Shehbaz’s cross-examination completed in Rs10bn case against Imran

By APP
|
September 17, 2025
A combination photo of PTI chairman Imran Khan (L) and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif (R) —Instagram/AFP/File

LAHORE: A sessions court on Tuesday adjourned proceedings in Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharifs Rs10 billion defamation suit against the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder until September 27, after the completion of the prime minister’s cross-examination.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Yilmaz Ghani presided over the hearing, during which Shehbaz Sharif appeared via video link, took oath, and underwent cross-examination on his statement. The PTI founder’s counsel, Muhammad Hussain, questioned the prime minister, asking whether he had filed a false and fabricated claim, which Shehbaz Sharif denied.

In response to another question about whether the legal notice was fake, fictitious, and self-fabricated, Shehbaz Sharif again rejected the allegation.

Shehbaz Sharif further denied that no legal notice had been sent to the PTI founder. He maintained that the PTI founder’s statement was defamatory in nature rather than a political comment.

When asked whether the PTI founder had personally written the allegedly defamatory words by hand, Shehbaz Sharif replied that he had no knowledge of it. Following the process, the court summoned other witnesses in the defamation case for cross-examination on September 27. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, through the defamation suit, had submitted that the PTI founder alleged in a TV programme on April 26, 2017, that a Rs10 billion bribe offer was made to him by Shehbaz Sharif for silence over the Panama Papers case.

He said that allegations levelled against him were not only false but also defamatory.

He said that PTI founder also failed to tender a publicly broadcast apology despite the fact that he was served a legal notice in May, 2017 for the purpose. The court has been requested to issue a decree for recovery of Rs10 billion as compensation for the publication of defamatory content in favour of the plaintiff.