Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: In an unexpected turn of events, the Supreme Court came down hard on parties to the Panamagate case, and took it upon itself to dig out the truth.

As the fifth hearing of the Panamagate case came to an end, the SC declared the documents filed by parties “trash” and letter of Qatari Prince regarding the Sharif family’s business “hearsay”, and vowed that it would not allow the truth to be buried.

“We want the truth to come out. Even the petitioner (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) is burying the truth in these 600 documents,” member of a five-judge larger bench Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked, telling the counsel for the PTI, Hamid Khan, that documents filed by him were just trash.

“Newspaper cuttings are not evidence, rather they carry stories, and the next day pakoras are sold in it,” he further observed.

The bench, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, on Tuesday resumed the hearing of Panamagate-related petitions amid tight security and crowded courtroom, which was jam-packed with leadership of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the PTI.

The same treatment was meted out to Akram Sheikh, the counsel for prime minister’s daughter Maryam Nawaz, who informed the bench that a Qatari prince gave money for the London flats. Supporting his claim, the counsel presented a letter authored by Prince Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani.

“I (author) was informed that during the year 1980, Mian Muhammad Sharif (PM’s father) expressed his desire to invest a certain amount of money in real estate business of Al Thani family in Qatar. I understood at that time, that an aggregate sum of around 12 million dirhams… was contributed by Mian Muhammad Sharif, originating from the sale of business in Dubai,” the letter stated.

“The properties Flats # 17, 17A, 16 and 16A at Avenfield House, Park Lane, London were registered in the ownership of two offshore companies, bearer share certificates of which were kept during that time in Qatar. These were purchased from the proceeds of the real estate business,” the letter further stated.

“You want to tender some document from this gentleman (Qatari prince) and if we take this document on record then will this gentleman volunteer to appear as witness? Otherwise this document will remain unproved,” Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, another member of bench, asked the counsel. He also asked whether the counsel, representing the PM’s children, wanted to show that somebody gifted this huge amount.

However, Akram Shiekh could not satisfy the court – regarding the prince’s willingness to appear as witness. However, he said that there was no gift from any foreign dignitary.

“Does it qualify as evidence? This is hearsay and originating only a few days ago, not years ago,” said Justice Khosa. He further observed that the language used in the letter, like ‘I understood’ and ‘I was recalled’, was all hearsay.

However, CJP Jamali observed that the court would see its value, as to whether it could be accepted as a valid justification or not, “when time comes”. “These things are premature at this stage.”

The court also observed the difference between the PM’s statements on two different constitutional forums – parliament and the SC. The SC granted another day to the parties to examine the documents of each other, and adjourned the hearing until tomorrow (Thursday).