Jamaat-e-Islami’s (JI) counsel Taufeeq Asif on Tuesday concluded his arguments as 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 with her father, to which Hamid replied that he will try to argue on 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, scope of Article 184(3) with reference to private persons and its jurisdiction.
Shahid Hamid will continue his arguments today (Wednesday).
For JI’s counsel Tuesday was no different than previous two days as Taufeeq seemed to struggle before judges who repeatedly reminded him to come up with something new and not to repeat his arguments. ‘Take 11 years if you want to. But don’t repeat,’ said Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed at one point.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed severely censured Taufeeq and said that it seems that he hasn’t read the file and come unprepared before the bench when he brought up the Zafar Ali Shah case.
‘You are damaging your own client, counsel,’ remarked Justice Sheikh after telling Asif that immovable property can’t be pledged when JI’s counsel argued about Sharif family’s steel mills in Dubai.
‘Benefit of doubt goes to whom?’ asked Justice Khosa when JI’s counsel argued that serious doubts have been raised by PM’s family’s financial conduct. Asif also demanded that PM should come to the court in person so that all parties can cross examine him, to which Justice Khosa remarked that the court will summon the PM if there is a need.
Taufeeq Asif at the outset of his arguments cited Zafar Ali Shah case. Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh remarked, “Khalid Anwar was not counsel for Nawaz Sharif in the case you are referring to.”
Taufeeq replied he would establish that the late Anwar Khalid was the counsel for Nawaz Sharif. He also said that it is mentioned in the decision of the court in the Zafar Ali Shah case that London flats were owned by Sharif family.
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh remarked nothing was mentioned about London flats in court’s decision. The court had only mentioned about alleged corruption in the verdict and alleged corruption cannot be considered as court’s decision.
Advocate Sheikh Ahsanuddin, a close associate of former CJ Iftikhar Chaudhary, also took to the dais and submitted a list of legal definitions compiled from various law dictionaries about financial transactions. Ahsanuddin also read a definition of ‘inquisitorial court’ from Black’s Law Dictionary only to be reminded by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed that the particular definition deals with Spanish Inquisition undertaken in Europe before Renaissance. ‘Sheikh sahab, do you want us to torture people too,’ Justice Azmat asked.
Ahsanuddin was corrected by the bench as to what is presented before the court is ‘material’, not evidence, as he calls them.
