Panamagate case: Sharifs’ lawyer faces gruelling questions in SC
Judges point out discrepancies in Maryam’s statements, wonder whether Sharifs are ‘improving’ their stance
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Sharif family’s attorney faced a tough time in the Supreme Court on Wednesday as judges looked to him to clarify the money trail for London apartments at the centre of the Panamagate case.
On the 15th hearing of the case, a five-judge bench — headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa — examined the issue of whether Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam Safdar was his dependent and whether she is a beneficiary of the London properties or had acted as a front-person for her father.
Panamagate case: Sharifs’ lawyer faces gruelling questions in SC
Maryam’s counsel Shahid Hamid, instead of providing documentary evidence on the money trail, went on the offensive and accused the petitioner — Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan — of submitting forged documents to establish her client as the beneficiary and owner of the foreign properties. He contended that by doing so, Section 469 of the PPC – which prescribes punishment for anyone who engages in forgery – now applied to the petitioner.
However, the bench in response asked Hamid to provide ‘authentic’ documents on the money trail if the petitioner had indeed submitted forged ones. The bench also pointed out factual errors in Maryam’s earlier statements and observed that it appears as if these errors are now being rectified orally. Particularly, the judges pointed out that they were told earlier that Maryam was a trustee of one offshore company and later that she was a trustee of all four flats. The bench questioned whether the Sharif family was modifying its stance as Panamagate proceedings progressed.
Justice Khosa observed that if the petitioners don’t have access to relevant property records, then the respondents who possess the documents are in good position to put the case to rest by submitting them. “But we have not been provided the complete record thus far,” he said.
He also pointed out contradictions in Maryam’s statements on the ownership of the London properties, observing that she has made no mention of the Qatari prince’s letter in her earlier replies. Justice Khosa also referred to Maryam’s 2011 interview in which she claimed she had no property, either in Pakistan or abroad, and was living with her father. “Now Maryam says she is living with her grandmother,” he pointed out.
Upon this, Maryam’s counsel said his client had been trying to say she had no house. But the bench asked him to submit the transcript of that interview today (Thursday).
Justice Khosa also questioned why Maryam, in the 2011 interview, had said neither she nor her brother owned the properties if she signed the trust deed with Hussain Nawaz in 2006.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that it appeared as if the Sharifs were ‘improving’ their stance as the case progressed. “Do you want the petitioner to go to Panama to verify these documents?” he asked.
Imran challenges PM to ‘open debate’ on Panamagate
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh wondered why documents showing Hussain Nawaz owned the properties in question had not been provided so far. He observed that Hussain must show his ownership of the flats before establishing that Maryam is a trustee.
At the same time, however, he questioned the authenticity of the documents the PTI had submitted to establish its claim. Justice Azmat also observed that the question of disqualifying a lawmaker under Article 62 cannot arise on the basis of tax evasion.
When the bench was examining the authenticity of Maryam’s signatures on different documents, Justice Gulzar Ahmad observed that the flow of the signatures is the same. Justice Khosa observed that it seems that Sharif family members have made signatures of each other on the documents of the properties.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that if the authenticity of signatures on documents is disputed, the court would not rely on them until an expert gave his opinion on them in the court under oath. However, he asked Maryam’s counsel to submit the real facts of the case.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 26th, 2017.
The Sharif family’s attorney faced a tough time in the Supreme Court on Wednesday as judges looked to him to clarify the money trail for London apartments at the centre of the Panamagate case.
On the 15th hearing of the case, a five-judge bench — headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa — examined the issue of whether Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam Safdar was his dependent and whether she is a beneficiary of the London properties or had acted as a front-person for her father.
Panamagate case: Sharifs’ lawyer faces gruelling questions in SC
Maryam’s counsel Shahid Hamid, instead of providing documentary evidence on the money trail, went on the offensive and accused the petitioner — Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan — of submitting forged documents to establish her client as the beneficiary and owner of the foreign properties. He contended that by doing so, Section 469 of the PPC – which prescribes punishment for anyone who engages in forgery – now applied to the petitioner.
However, the bench in response asked Hamid to provide ‘authentic’ documents on the money trail if the petitioner had indeed submitted forged ones. The bench also pointed out factual errors in Maryam’s earlier statements and observed that it appears as if these errors are now being rectified orally. Particularly, the judges pointed out that they were told earlier that Maryam was a trustee of one offshore company and later that she was a trustee of all four flats. The bench questioned whether the Sharif family was modifying its stance as Panamagate proceedings progressed.
Justice Khosa observed that if the petitioners don’t have access to relevant property records, then the respondents who possess the documents are in good position to put the case to rest by submitting them. “But we have not been provided the complete record thus far,” he said.
He also pointed out contradictions in Maryam’s statements on the ownership of the London properties, observing that she has made no mention of the Qatari prince’s letter in her earlier replies. Justice Khosa also referred to Maryam’s 2011 interview in which she claimed she had no property, either in Pakistan or abroad, and was living with her father. “Now Maryam says she is living with her grandmother,” he pointed out.
Upon this, Maryam’s counsel said his client had been trying to say she had no house. But the bench asked him to submit the transcript of that interview today (Thursday).
Justice Khosa also questioned why Maryam, in the 2011 interview, had said neither she nor her brother owned the properties if she signed the trust deed with Hussain Nawaz in 2006.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that it appeared as if the Sharifs were ‘improving’ their stance as the case progressed. “Do you want the petitioner to go to Panama to verify these documents?” he asked.
Imran challenges PM to ‘open debate’ on Panamagate
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh wondered why documents showing Hussain Nawaz owned the properties in question had not been provided so far. He observed that Hussain must show his ownership of the flats before establishing that Maryam is a trustee.
At the same time, however, he questioned the authenticity of the documents the PTI had submitted to establish its claim. Justice Azmat also observed that the question of disqualifying a lawmaker under Article 62 cannot arise on the basis of tax evasion.
When the bench was examining the authenticity of Maryam’s signatures on different documents, Justice Gulzar Ahmad observed that the flow of the signatures is the same. Justice Khosa observed that it seems that Sharif family members have made signatures of each other on the documents of the properties.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that if the authenticity of signatures on documents is disputed, the court would not rely on them until an expert gave his opinion on them in the court under oath. However, he asked Maryam’s counsel to submit the real facts of the case.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 26th, 2017.