The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the question of fact whether the Sharif family owned Mayfair properties in London before 2006 was yet to be established. Appearing before a five-member larger bench led by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa in the Panamagate case, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) counsel Taufeeq Asif commenced arguments. He sought disqualification of Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif on grounds that he hid the Mayfair properties' ownership while delivering a speech on the floor of the National Assembly.
Addressing the JI counsel, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said that unless a conflict of interest is established mere allegations regarding the Prime Minister's involvement in family business would not provide a justification to accept the petitioner's arguments in the matter.
Taufeeq Asif argued that the Prime Minister has violated his oath by concealing his assets in London, which provides sufficient grounds to declare him disqualified. Justice Ijazul Ahsan questioned whether the Prime Minister's speech was on the agenda of the proceeding of the House on that particular day when he delivered a speech on the floor of the National Assembly.
The JI's counsel responded that the premier's speech was not a routine business of the House, adding that Nawaz Sharif didn't announce any national agenda during the speech but clarified his position on the issue of Panamagate as a member of the Assembly. Justice Ijazul Ahsan inquired whether there was a code of conduct under which the Prime Minister is bound to stay away from his family business during his stint in the government.
Taufeeq Asif responded that there is no such bar on the Prime Minister in this regard. The JI counsel termed the Prime Minister's speech on the floor of the House as a confessional statement. He pleaded that the Prime Minister had disclosed in his speech on the floor of the House that the London flats were bought during 1993 to 1996.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked the JI lawyer: "in which part of the Nawaz Sharif's speech he had confessed the ownership period of Mayfair properties in London." Justice Khosa observed "if it is true then what is the justification of the bench to hear the Panamagate case?"
The counsel argued that proving ownership of the London flats and money trail in the current matter is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, adding that there is no option but to accept that Nawaz Sharif spoke truth in his speech. Justice Khosa observed that everyone is agreed on the ownership of the flats which belong to the Sharif family, but not a single document has been produced before the court claiming the property is entitled to Nawaz Sharif.
The counsel pleaded that Nawaz Sharif has made a disclosure in his speech about the loss of business of Ittefaq Foundry in 1980, whereas it was also revealed that the loss was recovered as the foundry earned a profit of Rs 300 million during the next three years and then the business was expanded to many companies.
"JI lawyer further contended that Gulf Steel Mills in the UAE was established which was later sold against a price of $9 million. The Sharif family, however, has not informed the court about the source of money through which they had started their business.
The JI counsel contended that Nawaz Sharif has expressed in his speech that he was not in politics when Gulf Steel Mills was established in the UAE; to which Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh asked the lawyer to specify such portion of the Prime Minister's speech.
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh remarked told the JI lawyer, "According to your accusations, Nawaz Sharif deliberately hid the London assets so the oath on the floor of the House was not honoured for which Nawaz Sharif should be declared disqualified from the membership of the Assembly."
The counsel further argued that the Prime Minister has informed that all the sale record of Jeddah and the UAE factories is available and their proceeds provided an amount to purchase the Mayfair properties.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed, "Two questions arise here: When were the London flats were purchased? What is the link between these flats and Nawaz Sharif?" The counsel also claimed that Nawaz Sharif hid the details of London assets in his nomination papers and tax returns as the Prime Minister's lawyer has said the flats were purchased through the investment of Jeddah factory. Later, the hearing of the case was adjourned till January 23.
Comments
Comments are closed.