ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing of the Panama Leaks case during which the counsel of the prime minister continued his arguments on the three questions posed by the apex court.
These questions were: How did the prime minister's children form the companies; from where the money came and how it was transferred; were the prime minister's speeches true or not; and stated the issue of dependency also needs an explanation.
During the proceedings, PM’s counsel Salman Aslam Butt said after the 1999 martial law, all the records of the Sharif Family companies were seized by the military authorities and Dubai banks do not maintain records beyond five years.
To this, Justice Khose remarked, you are taking a dangerous line of arguments in defence of your client.
The PML-N leaders after the break told media that it has been established today Maryam Nawaz is not dependent on PM Nawaz Sharif and the prime minister is not the accused in this case.
State Minister CAD, Tariq Fazal Chaudhry said we will present the money trail before the august court.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Ameer Hani Muslim, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen, resumed hearing in the petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and others seeking a probe in the Panama Papers as well as disqualification of Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif.
Video goes viral on social media, drawing anger from netizens and demand for harsh penalties
Political Financing Wing of ECP has asked PTI representatives to appear before electoral watchdog on April 30
Epicentre of the earthquake was New Malir Karachi
IT ministry notifies tech expert's appointment as convener of Digital Pakistan committee headed by state minister
Pakistani, Irani leaders highlight need to resolve Kashmir issue via peaceful means based on will of people
Petitioners raise objections on top court's six-member bench hearing military court's case