Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, head of the five-member larger bench hearing the Panamagate case, observed that if the court deems it necessary, it will summon anyone, including the prime minister, to record statement.

“We have already said that we will first hear the stance of the other party (PM’s children) after which we will see if there is any other step that needs to be taken or issue the verdict with the current available documents,” observed Justice Khosa. He said the court was yet to hear all parties in the Panamagate case.

He made the observation while responding to a plea made by counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Taufiq Asif to summon the prime minister to record his statement.

The onus of proof is on the Sharif family, so it is up to the court to summon the PM and seek his explanation on all questions, as the top court has inquisitorial jurisdiction, argued the counsel for the JI, adding that disqualification of a PM “does not upset democracy”.

To this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed snubbed the counsel for the JI and told him to stop his “political speech”.

Justice Gulzar Ahmed, however, observed that the apex court had declared in the Khewra Mines case that it could record evidence under Article 184(3) of the constitution.

The third day of Taufiq Asif’s arguments compelled the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders to speculate the alleged ‘settlement’ between the PM and the JI, as the latter’s lawyer was arguing more in favour of the premier.

The counsel said there was a mystery in satisfying the judgement of the Queen’s Court London in 1999, the counsel for the JI said, adding that Nawaz Sharif was behind the bars at that time.

“Such an argument was supposed to be made by the Sharif family, the defendant, but you did it,” said Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, adding that the counsel had caused as much damage to his client as he possibly could.

The counsel for the JI contended that everyone “doubts the money trail” produced by the Sharif family, and added that it was suspected that the sale of the Gulf Steel Mills (GSM) was not the source of purchase of the London flats.

Taufiq Asif again referred to Zafar Ali Shah case validating the October 12, 1999 military takeover. On this, the larger bench again reminded the counsel that the decision in Shah’s case did not acknowledge PM’s ownership of the London flats. Justice Ijazul Ahsan admonished the lawyer, saying he had made a mockery of the case. The court also told the lawyer that he had not been able to establish any relationship between the references he was making and the ownership of the London flats.

Shahid Hamid, the counsel for Maryam Safdar, Muhammad Safdar and Ishaq Dar, commenced his arguments and adopted the contentions of Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel for the PM.

Submitting another reply, he read out Maryam Safdar’s statement that she was living in one of the five houses in Shamim Agri Farms, Raiwind, all of which were owned by her grandmother.

Regarding the continuous flow of gifts, Maryam stated that she was gifted primarily on account of the abundance of PM’s love and affection, adding that her father had been giving those gifts with “the full consent of the family members”, while her brothers had materially assisted their father, the PM, in fulfilling his wishes.

On the dependency, she said that she had not been her father’s dependent since marriage in 1992, and was certainly not dependent when her father filed the nomination papers for the general elections. She said that she had never been the beneficial owner of flats in the UK nor did she derive income or profit from those flats. Her lawyer said there was no direct allegation against his client, Maryam Safdar.