitted a 17-page petition listing objections on the JIT report, pleading for dismissal of the report and its evidence.
Justice Ijaz observed that producing the Qatari royal before the JIT was Hussains responsibility as the foreign national was his star witness.
The three-member Supreme Court bench also observed that prima facie, the case relates to submission of forged documents and that there is a seven-year imprisonment term for those who submit false documents before the court.
Earlier this week, the bench heard arguments of the petitioners over the JIT report, submitted on July 10, and was now hearing the replies of the respondents.
