The five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court – resuming hearing of the Panama case on Thursday – persisted in their efforts to ascertain whether or not Hussain Nawaz, prime minister’s eldest son, is the owner of four flats located in London’s upscale Park Lane neighbourhood.
The court reminded Hussain Nawaz’s counsel Advocate Salman Akram Raja of playing a gamble that could go both way as the latter refused to present all the relevant documents and argued on the limitations and scope of Article 184 (3) under which the court has taken up the multiple petitions against Sharif family. During the hearing, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa also remarked that the court can give a declaration on matters of honesty under Article 184(3).
Advocate Raja has submitted the details pertaining to Minerva Financial services before the court that says that Hussain Nawaz nominated Faisal Twana as his representative to sign agreement with the Arinna Limited. He also apprised the court that the documents arrived from London yesterday and also contains the details of payments made to Minerva Financial Ltd.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that the documents show the directors of offshore companies. “Question is who was the director of Nielson and Nascol back then,” he asked. Raja continued his arguments and told the court that from February 2006 till July 2006, Maryam Nawaz was the trustee shareholder and in July 2006, shares registered with Minerva Company were issued. “In 2014, the shares were transferred from Minerva to trustee services. Thus from February to July, Maryam Nawaz kept bearers certificate but since the bearer certificates were revoked thus her status as shareholders also ended,” he said.
The counsel argued that the documents showing Maryam Nawaz as beneficial owner of any of the companies were fake. “Maryam Nawaz has said that signs on the document are not hers. Who brought the documents, we don’t know. The fake documents were submitted to the court pertaining to Maryam’s beneficial ownership,” he argued. Justice Khosa asked Raja that through the documents he submitted whether he wants to say that the chain of purchase of London flats has completed.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked that Hussain Nawaz didn’t have sources to buy such expensive property. Raja replied that the property was given to him in return of Qatari investment. Raja while arguing on scope of Article 184(3) said that the court can’t investigate the matter on its own, however, it can form a commission. Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that they can either form a commission or send the matter to relevant authority.
“But it is said that institutions are not working, then what should we do,” he said. Justice Sheikh also said that the time of the court was being wasted. Justice Khosa asked Raja that whether not producing documents before the court was his strategy, to which he replied that he has no such strategy. “If it’s not a strategy than it’s a gamble,” Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked. Justice Khosa added that a gamble can go either way.
The bench and Advocate Salman Raja had a heated exchange related to formation and powers of the commission. The bench was of the view that it can form a commission to inquire into the matter while Raja argued that the commission can only give an opinion based on its inquiry. “Criminal matters cannot be tried through a trial commission,” he argued. Justice Khosa wondered why no record was maintained for the huge business and financial transactions.
Raja argued that the court has to see whether an illegal act accrues from non-keeping of record. “Do you have only this stance and no documents,” Justice Khosa asked. “I’ve presented all the documents I had,” Raja replied. Justice Sheikh remarked that though the judges would come and go but the principles they make would stay for times to come.
After Salman Raja concluded his arguments on Thursday, the bench summoned NAB chairman and FBR chairman in person on the next hearing and adjourned the hearing till Tuesday (February 21) keeping in view Justice Sheikh’s health who is advised by the doctors to preside not more than three days a week.