Panama Case hearing<\/p>\n
Online
\nIslamabad
\nSupreme Court, during Tuesday hearing of talk of the town Panama Papers case, said that it will not set any example by disqualifying prime minister over political speeches.
\nA five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa resumed the hearing saying that the Supreme Court is a constitutional court, not a trial court.
\nOn occasion, Justice Aijaz-ul-Ahsan said that the decision of prime minister\u2019s innocence will be taken after going through the evidence.
\nHe asked how Nawaz Sharif\u2019s children can be held accountable when their father transferred the money abroad.
\nMeanwhile, Justice Asif withdrew his observation about implementation of Article 62 and 63.
\nJustice Khosa apologised for the remark he made on Monday in which he had said to the PTI\u2019s lead counsel Naeem Bokhari, \u201cIf we start disqualifying people under this pretext, no one will be spared, not even your clients.\u201d
\nThe judge had been referring to the PTI\u2019s call for disqualification of holders of public office on the basis of statements which are contradictory in nature under Articles 62 and 63.
\nPakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Naeem Bukhari said that we only have one Supreme Court in Pakistan. He said a lawyer has nothing to do with judicial verdicts.
\nOn the other hand, when the PTI counsel present an investigation report by then additional FIA DG Rehman Malik regarding the money laundering of Sharif family in 1996, the bench observed that the report cannot be included as evidence.
\nPTI lawyer Naeem Bukhari told the court that former Interior Minister Rehman Malik\u2019s report reveals \u2018money trail\u2019 source.
\nJustice Gulzar remarked that how Rehman Malik can make report as his own name is also in Panama Leaks.
\n\u201cYou are asking us to violate the oath,\u201d Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh told the PTI counsel. \u201cPlease address us and not the nation,\u201d he further said to Bukhari.
\nBokhari also alleged that the report proves money laundering allegations against Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.
\nIn response, the court reminded Bokhari that the Panamagate case is restricted to the London flats.
\nJustice Aijaz Afzal advised PTI counsel Naeem Bokhari to approach NAB to reopen the Hudaibiyah Paper Mills case. He added that the SC could direct NAB to investigate cases, but it is not in the apex court\u2019s jurisdiction to ask the NAB to investigate references.
\n\u201cThe sanctity of the court needs to be maintained at all costs, do not take us out of our parameters,\u201d he warned.
\n\u201cWe will only hear the case within the limits of Article 184\/3,\u201d a Justice Aijaz said. Article 184 pertains to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
\nBukhari told the Supreme Court that Hassan Nawaz established a company in the UK in the year 2000. To this, the bench raised questions regarding how the premier\u2019s son established a company in 2000 as he was studying till 1999.
\nDuring the hearing, the court reminded Bokhari that a ruling cannot be based on newspaper clippings submitted as \u2018evidence\u2019, to which the PTI counsel responded saying that the court has ruled on the basis of newspaper clippings in the past.
\nJustice Azmat Saeed asked Bokhari if any other court in the world has given a ruling based on the Panama Papers to which the PTI\u2019s lead counsel responded saying that the SC should take the first step and set an example.
\nLater, Sharif family\u2019s lawyer told the court that Lahore High Court had disposed of Federal Investigation Agency\u2019s FIR over which, Justice Aijaz-ul-Ahsan said that the bench cannot give verdict on dismissed FIA\u2019s report.
\nThe court adjourned the case till today (Wednesday).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Panama Case hearing Online Islamabad Supreme Court, during Tuesday hearing of talk of the town Panama Papers case, said that it will not set any example by disqualifying prime minister over political speeches. A five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa resumed the hearing saying that the Supreme Court is a constitutional court, not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2671,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-9550","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-top-news"},"yoast_head":"\n