SC concludes hearing Panama review petitions, to announce next step shortly
SC concludes hearing Panama review petitions, to announce next step shortly: The five-member bench concluded hearing the review pleas against the Panama case decision on Friday after the petitioners’ counsels wrapped up their arguments.
The bench then went into a recess to consult on the next step and is expected to reconvene aroud 11am with a way forward.
The review petitions have been filed by the Sharif family and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar against the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Panama Papers case.
Presenting his arguments earlier, Sharif children’s counsel Salman Akram Raja said that Capt (retd) Safdar has nothing to do with the London flats [owned by the Sharif family].
Safdar is the son-in-law of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and an elected lawmaker.
The bench is headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and comprises Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan — who along with the latter two headed the special implementation bench in the Panama case that oversaw the work of the Joint Investigation Team.
Raja was referring to the court’s order in the Panama case directing inclusion of Safdar’s name in the corruption reference against the Sharif family regarding their London properties.
In response, Justice Khosa remarked that Safdar definitely has some connection with the London flats.
Raja said he agrees with the arguments presented by Nawaz’s counsel Khawaja Harris in the past two days regarding the appointment of a monitoring judge and the JIT’s work.
In response to the bench’s observation that Safdar’s signatures are present on the trust deed for the flats, Raja said he signed the document as a witness.
“There should’ve been an inquiry, why did you order a [NAB] reference,” he added.
Safdar’s basic rights will be hurt if a reference is filed in the accountability court, Raja said further.
Justice Khosa observed that Maryam had disowned the London flats before but the JIT report revealed she’s the owner.
Justice Ejaz also stated that the British Virgin Islands confirmed that Maryam is the owner and that it is incorrect that Safdar is aloof from the entire matter.
In response to Raja’s argument that the trial court may be affected by the court’s observations, Justice Azmat remarked that yesterday the bench assured that no observation of theirs will affect trial proceedings. “There will be no compromise on a fair trial,” he observed further.
Justice Ejaz observed that the trial court will decide the case on the basis of evidence.
“Let the matter be investigated,” observed Justice Khosa, saying further that the judges were very careful in writing the Panama Papers case judgment.
Raja then concluded his arguments following which Shiekh Rasheed’s petition regarding reopening of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case was taken up.
Rasheed’s petition was concluded after the NAB prosecutor general gave an assurance that the bureau will file the appeal in the Hudaibiya case within seven days.
Speaking to the media outside the court before the trial commenced, Rasheed said today is an “important day in Pakistan’s political history”.
On Wednesday and Thursday, Nawaz’s counsel, Harris presented his arguments. Also on Thursday, Dar’s counsel Shahid Hamid presented completed his arguments.
Making his case before the bench on Thursday, Harris argued that Nawaz never claimed to have received any salary from FZE Capital — a UAE-based company owned by the Sharif family.
He added that a proper trial is needed for a lawmaker’s disqualification, saying that if just his election was termed void then Nawaz would only have been barred for one term.
However, the bench observed on Thursday that documents submitted in court during the Panama Papers case proved that Nawaz received a salary from the UAE-based company in August 2013.
In his arguments on Thursday, Dar’s counsel, Hamid, claimed his client’s assets did not grow overnight but in fact expanded over a period of 15 years.
He also argued that the court needs to set boundaries of its jurisdiction, to which the bench responded that the boundaries are set from case to case.
———————————————————————————————-
Watch your favorite programs, documentaries, informative packages and latest NEWS(English and Urdu).
Watch Humsub tv Live Streaming here: Humsub.tv
Read Latest Articles and News here: Latest Pakistan News
———————————————————————————————-