Will only scrutinise Sharif family's foreign properties, not PM's entire life: SC

SC adjourns hearing of Panamagate case till November 29

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed it will confine Panamagate case hearing to the acquisition of foreign properties by Sharif family and not scrutinise the premier’s entire life.

“We are not going to open the entire life of the PM to scrutinise it as this issue is not before us,” Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked.

The observation came after PTI’s legal team headed by Hamid Khan, once again failed to impress a five-judge larger bench headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.

During hearing, Hamid Khan read different speeches of the PM but the bench asked him to present solid evidences to establish their stance that the properties were acquired through black money. However, the bench was not satisfied with his contention.

“You have a case but you are doing politics before us”, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh told the PTI counsel .

Instead of reading long speeches of the PM, he also asked Hamid Khan to examine each document presented before the court on behalf of the respondents.

“On the basis of PM’s contrary statements on foreign properties, how can we uphpold that London flats were purchased through black money,” the CJ further asked.

Further, Justice Azmat asked the counsel for PTI to present their case through documents submitted by the Sharif family in the court. The CJ also observed that there is no mention in the respondents’ statements regarding the total worth of London flats.

Earlier, Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that if the PM has given misstatements or told a lie before the public or floor of the house then he would have faced consequences.

PM Nawaz  submitted his reply in the ongoing Panamagate case in which claimed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's proofs against him were baseless.

PTI chief Imran Khan has not produced solid evidences, he told the Supreme Court, adding that all petitions must be dismissed.



Following PM Nawaz's submission, Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali said, "The court wants to conclude the case as early as possible."

Justice Jamali also observed that they cannot issue a conclusive decision against the premier until there is proof of his alleged corruption. The court adjourned the hearing into the case till November 29.

The premier's children on Wednesday contended before the SC that documentary evidence presented by the PTI in support of its allegations against them were not substantial and concrete.

As the five-judge larger bench of the apex court – headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali – is resuming hearing of the Panamagate case, the Sharif family counsel Akram Sheikh submitted an application on behalf of Maryam Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz.

The application stated that the controversy as raised in the PTI’s petition relates to the allegation that Maryam is the owner of properties bearing Flats No 16, 16A, 17 and17A situated at Avenfield House, Park Lane, London (the properties) and, consequently, seeks disqualification of Premier Sharif and his son-in-law Captain (retd) Safdar from being members of the National Assembly on the ground that the premier has not declared the properties owned by Maryam for purportedly being dependent of him and spouse of Safdar in his tax returns as well as statement of assets and liabilities filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan.



Sharif’s children said that answering respondents have already submitted their concise statement and supplemental concise statement (contents whereof are reiterated herein and the same may be read as integral part of this application) refuting said allegations.

“In so far as the applications for additional documents are concerned, the same does not contain any substantiated, tangible, concrete, and admissible proof in relation to the aforesaid controversy. Even otherwise, the general allegations made and the documents appended with the Applications for Additional Documents are specifically and vehemently denied for being incorrect, erroneous, misconceived and inadmissible.”