The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought details pertaining to distribution of property of the late Mian Muhammad Sharif to his heirs and the transcript of Maryam Nawaz's interview to a private television in 2012 in which she had denied the ownership of the Mayfair flats.Resuming the hearing of the Panamagate case, a five-member larger bench led by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa also sought details from Maryam Nawaz's counsel, Shahid Hamid, about bearer share certificates that Qatar's Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani passed on to Hussain Nawaz as part of a business deal.
Advancing his arguments, Shahid Hamid pleaded that to the extent of his client, the current matter does not come under the ambit of Article 184 (3) as she is a common citizen of Pakistan. To which, Justice Gulzar Ahmed remarked that there is an allegation that Maryam Nawaz is the "front man" of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif so a prima facie case in response to petitions can be established against his client.
Shahid Hamid contended that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has produced unverified documents to establish that the Premier's daughter is the beneficial owner of the Mayfair properties in London, saying the signatures of his client on the papers submitted by PTI do not match with her original signatures.
Shahid Hamid argued that although he was not accusing the petitioners of submitting forged documents, filing unverified documents is a reckless disregard to the court; to which Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked, "Do you think that the petitioners should go to Panama for verification of documents?" Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed if someone is going to submit any documents in the court, one has to explain and disclose the source from where the documents were obtained.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that forgery is a question of fact, saying there are two aspects to the issue in hand; one is about the dependency of Maryam Nawaz on her father while the other is related to her role of being a "front man" of the premier for the properties belonging to him.
Justice Khosa observed that the issue before the court is not the property ownership but honesty. "We come to know form the PTI that there are two companies, Nescoll and Neilson, Minerva Financial Services, and we are trying to dig out the facts...you are the best person to let us know how your client is managing and administrating the business," Justice Khosa said while addressing Shahid Hamid.
Justice Khosa observed that he is still unable to understand the interview given by Maryam Nawaz to a private television channel in which she said that she had no property abroad whereas she had signed a Trust Deed in 2006, "then how can she say that she and her family do not have any property abroad?"
However, Shahid Hamid submitted that his client and Hussain Nawaz signed a Trust Deed with an intention that Maryam Nawaz may distribute her brother's properties to his legal heirs in case of his demise.
Justice Khosa observed that signatures on documents have become a mystery as the family appears to be signing on one another's behalf. Justice Khosa recalled that earlier there was also an issue with regard to the signatures of Tariq Shafi in the UAE Steels Mills case.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan said the court has to examine the whole matter, saying when a dispute of signatures is presented before an expert, he examines it from all angles including one's habitual way of signing.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan further said the signature verification matter has not been decided yet, saying if someone as an expert examines the signature, he would have to appear before the court in person to explain about the signatures.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan said that it is a disputed question whether or not Maryam Nawaz is dependent on her father, saying the court cannot adjudicate the matter as it requires recording of evidence.
Shahid Hamid informed the bench that a matter of similar nature was pending before the Election Commission of Pakistan against his client Captain Safdar (Retd) whereas another similar matter was also pending before the Lahore High Court about disqualification of Nawaz Sharif; to which Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan questioned whether an issue being pending in another constitutional body could be taken up under a public interest litigation.
Later, the hearing of case was adjourned till Thursday (today).
Comments
Comments are closed.