Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience



Your Name:

Recipient Email:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing the Panamagate case, which seeks the disqualification of the prime minister over alleged investments made by his family in offshore companies.

A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa has been hearing the case on a daily basis.

During proceedings, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's (PTI) counsel, Naeem Bokhari, pointed out irregularities between the statements of the prime minister and his children.

Bokhari called for the Sharif family to provide a record of the ownership of the London flats from when a law regarding bearer certificates was passed in 2002 till the time they were transferred.

"The Sharif family will have to provide proof of the Qatari royal family having ownership of the certificate," Bokhari said.

"A bearer certificate is not a prize bond", he stated, "and the offshore company belongs to the person who has the bearer certificate. According to law, it is necessary to alert authorities about the ownership of a bearer certificate," he said.

Justice Ijazul Hassan questioned whether the law was applicable to companies created before it was passed, to which Bokhari replied that the law was indeed applicable to the holder of the bearer certificate.

"The Sharif family will have to prove that every action they took was in accordance with the law," Bokhari said.

In his remarks, Justice Azmat observed that it is yet to be established when the London flats were bought.

"According to the Sharif family, the flats were transferred in 2006," Justice Azmat said, noting that according to Bokhari, the Sharif family bought their flats in 1993 and 1996.

Bokhari also brought up the meaning of the term 'dependent', pointing out that, according to Black's Law Dictionary, a dependent is one whose costs are borne by another.

"The prime minister's daughter, Maryam Nawaz, did not have money for offshore companies," he said. "She was gifted crores of rupees by her father for the purpose," he alleged.

To this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed replied that Hussain Nawaz had also given Maryam Nawaz money, "If your point of view is to be believed, is Maryam Nawaz Hussain Nawaz's dependent too," Justice Saeed asked Bokhari.

Justice Ejaz Afzal in turn asked whether one who lives with their father can be considered a dependent.

Sheikh Rasheed takes the floor

Awami Muslim League (AML) leader Sheikh Rasheed also presented his arguments in court.

"The court knows everything, we are here only for assistance," he said. "If someone is in someone's protection, they are their dependent," he contested.

Rasheed claimed the Sharif family was hiding behind the Qatari letter, which he likened to a fictional work by novelist Razia Butt. "The Qatari prince is Rescue 1122 for the prime minister," Rasheed went on, "He is the man of the match."

The courtroom erupted in laughter upon hearing Rasheed's statements, and was swiftly admonished by Justice Azmat.

"The Qatari letter is worth no more than tissue paper," Rasheed continued. "The letter is based on hearsay and cannot be evidence," he maintained.

"The Hudaibiyah Paper Mills are the mother of all cases," the AML leader said, and levelled yet another accusation at the government, saying that all investigative institutions are in its pocket.

Justice Khosa urged Sheikh Rasheed to return to speaking of legal matters.

"No one has challenged documents showing Maryam Nawaz as a beneficiary owner of the companies," Rasheed observed.

"Our children don't have ID cards when they're 19, but the Sharif children were millionaires at the same age," he added.

"The Sharif family should tell us where their money was from 1980 to 2006."

Read more: Offhand remarks can’t disqualify PM: SC judge

Separately, Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) lawyer Taufiq Asif said the party wanted the formation of a commission and everyone involved in Panamagate to be investigated.

Justice Khosa responded to this by saying the court would form a commission if it deemed it necessary.

Comments (38) Closed

TN Jan 11, 2017 12:29pm

Its a clear case. Courts are Just wasting the time, energy & money of the poor nation.

Bitter Truth Jan 11, 2017 12:39pm

@TN same as Imran Khan is wasting the time and energy of people.

yousuf hussaim Jan 11, 2017 12:44pm

Court can not decide the matter in minutes,court is responsible to hear the both side arguments and decide the matter on facts.

OBSERver Jan 11, 2017 12:50pm

Its time SC should ask defendants to prove their innocence. PTI has provided enough proves for which response is to be received. Its not a one sided case, both parties have to prove.

Khan Jan 11, 2017 12:59pm

@Bitter Truth you need to open your eyes and see who is wasting time. Imran Khan fighting for whole Nation not only to save himself.

TN Jan 11, 2017 01:19pm

@Bitter Truth -IK is the only man who stand against corrupt mafia and its beneficiaries

ADNAN MAZHER khan Jan 11, 2017 02:27pm

@TN .. I agree.

SDA Jan 11, 2017 03:05pm

@Bitter Truth Please don't be prejudice against IK party. We all know the truth.

Rizwan Jan 11, 2017 03:02pm

@TN IK is standing for his premier ship. If he was only standing again corruption he would not be standing besides Tareen who did a plea bargain and had his wealth in the name of his cook and driver. If he was really standing for principles Imran and Tareens lawyers would have attended election commission proceedings yesterday to face charges against themselves. It's all politics please face it.

Parvez Jan 11, 2017 03:31pm

Our justices should act on their sayings and they have said, more than once, that.....justice should be done even if the heavens fall.

MUHAMMAD AKRAM Jan 11, 2017 03:32pm

Properties in UK are well documented. Surely there must be ways to find who owned London flats and since when? Why this is not being found out and submitted to the court?

Faisal bajwa Jan 11, 2017 03:37pm

Get the property ownership records of the "flats", it doesn't need any guess work or a trial. Once the ownership of the flats by the Sharifs or by one of their off-shore companies is found then just follow the money trail of that transaction. This case seems to be a real estate tutorial 101.

Muhammad, canada Jan 11, 2017 03:38pm

Go went gone

yousaf Jan 11, 2017 03:55pm

The court should decide to write a letter via pak govt/ attorney general to UK govt to provide the details associated with these flates from the dates when they were first constructed. Who owned it who mortgaged it who lived in it on rent etc if SC wants to solve this case and find the evidence.

Wajih Uddin Qidwai Jan 11, 2017 03:53pm

Court will not decide anything and burden will be transferred on Parliament, as it happened in case of Musharraf.

Zain Khan Jan 11, 2017 04:05pm

@Khan . Agree with you completely. Imran Khan is doing it for the nation, not for himself.

Muhammad Laiq Jan 11, 2017 04:05pm

As per my understanding, proving corruption is a very difficult job for any one because everyone knows very well, that our former president spent no. of years in jail on account of corruption charges but despite the fact Nawaz regime was in rule but could not prove corruption against Zardari. How it would be possible for Mr. Imran to dig out things and prove corruption against the rulers. Imran Khan is one of the politicians trying his best to eradicate corruption but he is also unable to take action against his own party leaders involving in corruption. However, I am praying for his struggle to be successful in near future. He will win in the coming election and hopefully the corruption will be brought to a minimum.

AW Jan 11, 2017 04:03pm

The judgement in this case shall determine the path forward for the nation in terms of corruption-free leadership or maintenance of the detrimental status quo.

Zain Khan Jan 11, 2017 04:10pm

@SDA . Well (Better Truth) is not talking: truth:, he should change his Alias to something else.

Syed Minhaj hasan Jan 11, 2017 04:15pm

Justice doesn't seem to be blind.

AQ Jan 11, 2017 04:18pm

@Rizwan you might be part of the looters. Everyone who favors NS and this corrupt system is corrupt by himself. simple logic.

nuzhat shireen Jan 11, 2017 04:17pm

the person responsible for model town incident is free till today. so we should not hope that in this case the ruler will get punishment.

Philosopher(from japan) Jan 11, 2017 04:43pm

If such a snail's pace the decision will be expected in 2099 and so.

Philosopher(from japan) Jan 11, 2017 04:47pm

@AQ on the other side everyone who favors IK and PTI is an angel. Simplet logic.

Shahid Jan 11, 2017 04:54pm

This case is a real test of everybody involved and future fate of this country and its citizens solely depends on its outcome.

Yaser Arafat Jan 11, 2017 04:56pm

@nuzhat shireen You are right, the responsible are walking around Canada street. Who one is pursuing case of those innocent people?

Yaser Arafat Jan 11, 2017 05:05pm

This is general perception that all politician are corrupt excluding Imran Khan because he never had government office bearer. Panama is drum and PTI is looking to beat it till upcoming election. They just accused without any reference or evidence just on perception. Panama paper story just disclosed the name of offshore companies holder but not claimed or alleged that these all companies are established with corruption money. IK himself accepted that he had offshore for tax evasion.

Pakcritic Jan 11, 2017 05:01pm

@OBSERver - Spot on. A point well made.

The only news we've read is about PTI being put to test. The defendant should be the one sharing evidence of his innocence if there is any.

Iftikhar Husain Jan 11, 2017 05:09pm

Very interesting to read all this arguments this case has become mother of all cases please keep the pressure on.

JAved mirani Jan 11, 2017 05:42pm

@Rizwan Court can't make him PM. For that he needs vote. But can find corruption guilty; what's wrong with that.

JAved mirani Jan 11, 2017 05:49pm

@Wajih Uddin Qidwai, then what is reason having of court system.

javed MiRani Jan 11, 2017 05:52pm

@Philosopher(from japan) they are not heard of the govt.

Gerry D'Cunha Jan 11, 2017 06:03pm

The nation needs to watch how long this topic drama going to last and it's outcome.

Haider Jan 11, 2017 07:24pm

I am pessimistic about justice in Pskistan. Money and power speak here, you have it and you will go scott free. Nepotism and corruption are the norm.

Sab Se Pehle Pakistan Jan 11, 2017 08:07pm

The nation is observing the observers. It is not about PTI. It is about survival of Pakistan against corruption.

Azmat Ali Jan 11, 2017 08:33pm

If anyone, every, had a clear cut, undeniable proof of corruption, it would have been showed on Television first, and then taken to some agency or a trial court. The reason PTI has had to revert to the Supreme Court, is because they have all kinds of circumstantial evidence, but no irrefutable evidence of corruption. In most parts of the world, strong circumstantial evidence is enough to energize the relevant state institutions to undertake extensive, detailed and unbiased investigation of such circumstantial evidence, thereby confirming or negating the perceptions created. Unfortunately, it is this lack of action that has required PTI to go to the Supreme Court to look into the prima facie evidence and to decide if that evidence is enough to find the PM (or his family members) as conducting illegal acts, or, at the very least, mandating the state institutions to undertake such an inquiry and report back to it and the nation. What part of this is difficult to understand?

javed qamer USA Jan 12, 2017 12:54am

Shariff family owns London flats and had holdings in Panama. What more do you want. They are all guilty and should be sent behind bars. Poor Pakistani nation is suffering and nobody cares.

Shiraz Jan 12, 2017 02:12am

@TN - Thanks