PanamaLeaks case
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought details pertaining to distribution of inheritance property of the late Mian Muhammad Sharif among his family and transcript of Maryam Nawaz's interview to a private television channel in 2012 where she had denied the ownership of London flats.
The court also directed Shahid Hamid, counsel for Maryam Safdar, and Captain (retd) Safdar, to submit details regarding the bearer share certificates that Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani passed on to Hussain Nawaz as part of business deal.
A five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing in the petitions filed by the PT1, JI and AML, seeking a probe in the PanamaLeaks and disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for allegedly lying on the floor of parliament. Other members of the bench include Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen.
Shahid Hamid, while continuing his arguments, submitted that to the extent of his client the current matter does not come under the ambit of Article 184(3) as she was a common citizen of Pakistan.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed that there is an allegation that Maryam was the front person of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, so at present a prima facie case in response to the petitions can be heard against his client.
Justice Ijaz Afzal questioned when a reference relating to non-filing of tax returns was pending in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against Captain (retd) Safdar, then can it be taken up by the apex court in the public interest matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
“How parallel cases in a similar matter could be heard in two different constitutional institutions,” Justice Ijaz Afzal asked Shahid Hamid. The counsel replied that such nature of cases were also pending in the Election Commission against other parliamentarians, hence, the apex court will also have to take up these cases.
Justice Asif Saeed inquired whether a public interest matter can be dismissed on the grounds that such a matter was also pending at another forum. Tomorrow, Justice Khosa said, any person will also approach another forum for getting remedy.
Shahid Hamid faced a volley of questions from the bench and it was no doubt a tough day for the counsel, after the JI counsel faced a similar situation the previous days.
Shahid Hamid stated that the PTI submitted forged documents to establish that the premier’s daughter was the beneficial owner of the London flats. He said that the signatures do not match as well.
At one point, Imran Khan rose on his seat when Justice Asif Seed asked Shahid Hamid that the issue before the court is not the property but honesty. Justice Khosa observed that they came to know from them (PTI) about Nescol, Neilson, Minerva, etc. but the counsel for the respondent, who is being the trustee in her brother’s properties, was not sharing the information.
“On the one hand, the petitioner’s counsels submitted that they did not have access to the information while on the other hand, you being the trustee of the properties have all the information don’t share it with the court,” Justice Khosa asked Shahid Hamid.
“I still don’t understand the interview given by Maryam to a TV channel in which she claimed to have no property abroad,” Justice Khosa remarked, adding that Maryam signed the trust deed in 2006, then how can she say that she does not have any possessions abroad.
Shahid Hamid contended that as per the trust deed, Hussain Nawaz made Maryam the trustee of Nescol and Nelson companies for the distribution of property. He contended that there are some variations in signatures.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen told the counsel that there is no uniformity in his written reply, saying that Maryam Safdar was mentioned the trustee only in Nescol to which Shahid Hamid said that there was an error as she was also the trustee in Neilson. He further said that there were some variations in the signatures on the trust deeds. Justice Gulzar Ahmed said the look of the signatures is the same, however, the learned counsel said there were variations, alleging that someone tried to copy the signatures.
“We are trying to dig out the facts and the issue before us is not the property but honesty,” Justice Asif Saeed said, adding that signatures of documents became a mystery. Justice Ijaz Afzal observed that they have to examine the whole matter. He said when a dispute of signatures goes to an expert, he examines it from all angles including one’s habitual way of signing as well.
