Sharif didn’t give proof, Imran’s needs verifying: SC

Bench addresses petitioner’s concerns that case is being heard differently from ‘similar’ Panama Papers case

ISLAMABAD: Nawaz Sharif would not promptly provide proof, while Imran Khan makes it hard to verify the abundance of proof he provides.

This was the gist of observations made during the hearing of a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader’s case against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan regarding the manner in which he acquired his property in Bani Gala.

After petitioner Hanif Abbasi’s counsel raised concerns in the ongoing case against Khan by comparing it to the Panama Papers case, the top court on Monday observed that the Sharif family could not give answers to the bench’s queries regarding the money trail for their London flats.



Akram Sheikh, counsel for Abbasi, said there is a perception that Khan’s disqualification case was not being heard in the same manner as the Panama case, adding that this case should have been heard in the same way.

He also objected to the court allowing the PTI leader to submit documents even after the conclusion of proceedings, arguing that it went against Supreme Court rules.

The counsel for the PML-N leader contended that Imran should not have been allowed to amend his earlier statements, adding that he filed around seven statements with inconsistent stances and contradictory documents.

Upon this, Justice Umar Ata Bandial told Sheikh that the larger bench in Panama Papers case was seeking documents to establish a money trail for the Sharifs’ London flats and despite its repeated questions regarding this issue, the Sharif family could not provide answers.

“Therefore, the matter was referred to the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for further probe,” Justice Bandial said. On the other hand, Imran has submitted relevant documents in response to every court query, he said, adding, “The only thing we have to determine is the veracity of these documents.”

He also observed that the Panama Papers judgment discussed what kind of documents could be entertained under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.



The chief justice said Khan was allowed to submit the documents in order to save the court’s time for further inquiry into the matter.

He said the court was examining whether or not Imran made precise statements regarding the purchase of his property, rather, they were only trying to determine the honesty aspect.

The CJP also said that they are holding Khan accountable to more than the petitioner’s claims, adding that Abbasi had only accused Khan of evading taxes by giving gifts to his wife.

While referring to an Indian court judgment, he said that courts should not get involved in the political thicket, but this matter is related to corruption and honesty.

The chief justice said the court requires evidence regarding the pronouncement of judgment, adding that we are not holding trial but we are conducting inquisitorial proceedings.

On the other hand, Sheikh said that one party is being allowed to regularly address lacunas in its stances, adding that now, for the first time, it has been revealed that Imran’s offshore company Niazi Service Limited (NSL) was also operating a euro account.

The lawyer also said he was scared by the ‘forces’ which are represented by Naeem Bukhari, adding that he is also aware of the consequences of pleading a treason case against former military ruler Pervez Musharraf as a prosecutor.

Earlier, Naeem Bukhari, counsel for Khan, submitted fresh documents regarding the NSL bank accounts. However, the bench noted that few entries in the bank statement are missing. But the counsel said that they have obtained the documents from archives and there is nothing missing from them.

The counsel said that neither has Imran taken any U-turns regarding the purchase of the land in Bani Gala, nor has any money been moved through any disreputable means The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday (today).