Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, heading the five-judge larger bench hearing the Panamagate case, on Wednesday asked Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif to submit the details of inherited properties, distributed in Sharif family, according to the will of Mian Muhammad Sharif after his demise.

He observed that the issue was not the properties but ‘honesty’, adding that the Sharif family was the owner and knows things best.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan, member of the larger bench, observed that there were two aspects of the issue – one being Maryam’s dependency on her father and second that she acted as the “front man” for PM Nawaz and all properties belong to him.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, another member of the larger bench, observed that since the dependency of Maryam was a disputed matter, the top court could not adjudicate the matter, as it “requires the recording of evidence”.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed told the counsel for the Sharif family that Hussain Nawaz has to show his ownership of the London properties before proving Maryam Safdar as a trustee.

During the course of the hearing, Shahid Hamid, the counsel for Maryam, contended that the same issue – filed by Sardar Latif Khosa of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Dr Yasmeen Rashid against Muhammad Safdar – was pending before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

On this, Justice Khan observed that it had to be seen whether the exact issue was pending before the ECP, adding that if so, then why this court should hear the matter simultaneously under Article 184(3).

However, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa asked Shahid Hamid if he wanted the top court to stop proceedings on the basis that the matter was pending before the ECP.

“It is for the ECP to decide whether it is competent or not,” he observed. He further said that if the court held the proceeding then some day a person would approach the top court and the respondent would move the ECP and contend before this court not to proceed because the matter was pending. Shahid Hamid contended that under the Representation of People Act, 1976, the writ of quo warranto could be invoked against the elected member of the assembly.

He contended that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) submitted forged documents to establish Maryam’s ownership of the London flats, adding that the signatures had discrepancies in alleged emails from Maryam Safdar (formerly Maryam Nawaz) in which she purportedly admitted beneficiary ownership of the Nielsen and Nescoll companies.

He argued that the court could conclude if it compared the signature on the documents with her original signature. To this, Justice Khan observed that the court “does not know the science of writing”, adding that the signature issue could be dealt with if the documents were sent to an expert.

“Unless he (graphologist) appears before the court, records testimony and then the cross examination takes place, it would be rather more dangerous to give judgement on merely opinions,” observed Justice Khan.

However, Justice Gulzar observed that the two signatures seemed to be considerably different from each other. Justice Khosa said the documents were leaked by the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and that it was not possible for parties to go to Panama and check all documents with Maryam Nawaz’s signature on them.

He further observed that the respondents had not mentioned Qatari investments, and the letter was neither mentioned in the replies submitted in court on November 5 or on November 7.

Justice Khosa said the trust deed was of 2006, while Maryam in her interview in 2012 to a private channel said that they (the family) did not own any property in London.

Hamid responded by saying that Maryam correctly stated in the interview that “she” did not own a house abroad. Justice Ahsan, on this, asked whether the house and property were separate entities, adding that Maryam in the same interview denied owning any property in Pakistan, but she was also the owner of agricultural land at that time.

Justice Khosa directed Hamid to submit the script of the interview on his client’s behalf as well. The hearing of the case was adjourned until today (Thursday).