ISLAMABAD:A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, resumed hearing on Wednesday (today) in the petitions filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and Awami Muslim League (AML).
The Supreme Court asked Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family to submit documents regarding the distribution of properties after the demise of Mian Muhammad Sharif in 2004.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa asked the premier’s counsel to submit documents regarding the settlement of Sharif properties.
Advocate Shahid Hamid, the counsel for Maryam Nawaz Sharif, countinued his arguments before the larger bench regarding the ownership of offshore companies and London flats.
During the hearing, Maryam Nawaz’s counsel Shahid Hamid stated that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf submitted forged documents to establish that the premier’s daughter is the beneficial owner of London flats. The signatures do not match, he upheld.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan, however, observed that forgery is a question of fact. He said there are two aspects to the issue, one being Maryam’s dependency on her father and second that she acted as the “front man” for PM Nawaz and all properties belong to him.
Another member of the bench, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, observed that whether or not Maryam is dependent on PM Nawaz is a disputed question, thus the top court cannot adjudicate the matter as it requires recording of evidences.
Meanwhile, Hamid submitted that a similar matter is pending in the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Earlier, Advocate Shahid Hamid, who is representing Maryam Nawaz, took the dais to argue before Justice Asif Saeed Khosa-led five-member bench hearing multiple petitions against Sharif family in Panamagate case.
Hamid, before starting his arguments, placed on record an additional statement by Maryam Safdar in which she denies being the beneficial ownership of London flats and says she is only a trustee ‘so that in case of his (Hussain Nawaz) demise she could ensure distribution of the properties as per Shariah law between his legal heirs’.
‘Why has my father gifted so much to me? Primarily on account of the abundance of his love and affection for me,’ says the statement that her counsel Advocate Shahid Hamid read before the bench and also provided a list of nine pleadings that has previously been submitted to the bench by his client.
‘I have not been my father’s dependent since my marriage in 1992 and was certainly not his dependent when he filed his nomination papers for elections held in May 2013. I am not and have never been the beneficial owner of the four London flats and have never derived my income or profit or financial benefit from these flats,’ Advocate Shahid Hamid continued reading from the statement.
The court rejected the statement of Maryam Nawaz because it was not signed by her.
“How can you submit documents without a signature?” Justice Asif Khosa asked.
During the proceedings, Maryam Nawaz’s reply was read out. “I was married in 1992 to a serving Captain who later joined the Civil Service. My husband has been paying taxes since 1986. My husband and father were targeted in an act of revenge and my husband was terminated from service illegally.”
She denied she is the beneficial owner for the London flats. “PTI will have to submit evidence,” it adds.
The documents with signatures will be submitted again.
Before he formally started his arguments, Justice Khosa asked Hamid as to how much time he will require. ‘It depends on the questions by your Lordships,’ quipped Hamid. ‘I will try to conclude my arguments by tomorrow, may be a day more,’ he later added.
The bench said that many allegations levelled at his client are in reference to her father, to which Hamid replied that he will try to argue with them as well.
Hamid also gave a sketch of his formulations-points on which he’ll argue. He said he’ll cover Representation of People’s Act 1976, issue of dependence and questions of fact pertaining to it, interview given by his client to a television programme ‘Laikin’, beneficial ownership of London flats, the scope of Article 184(3) with reference to private persons and its jurisdiction.
Read more: ‘The court will summon PM if needed’
