SC grills PTI lawyer over failure to prove allegations against Sharifs
By
Hasnaat Mailk
Published: January 9, 2017
12SHARES
SHARE TWEET EMAIL
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday grilled Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf counsel over failure to establish allegations regarding the Sharif family’s purchase of London flats.
As the final round of the legal battle between the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the PTI begins, the top court questioned the party’s lead counsel over proof that the Sharif family owned luxury flats in London in 1993.
Make-or-break day for PTI in top court
Despite having significant documents, Naeem Bokhari has seemingly struggled to substantiate the PTI’s case with verbal arguments.
“PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari is once again unable to substantiate his submissions regarding London properties,” Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh remarked. Sheikh further said, “Bokhari did not submit any scrap of paper to establish that Sharif family owned London properties in 1993.”
Justice Asif Khosa also advised the PTI counsel to file a reference with the National Accountability Bureau to re-open the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case against the Sharif family. The SC was also unimpressed by Bokhari for shifting the focus of the Panamagate case away from the London flats towards the Hudaibiya Paper Mills.
“First, you spoke about London flats and now, you have jumped towards the confessional statement of Ishaq Dar on the mills,” Justice Khosa remarked.
The apex court also raised questions over the National Accountability Bureau’s failure to file an appeal regarding the re-investigation of Rs612 million Hudaibia Papers Mill scam against the Sharif family.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa discussed the quashing of NAB’s reference against Sharif family by the Lahore High Court. “NAB failed to file an appeal against the high court’s 2011 verdict,” the bench observed.
In March 11, 2014, the Lahore High Court rejected NAB’s plea of opening corruption references against the Sharifs in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case. Nine members of the Sharif family, including Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif, have been accused of laundering up to Rs642.7 million.
Panamagate scandal: ‘Top court’s ruling to seal Pakistan’s future’
However, Justice Khosa observed that when NAB did not move an appeal against the LHC order in former chairman OGRA Tauqir Sadiq’s case, the Supreme Court while exercising Article 184 (3) of the Constitution accepted that appeal. Justice Khosa also raised queries regarding the failure of authorities to conduct an investigation on Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s confessional statement.
PTI counsel advised to file reference with NAB to reopen Hudaibiya Paper Mills case
HASEEB BHATTI — UPDATED 30 minutes ago
WHATSAPP
8 COMMENTS
PRINT
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, during a hearing of the Panamagate case on Monday, advised Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Naeem Bokhari to file a reference with National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry to reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.
The judge was presiding over a five-member bench of the apex court when he said, "We can call the chairman of NAB and ask him why he did not fulfil his responsibilities."
Justice Khosa was referring to a case in which now Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had submitted a handwritten statement to a magistrate in 2000 alleging that the Sharif brothers had used the Hudaibiyah Paper Mills as a cover for money laundering during the late 90s.
In 2014, an accountability court judge had rejected an application filed by NAB requesting the reopening of the Hudaibiya Paper Mills and Raiwind Assets references.
Read more: Sharifs used paper mill to whiten money, Dar told court in 2000
As per a NAB investigation report on the Hudaibiya Paper Mills reference in 2014, the Sharif family had allegedly deposited ill-gotten money in bank accounts opened in other people’s names and used it to pay off loans of their companies.
The court observed that NAB had not given proper opportunity to the Sharif family to join the investigations and justify their assets.
Read more: Sharif cleared in two corruption references
Justice Khosa also admonished Advocate Naeem Bokhari for steering the focus of the case away from the London flats towards the Hudaibiya Paper Mills.
"First in the case you spoke about the London flats. Now, you have jumped towards the confessional statement of Ishaq Dar."
Justice Ejaz ul Hasan pointed out to the counsel that his arguments had failed to make clear whether or not Maryam Nawaz is a dependent of her father.
Naeem told the court that the London flats were bought under Maryam Nawaz's name between 1993 to 1996. He added that at the time of the transaction, Maryam Nawaz was underage and had no source of income.
The advocate alleged that Maryam Nawaz was made the beneficiary as a smokescreen, whereas the PM is the real owner of the flats.
He told the apex court that, in a similar manner, the PM set up mills in Jeddah and Dubai by using benami transactions.
Justice Khosa pointed out that the burden of proof lies with the PTI since they have the evidence. He added that it was the party's responsibility to show how the companies were bought, who made them and where did the money come from.
The judge advised that a document in this regard should be submitted in the apex court.
Justice Khosa told Naeem Bokhari that if the Supreme Court sends the references regarding the case to NAB, it will no longer be able to hold hearings on the Panamagate case, in accordance with Article 184.
He further advised Naeem that the responsibility was upon him to either separate the two cases or ensure they are heard simultaneously.
Justice Ejaz ul Hasan, however, advised the advocate that if the two cases are joined, the Panamagate case will become 'muddy'.
Khosa remarked --
is mulk ke naslain b inkay bachoon kay talway chaathi raheengay aur inkay naroon pe naachanay wali nachtay raheengay 
"AS EXPECTED RESULT IS ON THE WAY" 
