Panama leak Case Proceedings - JIT Report, News, Updates And Discussion

[Emmie]

in this i agree with honorable judges, ECP is forum for such disqualification. Judges also said that in Yousaf Raza Gillani's case, the then PM was first convicted than was disqualified. If money laundering is proved against Shareefs thn NS can be disqualified. Disqualification under article 62, 63 is a matter of ECP

I don't agree with this. Going by the law being interpreted now, SC could convict him only. Please recall there are two orders in the case, one for conviction and one for disqualification. Justice Chaudhry in second order ruled that SC had powers to disqualify without directing the speaker to file a reference. Please recall speaker refused to file a reference for PM disqualication when directed to comply with 1st order. Interestingly NS was the petitioner at that time.

 

[Farah Sohail]

All institutions are working hand in glove with NS and his progeny. Remember how shamelessly speaker of national assembly rejected IK and SR references against NS & approved references against IK and JT? For post election disqualification a reference must go through NA speaker office, law requires this mechanism but there's an exception to the rule in the form of Yousuf Raza Gillani case, he was disqualified directly by the court. Lame PM who claims to be ready for his accountability is relying upon the same mechanism in his written reply, he contends whether he lied or not his qualification can't be questioned in supreme court of Pakistan.

yes.. we have no doubt abt intentions of Nawaz Sharif and his family..but how can Supreme Court say..tht SC is not the forum for 62,63, and should go to election commission..when SC, in this case, itself remarked many times, tht instituitions are not doing their job? reference was made to Yousuf Raza Gilani's case by PTI but judges said something like first case was proven against Gilani, then was disqualified.. don't understand exactly... mujhe tu judges ka jawab us par samajh hi nahi aaya....ke unhon ne kaha kia?

https://twitter.com/x/status/806036013177012224

https://twitter.com/x/status/806036986645671938

https://twitter.com/x/status/806037067058778112

https://twitter.com/x/status/806037578365464576

https://twitter.com/x/status/806037655951736832

Lolz... Shaikh Sahab Zindabaad!

Sheikh Rashid is the real star.. he is presenting his arguments much more effectively than everyone else... Sheikh Rashid zindabad

 

[Emmie]

@Farah Sohail

Here

I don't agree with this. Going by the law being interpreted now, SC could convict him only. Please recall there are two orders in the case, one for conviction and one for disqualification. Justice Chaudhry in second order ruled that SC had powers to disqualify without directing the speaker to file a reference. Please recall speaker refused to file a reference for PM disqualication when directed to comply with 1st order. Interestingly NS was the petitioner at that time.

 

[Farah Sohail]

Hearing of the case will resume on Dec 13.

every channel was saying tht...case will again be heard tomorrow? where did this date of 13th come from? can anyone clarify?

 

[Rank]

tomorrow hearing....

 

[Farah Sohail]

tomorrow hearing....

why did Dawn article state tht hearing has been adjourned till 13th?

 

[Moonlight]

Funny. They have accepted it's their property, as per my information. Then why the hell PTI have to prove anything? It should be the other way around?
In this case, defendant is supposed to present their evidences.

 

[PakSword]

http://www.express.pk/story/672062/

@Farah Sohail @El_Swordsmen @Doordie @Emmie @The Sandman

 

[Moonlight]

View attachment 358164


http://www.express.pk/story/672062/

@Farah Sohail @El_Swordsmen @Doordie @Emmie @The Sandman

Can you explain this last line? I can read Urdu but I didn't get it.

@The Sandman uncle sheikh Rasheed is the clown of politicians.

 

[PakSword]

Can you explain this last line? I can read Urdu but I didn't get it.

@The Sandman uncle sheikh Rasheed is the clown of politicians.

By 4th (he was mentioning the date), the trust deed could have only reached London from Jeddah on "Qatari Plane"... lolz.

He was actually making a point that trust deeds were fake and the was a discrepancy in the attestation date in UK and signing date in Jeddah.

 

[Emmie]

View attachment 358164


http://www.express.pk/story/672062/

@Farah Sohail @El_Swordsmen @Doordie @Emmie @The Sandman

I couldn't understand whole argument. What was he trying to say?

 

[PakSword]

I couldn't understand whole argument. What was he trying to say?

Do we have the copy of both trust deeds? I laughed at "Qatari Plane" more than the argument..

I could only understand that:

1 - Signatures of Maryam on both trust deeds do not match.
2 - This is because on both deeds, Maryam signed on 02-Feb-2006. Attestation was done on 04-Feb-2006. Maryam was in Jeddah, while the attestation was done in London. However, since they found out in the earlier hearing that they have missed the trust deed of Nescoll and Neilson from submission (which was actually not there in the first place), they asked someone in UK to sign it, get it attested and send it to Pakistan. So the signature of the person who signed on the deed that was later submitted does not match with the signature of Maryam on the first deed, which was actually signed by Maryam. Due to shortage of time, she asked someone in UK to sign on the second deed on her behalf and get it attested on the back date.

Funny. They have accepted it's their property, as per my information. Then why the hell PTI have to prove anything? It should be the other way around?
In this case, defendant is supposed to present their evidences.

Fortunately, judges are also agreeing with you this time...

 

[war&peace]

1 - Signatures of Maryam on both trust deeds do not match.
2 - This is because on both deeds, Maryam signed on 02-Feb-2006. Attestation was done on 04-Feb-2006. Maryam was in Jeddah, while the attestation was done in London.

This stuff is for Hollywood...Next scifi...

 

[Inception-06]

This stuff is for Hollywood...Next scifi...

So when we will get any result of this case,any hard fact or results, which we can present for public ?

(Sorry that I am asking from out of nowhere, but can't really follow the case here, because of time shortage and too much rumors and allegations.)

 

[war&peace]

So when we will get any result of this case,any hard fact or results, which we can present for public ?

(Sorry that I am asking from out of nowhere, but can't really follow the case here, because of time shortage and too much rumors and allegations.)

It is difficult to say anything at this stage but if the SC follows the rules, it can easily decide but we shouldn't ignore their vested interests and greed for money and status