The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing of the Panamagate case seeking the disqualification of the prime minister over investments made by his family members in offshore companies.
A five-member of the apex court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa is hearing the case on daily basis.
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) counsel Naeem Bokhari in court stated that there are irregularities between the statements of the prime minister and his children.
A bearer certificate is not a prize bond, he said, and the offshore company belongs to the person who has the bearer certificate. According to law, it is necessary to alert authorities about the ownership of a bearer certificate, he said.
Bokhari called for the provision of a record of the ownership of the London flats from the release of the law regarding the bearer certificate in 2002 to the transfer of the flats.
The Sharif family will have to provide proof of the Qatari royal family having ownership of the certificate, Bokhari said.
Justice Ijazul Hassan questioned whether the law is applicable to companies created before it came into being, to which Naeem Bokhari replied that the law is applicable to the bearer certificate holder.
He claimed that the Qatari royals had possession of the Sharif family’s bearer certificates prior to 2006.
The Sharif family will have to prove that their every action is in accordance with law, Bokhari said, adding that according to Black’s Law Dictionary, a dependent is one whose costs are borne by another.
The prime minister’s daughter, Maryam Nawaz, did not have money for offshore companies, he said. She was gifted crores of Rupees by her father for the offshore companies, he alleged.
Hussain Nawaz also gave Maryam Nawaz money, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked. If your point of view is to be believed, is Maryam Nawaz Hussain Nawaz’s dependent too, Justice Saeed asked Bokhari.
Justice Ejaz Afzal asked whether one who lives with their father can be termed a dependent.
At the outset of Tuesday’s proceedings, Justice Khosa regretted making an observation against parliamentarians on Monday and said that he should not have said so, adding it was too generalised a statement. “I stand corrected,” Justice Khosa said.
Justice Ejaz Afzal during yesterday’s hearing feared that disqualifying the prime minister on the basis of off-the-cuff statements would set a dangerous precedent in the country’s judicial history.
“We, as human beings, make off-the-cuff statements without a sense of guilt and then we usually review them. But disqualification on the basis of such statements will be setting a dangerous precedent,” observed Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan during a hearing of the Panama Papers leaks case.
Jamaat-i-Islami chief Siraj-ul-Haq also filed an application before the apex court, requesting that the prime minister be summoned in person to clarify the controversy that had arisen due to his statements before parliament, in order to ascertain the truth.