Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday said that the onus of the proof of money trail of London flats lies on the shoulders of the Sharif family.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, while heading a larger bench hearing the Panamagate case, observed that the burden of proof pertaining to money trail of Nescoll and Neilson companies is on the Sharif family. “It is the other party (defendants) which will explain because these are their companies. The court has powers to acquire the relevant documents,” Justice Khosa observed, adding, “We are not powerless…we can ask the Sharif family to show us complete records to justify their money trail.” He further said that members of the Sharif family will be questioned if they tried to conceal records from the court. However, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, another member of the bench, observed that the top court is not a trial court and hence will not inquire into any document.

Naeem Bukhari, counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), resumed his arguments on the third day of hearing and informed the court that Maryam Safdar had received an amount of Rs 31.7 million in 2011, Rs 51.6 million in 2012 and Rs 37.8 million in 2013 from her father as gift.

Likewise, he argued, she took a loan of Rs 42.3million from Chaudhry Sugar Mills, besides Rs 28.9 million from her brother Hassan Nawaz. He further argued that she had also received shares of different business from her father as gift.

On this point, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, another member of the bench, told Bukhari, “You should have obtained record from Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP).” He observed that the bench appreciates the efforts but “these piecemeal documents would not portray a clear picture.”

Placing a document of emails exchanged between British Virgin Island’s Financial Investigation Agency and Mossack Fonseca before court, Bukhari argued that these emails revealed that Maryam Safdar was the beneficial owner of Nielsen and Nescol. The emails also reveal, he further said, a letter of reference from Samba Financial Group dated 03-12-2005 addressed to Minerva Financial Services Limited which also establishes that Maryam Safdar was employing the services of Minerva Financial Services Limited even in 2005 in the same context and hence proving that she was the beneficial owner of the Mayfair apartments even in 2005.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed inquired from Bukhari that he had not explained as to whether the trust deed was valid or not. “Whether you want us to term someone’s gift as Benami,” asked Justice Saeed, further asking if there was any legal obligation on gifts and if it required to be registered under the law?

“These are the questions you (Bukhari) will have to answer. Benami laws are settled in Pakistan,” observed Justice Saeed.

“You (Bukhari) have to satisfy the court that these documents are authentic. At this stage it would be early and premature to give opinion about the documents,” said Justice Afzal, while referring to documents produced by PTI’s counsel. The case was adjourned till January 9 (Monday).

Earlier, Shahid Hamid, counsel for Maryam Safdar, told the bench that he would also be appearing on behalf of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

On Thursday, for the first time during the ongoing hearing of the Panamagate case, the top court hinted at reviewing the alleged contradictions in the statements made during interviews over the years of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members about ownership of their London properties.

When PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari referred to interviews of PM Sharif, his children and wife to establish their contradictory stances, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa – who heads the Supreme Court’s five-judge larger bench – observed that there are two kinds of news reports. “The first is a general analysis and the second is related to the statements (interviews) of an individual,” he said, adding that “If someone does not deny his statement then it has value. However, if he denies then he can be confronted.”