ISLAMABAD: Will the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) take up the gauntlet to prove its stand correct after Maryam Nawaz’s lawyer Shahid Hamid dubbed the documents submitted to the Supreme Court by it as absolutely fake?
There is no possibility that the PTI will accept the challenge because Imran Khan has already said that his job was only to point out, what he claimed, wrongdoings and not to prove them, and it is for the court to dig out evidence and for the defendants to establish their innocence.
Shahid Hamid made a sweeping statement in line with what Maryam had stated in her miscellaneous application, filed to the court a day earlier, that her signatures on the documents presented by the PTI or released by others were fake. He also asserted that the papers of Minerva Financial Services Limited etc., being attributed to Maryam are also false. It is now not only for the PTI but also others, who are confidently claiming that her signatures on these documents are genuine and similar, to come forward and give a lie to the lawyer’s stand.
Interestingly, the attorney provided her original signatures and the ones put on these papers along with the magnifying glasses to the judges to compare the two sets. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked after glancing over them that the difference between the two signatures was so visible that it can be seen even without reading glasses.
However, Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed that the two signatures seemed to be considerably different from each other. However, Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that only an expert can give his opinion on the signatures and the justices lacked the capacity to make that judgment on their own.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who heads the five-member bench, said that the documents bearing Maryam’s signatures can’t be seen by going to Panama. Shahid Hamid argued that signatures on these documents are fake and that the court can arrive at the same conclusion if it compares them with her original signatures. He disclosed that after he was hired by Maryam as lawyer, an attempt was made to hack his email account but it was thwarted by changing the password.
Like Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, Shahid Hamid also raised a vital point when he stated that the case does not hold any special significance as a public importance matter because Maryam was an ordinary citizen.
Even if the court is to assume that the London flats indeed belonged to Maryam, there is nothing special to it as she is not dependent upon her father. The case is only in the scope of public interest if it is about the premier and Maryam is being accused of being dependent on her father so that Nawaz Sharif can be dragged into it, he stressed.
However, Justice Gulzar Ahmed pointed out that the top court has not been asked to rule against Maryam. Justice Khosa noted that the allegation is that Maryam has allegedly acted as her father's front woman. This allegation needs to be proven by the petitioner and not the defendant, the lawyer responded.
Maryam has stated in her application that she is not the beneficial owner of the offshore companies and the London apartments and was only trustee for her brother, Hussain, who has seven children from two wives of different nationalities. The PTI has claimed otherwise. The court asked Shahid Hamid to dilate on this point during the next hearing.
The attorney pointed to another element when he opined that the question of disqualification did not arise if one has not filed his tax returns and it is the job of the Federal Board of Revenue to look into it. He said a case was pending against Cap (retd) Safdar in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in this connection. Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that the ECP, created under the Constitution, was fully empowered to decide the reference; why the apex court should interfere in it; how it can start parallel proceedings; and why it should look at such cases when other forums are present.
Shahid Hamid pointed out that a reference against the prime minister filed by the PTI was rejected by the National Assembly speaker. His decision was appealed against in the Lahore High Court where it is pending disposal. “They (Nawaz Sharif’s opponents) are doing window shopping in the hope that the trick works” (at any forum).
After raising different points, the lawyer stated that his objection was on the court’s power and not on the maintainability of the present petitions. He was told that the court has already held these pleas maintainable as the defendants had not objected to it. There is also a question whether the court can give its judgment on disputed facts as decisions can be pronounced on such material only after recording evidence, the attorney asserted.