The Supreme Court’s Panama case implementation bench on Friday began its proceedings around 9:30am in what is its fifth consecutive hearing following the submission of the Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) final probe report into the Sharif family’s businesses.
On Thursday, the three-member bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, heard arguments from the counsel of the prime minister’s children, Salman Akram Raja.
The counsel continued his arguments 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, may have made a clerical error which led to a confusion of dates regarding ownership of offshore companies by the premier’s children.
“We cannot even think of submitting false documents in court,” claimed Raja.
During the hearing, the bench also directed for the production of volume 10 of the JIT report, with Justice Azmat observing that they want to keep everything transparent.
The bench asked the prime minister’s counsel, Khawaja Harris, to examine specific sections of the volume.
Volume 10 of the report was kept confidential at the time the JIT report submitted its final report. The JIT had asked the Supreme Court not to make the volume public as it contained material related to ongoing international cooperation in the investigation against the Sharif family.
Raja informed the bench that the prime minister’s children are responsible for their own businesses, saying their grandfather aided them financially till 2004.
Addressing Raja, Justice Azmat observed, “you did well today”.
Presenting his arguments, Raja claimed that the Qatari prince was not given the option of recording his statement via video link.
During the hearing, Justice Ejaz remarked that they will swim against the tide, within the remits of the law, if they have to.
The bench observed that action is taken in accordance with the relevant law if the assets of a public office holder are more than his known income sources.
Justice Ijaz commented that the prime minister, in his speech in the National Assembly and before the nation, said he has all the necessary proof but they are waiting for this proof for over a year.
The judge observed further that Capt (retd) Safdar’s assets declaration does not mention Maryam’s beneficial ownership of offshore companies.
Dar’s counsel begins arguments
Later, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s counsel began presenting his arguments before the bench. Dr Tariq Hassan also argued before the court earlier in the week.
Dr Tariq Hassan said he was asked tough questions by the bench during his last appearance. He informed the bench that he has submitted 34-year records of his client, which should hopefully answer all the court’s queries.
Ijaz observed that even if the Hudabiya Paper Mills is kept aside for a moment, there is sufficient material against Ishaq Dar.
Hassan said he does not have the employment records of the finance minister, who served as an adviser to a Middle Eastern royal family.
Justice Ejaz observed that the bench will examine all the documents in detail.
Hassan argued that his client is tired of all this scrutiny, saying “This needs to stop”. He said Dar appeared before the JIT as a witness but it seems here that he was a suspect.
Justice Ijaz observed further that Dar’s son transferred funds to Hill Metals Establishment.
“Tariq Sahab you have done justice to your client. Now let us do justice with him too,” remarked Justice Azmat.
The judge further observed that the bench cares about all the respondents and will proceed according to the law.
Dr Tariq Hassan then completed his arguments.
The deputy prosecutor general of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) then took the stand. “NAB is pondering whether it can reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case and will make a decision in around a week,” he said.
“How long will you think about this?” responded Justice Ejaz.
Naeem Bukhari then began his arguments on 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.
When asked 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.
“Nawaz Sharif concealed payment of salaries and his appointment as the chairman of FZE Capital,” said Bukhari.
The PTI chairman’s counsel claimed the premier lied in his speech in the National Assembly.
He added that Hussain gave his father Rs1 billion in ‘gifts’.
