A larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing the Panamagate case on Thursday reminded Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's counsel that the case before them concerns Sharif's qualification as PM.

During the hearing, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that the case challenges Nawaz Sharif's claim to the prime minister's office.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who heads the five-judge bench, pointed out that the time-frame in which the appointment of the PM can be challenged following the election through Article 225 is limited.

Once this time period expires, however, the court can be asked to review the appointment under Articles 184/3 and Article 199, Justice Khosa said.

Justice Khosa also stated that this case concerns the whole nation because the defendant is the prime minister of the country.

The PM's counsel, Makhdoom Ali Khan, also informed the court that further arguments on the London flats will be delivered by Maryam Nawaz's counsel, Shahid Hamid.

He also told the court that Maryam Nawaz's counsel will provide dates and legal documents of properties bought in Maryam's name.

Justice Khosa inquired if the PM had bought land in his daughter's name, and Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that usually parents buy property in the name of children that are dependent upon them.

We will have to decide what the definition of dependence is while keeping the case in mind, Justice Ejaz Afzal observed.

Arguing on the matter of Maryam Nawaz's status as a dependent, Makhdoom Ali Khan said that Nawaz Sharif bought property in her name and once she paid the cost, the land was transferred to her. He added that not every transaction can be termed benami as benami transactions have a particular legal definition.

On this, Justice Ijazul Hassan remarked that the counsel himself had mentioned that the premier bought property in his daughter's name.

Makhdoom Ali Khan then read out a verdict given by Justice Khosa in a previous benami transaction case supporting his argument, to which Justice Ejaz Afzal observed that the verdicts cited pertained to cases where a dispute had arisen between two parties regarding the ownership of property.

In the Panamagate case, the dispute is not about which of the two parties owns the property, he added.

The judge also observed that this occurrence made it appear as though Maryam Nawaz was dependent on her father at the time.

Justice Ijazul Hassan pointed out that Maryam Nawaz’s financial situation had changed drastically in 2011, to which the PM's counsel responded saying that she was not dependent on her father in 2010 either.

Justice Gulzar stated that a verdict on Maryam Nawaz's status as a dependent could be made on the basis of the facts presented in court.

He added that the matter of her dependence is of concern and that more facts should be provided on the matter.

Makhdoom Ali Khan reiterated that Maryam Nawaz is not dependent on anyone. The premier's daughter's assets show how she finances herself, Khan argued, adding that her counsel, Shahid Hamid, would present more evidence regarding the matter.

Makhdoom Ali Khan then mentioned that the government of Pakistan does not have a single international investment that is not an offshore company, at which Justice Khosa inquired if Makhdoom Ali Khan was trying to justify the defendant’s acts with this statement.

Makhdoom Ali Khan has concluded his arguments. Jamat-i-Islami's counsel Taufeeq Asif will take the floor on Friday.