ISLAMABAD: A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court – headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Anwar Zaheer Jamali – on Friday adjourned hearing of the Panamagate case till the first week of January 2017, meaning that the new chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), who will take oath on December 31, will form a new larger bench to hear the case from beginning. Naeem Bokhari, counsel for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), adopted that formation of a commission on Panama leaks was unacceptable as the court would decide the matter. He warned that the PTI would boycott the commission if one was constituted for the probe of Panama Papers case. Counsel for the prime minister Akram Sheikh informed the court that Hasan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz were both overseas Pakistanis. “We will not create any hurdle in investigation of the case if the court considers it appropriate. The verdict of the court would be acceptable regarding hearing of the case or formation of investigation commission.” The CJP enquired from Salman Butt, counsel for the PM, what instructions they had received about the formation of the Panama commission. He responded that the verdict of the court in this regard would be acceptable. On this, Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali remarked that the court did not need either party’s approval to form a commission. The chief justice observed that formation of a commission was the CJP’s discretionary power. The CJ said that being retired, he would not sit in on any commission and the case would begin afresh. “The case will be heard from the beginning before the new bench,” CJP Jamali said, adding that the lawyers would have to present evidence again in front of the new bench. He said there was no issue in wrapping up the case before his bench, “but we want to hear all sides before making a decision”. He further said he wanted all sides to get an equal chance to present their case, something the formation of a commission could ensure. Meanwhile Awami Muslim League (AML) leader Sheikh Rashid, presenting his own stance in the absence of a lawyer, said the proceedings should resume in open court. “We will accept any decision that the court makes in front of the open court,” he added. Dissatisfied with the way parties to the Panama Papers leaks hearing developed their case over nine days of proceedings, the Supreme Court on Wednesday proposed constituting a commission to hold an extensive enquiry into the matter. The court had asked the counsel for the PM and the PTI chief to come up with their stance after seeking instructions on forming the enquiry commission. Meanwhile, PTI Chairman Imran Khan said on Friday that he would never let the nation forget the Panama leaks and stated that it was his party’s wish to receive justice in the case as soon as possible. Addressing a press conference, Imran said he wished the current bench would wrap up the case as soon as possible. “[This is why] we wished that the case was heard on a day-to-day basis.” On the formation of the commission, he said, “The decision is up to the new chief justice but in our eyes the time for that has passed. The provision of evidence has nearly ended.” “We will not let this case be forgotten… it will not die down. While the case is adjourned, we will go to the public.” He said Prime Minister Nawaz and Khawaja must know that the nation would never forget Panama case. He said the PTI was disappointed over the decision of not hearing the Panamagate case on a daily basis, but “we respect the court’s decision”. Imran said that this case would decide whether the law in Pakistan could hold the powerful and the elite accountable or not. He further said that before the Panama leaks scandal came to light, Maryam Nawaz had claimed in an interview that she owned no property abroad. “However, after the Panama leaks scandal came to light, they had to admit owning properties abroad,” he said. Imran Khan said that for this case, there was no need for a judicial commission. He said that the prime minister’s attorney had claimed that Nawaz Sharif’s statement in parliament was political. “In court, they claimed that someone had given them the money. They didn’t know who had given them the money,” said Imran.