Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its judgment in Panama case after counsels of both sides concluded their arguments before a three-judge bench of the apex court headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan.

Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh, a member of the implementation bench, observed that they will not deviate from any law while delivering judgment in the case. “We are conscious of the fundamental rights of petitioners as well as respondents,” he observed.

The bench said they will announce the date for the final hearing later.

Earlier, the bench opened the ‘confidential’ chapter – Volume 10 – of the JIT report titled ‘Mutual Legal Assistance Requests- Ongoing’.

“The volume contains details of JIT’s correspondence and will help clear a number of things,” Justice Azmat Saeed told PM’s counsel Khawaja Harris.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for PM’s children, resumed his arguments and told the court that many solicitors work on Saturdays and even on Sundays in London.

The bench had pointing out that the trust deed ? executed between Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz in February 2006 ? was signed on Saturday in a country where it was not possible to seek official appointments on a holiday.

The counsel contended that his client Maryam Nawaz was not the beneficial owner of two offshore companies holding UK flats.

However, Justice Khan observed that the JIT in its report has prima facie concluded that she is the beneficial owner of the flats, adding that if the court concludes that the ownership of flats is not reflected in the tax returns of her husband Captain (r) Safdar, then he could be hit by the Representation of the People’s Act 1976.

Regarding the mistake in trust deeds, Raja admitted and clarified to the bench that there was a clerical error in the 2006 trust deed by staff of Advocate Akram Sheikh, who in early days of hearing represented the PM.

Raja reiterated that Hussain Nawaz received all the capital from his grandfather Mian Muhammad Sharif as he was the in-charge then and managed the dealings himself.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan noted that during an address to the nation last year, the PM had said that all the records of the children’s business activities were available. “Some suspicious documents were then submitted to the speaker of the National Assembly. We have been waiting for these documents for a year,” he said.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the lawyer if the case should be sent to the accountability court for trial. “The case requires further investigations,” said Raja concluding his arguments.

Likewise, Dr Tariq Hassan, counsel representing Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, repeated his earlier arguments to which the bench observed that the arguments had already been noted by them.

He presented Dar’s 35-year tax record in a sealed box, saying that he was instructed to produce the document in the manner the JIT submitted the report in sealed boxes. “All the allegations in the JIT report are malicious and incorrect,” the lawyer maintained, adding that Dar had remained an adviser to Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, a UAE minister, from 2003-2008, and received a sum of GBP 8.2 million as his salary. The judge wondered why “Terms of Services” was not attached to Dar’s appointment letter under Al Nahyan.

Advocate Akbar Tarar, counsel appearing on behalf of National Accountability Bureau (NAB), told the bench that the bureau was considering to file an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the orders of Lahore High Court wherein it quashed the Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference.

Rebutting the arguments of Sharif family’s counsel, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf counsel Naeem Bukhari told the court that the PM had not disclosed his position in the UAE-based company Capital FZE. He did not declare his income while serving as the chairman of the company, he added.

“Is there a restriction on the pubic office holders engaging in work outside their post?” Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked, to which the counsel responded in the affirmative. “Engaging in other work leads to a conflict of interest for a public office holder,” said Bukhari. “If we take the Qatari letters out of the picture, it becomes clear that the PM owned the London flats from 1993 to 1996,” said Bukhari.

Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said that the Sharif family had not answered the 13 questions posed by the JIT and had also failed to submit money trail in the court.

Published in Daily Times, July 22^nd , 2017.