- Maryam’s signatures on Minerva documents ‘forged’, claims counsel
- ‘How was Mian Sharif’s inheritance arrived at?’ asks SC
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa-led five-member bench of the Supreme Court which is hearing the Panama Papers case, asked Advocate Shahid Hamid, counsel of Maryam Nawaz, her husband Capt (retd) Safdar and Ishaq Dar, to present his arguments pertaining to three questions. First, how did Hussain Nawaz become a beneficial owner of London flats? Second, the instrument through which Maryam Nawaz became ‘trustee’ of the said property; and lastly, from where did Qatari letter come?
As Shahid Hamid began his arguments, Justice Khosa asked him to inform the bench as to the manner the inheritance of late Mian Sharif was arrived at.
The five-member bench comprises Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Justice Gulzar Ahmad, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan.
Mr Hamid, while arguing before the Bench, informed that Captain Safdar got his National Tax Number (NTN) 4226192-9 on 28th January, 2014, and has been filing his returns since then. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that Section 182 [of Income Tax Ordinance 2001] deals with penalty for not filing tax returns. He wondered as to why neither tax authorities nor election authorities have done anything about it.
Justice Khosa said that the counsel should furnish before the bench details of pending cases before the courts.
Section 82 of Representation of People’s Act 1976, that deals with corrupt practices, and Section 42-A, subsection 4, that deals with yearly submission of assets and liabilities, were also deliberated upon by the judges.
While Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan was of the opinion that Supreme Court has been established as a forum so that something extraordinary must be brought to it, Justice Khosa asked if a petition can be thrown out simply because the matter is pending before a court. He also said that a person may after exhausting other forums invoke jurisdiction of SC under Article 184(3).
‘The enforcement of which fundamental rights require the declaration that respondent No 6 (Maryam Nawaz) is not her father’s dependent. How is the matter of a private person, dependent on her father, be an issue of public importance?’ wondered Mr Hamid.
‘Allegations against Maryam Nawaz are inseparable from her father,’ remarked Justice Khosa.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asked whether the court can sit over a question of fact.
Mr Shahid Hamid also argued that the signatures of Maryam Nawaz on the documents linking her to Minerva Financial Services Ltd are ‘forged’. Mr Hamid gave judges magnifying glasses to take a ‘close look’ at the signatures as prima facie there are variations. ‘I feel like Sherlock Holmes with these magnifying glasses you’ve given me to check,’ remarked Justice Khosa with a smile.
Mr Hamid, after pointing the difference between the actual signatures and signs on the documents said that the petitioners have shown ‘reckless disregard’ to know whether they are genuine or not.
Justice Khosa, visibly irritated, asked Mr Hamid not to lose focus by arguing excessively on properties as the matter before the bench is not ‘property, its honesty’. Later on, he also said that apparently ‘it’s family who signs on each other’s behalf,’ when Mr Hamid continued arguing on the forged signatures on Minerva document.
Justice Ejaz Afzal remarked that only an expert would be able to compare the two signatures and that the judges lacked the capacity to make that judgment on their own.
Justice Khosa observed that the documents had been leaked by the International Centre for Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and it was not possible for the parties to the case to go all the way to Panama and check all documents with Mariam Nawaz’s signature on them.
Mr Hamid said the case had no special significance as Mariam Nawaz was an ordinary citizen. He argued that even if it was assumed that the flats belonged to Mariam Nawaz, there was nothing special to it as she was not dependent upon her father.
He said the petitioner was responsible to prove allegations instead of the defendant.
Mr Hamid said Mariam Nawaz did not own any property outside Pakistan and London flats belonged to her brother and he admitted to owning them.
He argued that the interview given to a television programme ‘Laikin’ by Maryam Nawaz back in 2011 was neither planned nor scripted. ‘Mehmood-ur-Rasheed, a PTI leader, was levelling false accusations against my client when she called in the show and asked to come on live and clear her stance,’ said Mr Hamid. In the interview Maryam Nawaz denied possessing any property in Pakistan or abroad. However, Justice Khosa asked him to furnish a copy of transcript to the court in next hearing.
‘You are digging holes in their documents, what have you submitted?’ Justice Khosa asked Mr Hamid. He also said that it is through the documents filed by petitioner that they know the business, the flats, the properties, the companies of the Sharif family.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that the dispute is about the capacity of Maryam Nawaz Sharif. ‘Is she a trustee as you contend, or is she a beneficial owner as they say?’ he asked.
PTI’s counsel Naeem Bukhari came to the court after remaining absent for past many days. However, he didn’t stay long and left after sometime. PTI supremo Imran Khan arrived late and remained until the adjournment.
Interestingly, a large number of female PTI supporters came to the court for the very first time. Many of them continued commenting on the remarks of judges with each other throughout the hearing thus making it nearly impossible for many print media journalists to hear what the judges were saying or what Mr Hamid was arguing about.
The court adjourned hearing today (Thursday).
Sharam kroo Haya kroo N-league
Comments are closed.