Maryam’s lawyer to face multitude of questions in SC

Panama Papers case

ISLAMABAD: Shahid Hamid, representing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter, Maryam, has a heavy onus on his shoulders to defend her, as after the premier she has been the principal target of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the Supreme Court in the proceedings on the offshore companies and London apartments of the Sharif family.

Maryam has been singled out for unsubstantiated charges for the simple reason that the PTI strongly believes that she is the heir apparent of the prime minister and is going to play a bigger political role in future in the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).

Although she doesn’t hold any official berth in the government or the PML-N, she is believed to be effectively running the government’s media strategy specifically in relation to the hearings in the top court.

Her team’s responses are mostly retaliation to the harangue of the PTI force. Both sides have allotted the job of “media war” to their own outspoken figures. None is willing to lag behind the other.

PTI Chairman Imran Khan, who is often grilled by the PML-N mouthpieces for his tirade against the prime minister and his family members, is irked by their onslaught and has accused Maryam of guiding the attack.

Shahid Hamid will face a multitude of questions from the judges as he will attempt to get his client disentangled from the accusations, tossed over her ad nauseam, in and out of the apex court for the past nine months. Among these claims, the lawyer will also particularly tackle to the judges’ satisfaction an assertion that Maryam is dependent on her father, the prime minister.

However, there is no change in her stand that she underlined once again in a fresh miscellaneous application submitted to the court. She restated that she was not the beneficial owner of London properties, which were owned by her brother, Hussain. She also dismissed the correspondence between Financial Investigation Agency of the British Virgin Islands and Mossack Fonseca. She wrote that her husband had been paying tax since 1986 and that she had never been dependent on her father since 1992.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed rightly observed that since several accusations leveled against the premier are in relation to Maryam, Shahid Hamid would have to present arguments in relation to her status as dependent as well.

“I am not the owner of the London flats and the London flats are owned by my brother, Hussain, I had only accepted authority over Minerva Financial Services [the holding company that owns two other companies behind the London flats] at the request of my brother; till this day I have never visited the company or met with any of its staff; and the presents that Nawaz Sharif had provided to me had been gifted out of his love for me as father,” Maryam stated.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, who spoke for the premier, had challenged the implication of Nawaz Sharif in the case on important constitutional and legal grounds. He had left the questions relating to Maryam, Hussain and Hassan for Shahid Hamid and Salman Akram Raja to answer. Among them, the arguments of these attorneys would be very important.

Another lawyer, Sheikh Ahsanuddin, who represented the Jamaat-e-Islami, argued that since all the evidence has been brought forward, the court has a great responsibility. "What evidence?" Justice Gulzar Ahmed remarked.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said: You can call them materials, not evidence. And Justice Azmat Saeed inquired: What will happen if these evidences are found to be useless under the Law of Evidence?

It became clear that the panel has still not been provided with any credible evidence that can be relied upon. The bench had pointed out this fact for a number of times during the proceedings over the past couple of weeks. However, both sides have been insisting outside the court that they have handed over unimpeachable proofs to the court that would produce victory for their cause.

At last, the lead attorney of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Taufiq Asif, wrapped up his elaborate arguments, apparently leaving little impact on the justices. Rather, he attracted their admonition more than once over the past three days when he was on his feet.

It was clear from several remarks and observations of the justices that Taufiq Asif remained off the mark, was hardly ever relevant and kept repeating himself to a great disapproval of the judges. He was stuck with the Zafar Ali Shah case in which the Supreme Court had validated the October 1999 martial law imposed by Pervez Musharraf. His focus on it was no impressive because of its irrelevance to the subject matter of the present petitions.

Taufiq Asif was reminded once again that the decision in this case had not acknowledged Nawaz Sharif’s ownership of the London flats. Justice Ijazul Ahsan even observed that the lawyer has made a mockery of the case. And Justice Azmat Saeed remarked: “You have caused as much damage to your client as you possibly could.” The attorney was told that he had not been able to establish any relationship between the references he was making and the London flats’ ownership. On his demand, the bench indicated to summon the prime minister only if it was deemed necessary at any stage.