ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit details pertaining to the pardon granted to Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills default reference. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, heading the five-judge larger bench hearing the Panamagate case, observed that it was a matter involving Rs 1.2 billion of the country. The top court asked the NAB to inform whether Dar was granted pardon conditionally or unconditionally under Section 26 of the NAB Ordinance. The top court observed that both aspect of the pardon had different implications. Justice Khosa observed that if the pardon was granted to Dar before his statement of confession then it would be considered a the statement of the accused; however, if the pardon was granted after the confession then it would be considered a statement of the prosecution witness. Section 26 (a) of the said ordinance explains the conditions of tender of pardon to the accomplice and states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the code, at any stage of [inquiry, investigation or trial], the chairman [NAB] may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to any offence, tender a full or conditional pardon to such a person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the said offence including the names of the persons involved therein whether as principals or abettors or otherwise.” Likewise, Section 26 (e) states that any statement made before the NAB chairman or the court by a person “who has accepted a tender of pardon may be given in evidence against him at such trial”. The matter of Hudaibiya Paper Mills scam remained in focus during the course of Panamagate hearing, as Shahid Hamid, counsel for Dar, resumed his arguments to counter the allegations – regarding confession of money laundering – levelled against his client in a petition by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Shahid Hamid argued that his client, while denying the statement of confession, had already stated that he was forced to sign the statement when he was in confinement during the military rule of General (r) Pervez Musharraf. He further said that his client was made an accused in the preliminary statement but was not made an accused in the final reference, and added that the reference challenged in the Lahore High Court had been quashed. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asserted that if the magistrate – in front of whom the statement was read – was unable to verify its authenticity, it would be no more than a piece of paper. But Justice Khosa observed that the matter was quashed on technicalities, adding that the statement was not a piece of paper but evidence, and a person who was not guilty “fights his case” rather than accepting acquittal. Shahid Hamid contended that every forum had given his client a clean chit. To this, Justice Khosa asked Hamid if the merits of the case were ever looked into, adding that a 1.2-billion-rupee scam against the Sharif family had gone unaccounted for because the reference was quashed. He further observed that many people were saying that the court was prolonging the matter, but the court “will keep listening” until it had made up its mind and the ends of justice met. “This is a court of law and will not be dictated by the wishes of the people.” Earlier, counsel for the prime minister Makhdoom Ali Khan requested the court for more time to produce documents regarding the inherited properties and its distribution, as he was waiting for instructions from his client.