ISLAMABAD: Some rumours are rife about the anxiously awaited verdict in the high-profile Panama case being announced any day. Previously, this paper recounted arguments presented by both counsels of petitioners and respondents.
This time around, we will venture on recollecting scathing question, piercing remarks and insightful observations of Justice Khosa-led five-member Supreme Court bench during the entire course of hearing.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa who is heading the five-member bench on the very first hearing pointed out that the prime minister hasn’t mentioned Qatari investment in any of his speeches or his reply. He also inquired about the record of Qatari ownership of London flats prior to 2006. “The question before us is of conflict of interest. We have to look into that whenever the PM held public office his business interests grew,” he remarked.
Justice Khosa also wondered that how Sharif family managed to build a factory in Jeddah and from where the funds came. “Prime facie it looks that the flats were purchased from the family investment. How and when offshore companies were built and from where the money came is unknown,” Justice Khosa asked. He also remarked that the question before the bench was not of ownership of London flats but of honesty.
“The matter before us is that whether Nawaz Sharif told the truth before the nation and the court?’ he remarked. Justice Khosa also pressed that PM’s counsel had to tell the court exact share of Nawaz Sharif in the family business. Adding that Sharif family had to tell all that happened before 2006. “PM said that his life is like an open book. It seems that some pages are missing from this open book,” he remarked in a statement.
Justice Khosa put the responsibility of producing money trail squarely on the shoulders of Sharif family and told Advocate Shahid Hamid that confession statement by Ishaq Dar is not a piece of paper but a part of the evidence in Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference. During the hearing, Justice Khosa kept on pointing out the discrepancies and oddities present in the statements of different members of Sharif family.
During the hearing, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked that the court was neither conducting an inquiry nor a trial. ‘Satisfy the court about the documents,” he said. He also pointed out if NAB has failed to fulfil its duties, the court can issue orders under Article 187. When the question if disputed facts was raised by a respondent’s counsel, he remarked that the court can issue an order on disputed facts. He also wondered how Maryam Nawaz bagged a profit of 19.6 million rupees from selling a BMW car.
Interestingly, Justice Ejaz observed that confession statement of Ishaq Dar in Hudaibiya Paper Mills case can be used against Nawaz Sharif even though Dar became a witness. “You have to prove that properties belong to you and Nawaz Sharif is not the owner of London flats,” he remarked while Salman Akram Raja was arguing on behalf of Hassan and Hussain Nawaz.
Justice Ejaz Afzal also pointed out that still the documents pertaining to agreement between Sharif family and Qatari royal family haven’t surfaced and rued the fact that documents of Minerva Financial services too are missing. “The matter before us is of billions of rupees and you are saying that there are no documents,” he reprimanded Salman Raja.
“How money got transferred to Qatar and Jeddah and where is the bank transaction of it,” asked Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed on the very first hearing. He remarked that how investment was transferred to Qatar and properties were made in London. “Sharif family has not submitted many documents. If they had filed all the documents, you won’t have a chance to speak,” he reminded Advocate Naeem Bukhari during the hearing.
Justice Sheikh pointed out that someone has to tell that in Al-Taufeeq Bank case who paid 34 million dollars. He reminded the respondent’s counsel that the court has to see whether the case is established through record or not. “There is a contradiction between documents and speech given in the parliament,” he observed. He also demanded that dates of purchase of land and gifts sent by the son are important and asked PM’s counsel to submit details in writing.
“Someone has to answer for the money as record shows that it was not earned through offshore companies,” he remarked. Justice Sheikh observed that the case is whether Maryam Nawaz was a beneficial trustee or not. “We’ll leave but the law will stay. We’ll only see what law says not PM or anyone else,” he remarked. During the fag-end of hearing, Justice Sheikh proclaimed death of NAB. “Yesterday NAB died right before us,” he remarked while terming NAB as PM’s insurance policy.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that Hussain Nawaz said in an interview that the entire record was available, adding further that whether documents pertaining to Hussain Nawaz available with the court. He reminded Makhdoom Ali Khan, PM’s counsel that the prime minister himself admitted of the Dubai factory and said that the record was available. “Now, the onus of proof lies on you,” he remarked.
Justice Gulzar Ahmed remained relatively silent during the whole proceedings. However, he too pointed out that in Qatari letter there was no mention of ownership of offshore companies. “Prima facie the companies were running in loss, then how a profit of 12 million Dirhams was made,” he inquired during the hearing. “According to PM’s speech, six new factories were built during Bhutto’s regime. Was there still a need to construct a factory in Gulf,” he remarked.
Justice Gulzar also wondered that the record of companies and shares must be present somewhere when Salman Akram Raja told the court that he has produced all the documents before the Bench and remarked that nothing has been done to inquire money laundering.
