ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan has adjourned hearing a slew of petitions seeking a probe into Panama Leaks till Wednesday.

The apex court remarked that it could summon premier Nawaz Sharif in the future regarding the Panama Leaks case if needed.

Jamaat e Islami’s counsel Toufeeq Asif kicked off arguments before the five-member larger bench regarding ownership of offshore companies and PM’s speech made on the floor of the house in the aftermath of Panama Leaks.

JI’s counsel faced a tough time before the larger bench today due to his rambling and somewhat inaccurate facts. On the other hand, Maryam Nawaz also submitted additional documents to clarify her position regarding offshore companies.

Toufeeq Asif referred to the case of Zafar Ali Shah once again and expressed that he wanted to put forth the arguments given by Khalid Anwar in that particular case.

To this, Justice Khosa observed that JI’s counsel should state the judgement issued by court instead of the arguments of lawyers.

Justice Azmat Saeed posed a question to JI’s counsel as to whom Khalid Anwar was representing in Zafar Ali Shah case.

Chairman PTI Imran Khan arrives at Supreme Court
Chairman PTI Imran Khan arrives at Supreme Court

Toufeeq replied that he was representing Zafar Ali Shah.

However, Justice Azmat Saeed told JI’s counsel that he did not know that particular case. He told JI’s counsel that he was referring to the case without going through its judgement.

‘You totally made fun of it, you must have read something about it’ said Justice Azmat Saeed told JI’s counsel Toufeeq Asif.

Justice Aijaz Ul Ahsan also threw his weight behind justice Azmat Saeed and observed that JI’s counsel totally made fun of the Panama case as Khalid Anwar was counsel for petitioner instead of Nawaz Sharif.

‘You are ignoring the basic principles of law’ said justice Azmat Saeed to JI’s counsel adding that this had damaged the cause of his client.

To this, Toufeeq Asif replied that he felt as if the larger bench was not in a mood to listen to his arguments.

Justice Azmat told JI’s counsel not to repeat his arguments.

Maryam Nawaz, daughter of premier Nawaz Sharif also submitted her reply regarding offshore firms and categorically refuted the allegations linking her with any offshore company.

‘I am not the owner of London flats’ stated Maryam in her response adding that she never took any benefit from Coomber company.

Maryam Nawaz reply submitted before the larger bench
Maryam Nawaz reply submitted before the larger bench

She stated that her father Nawaz Sharif showered her with gifts out of his love for her, reiterating that she was not dependent on Nawaz Sharif ever since she got married in 1992.

Counsel for Maryam Nawaz, Shahid Hamid submitted her response however, the apex court rejected the document apparently due to the reason that it did not bear Maryam’s signature.

During today’s hearing, another JI’s lawyer Ahsan ud Din also argued before the larger bench and sought to summon premeir Nawaz Sharif for clarifying his position.

Ahsan expressed that all the evidence was available to the court and so the responsibility lied with it.

To this, the bench remarked that the evidence could be termed as ‘material’.

JI’s counsel Tariq Asad sought to constitute a separate bench for formation of judicial commission regarding Panama leaks.

The apex court accepted his plea and announced forming a separate bench to discuss formation of judicial commission.

During the last hearing, JI’s counsel expressed that premier’s speech on the floor of the house was not part of the agenda for the day and so it was out of the jurisdiction of article 69 of the constitution.

Justice Azmat Saeed inquired whether the speaker of the National Assembly permitted the premier to deliver his speech or not and advised JI’s counsel to read article 69 and argue on the basis of that. He observed that JI’s counsel seemed addressing media more than the bench.

Justice Gulzar Ahmed also asked whether anyone objected to PM’s speech in parliament and whether it was expunged from session’s proceedings or not.

To this, Touseef Asif replied that PM’s speech was still part of the proceedings and it was not expunged. He argued that the premier made the speech on Monday and the speaker of the assembly can only suspend routine business on Tuesday in order to give premier floor of the house for personal clarification.

He went on and sought to demand the record of assembly’s session for the particular day.

‘The premier initially vowed to clarify his position but the whole scenario changed as the apex court took up the issue’ said Toufeeq Asif adding that Tariq Shafi was the owner of Dubai mill.

Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that JI’s counsel was opposing his petition himself.

Justice Asif Khosa told the JI’s counsel to brief the larger bench regarding what the premier concealed in his statements adding that PM’s counsel argued that as the London flats were not owned by Nawaz Sharif so he could not present the money trail.

To this, Toufeeq replied that the premier did not present the money trail in his speech.

Justice Khosa remarked that the premier’s counsel did not present any evidence, rather he put forth legal points to argue before the bench.

JI’s counsel went on and expressed that the federal ministers were showing up in apex court to defend the prime minister.

Justice Asif Khosa remarked that the political leaders expressed their stance in road rallies and now everyone should wait for the judgement of larger bench.

Justice Aijaz Ul Ahsan told JI’s counsel to prove any connection of Nawaz Sharif with Mian Shareef’s business as Shareef family claimed that the actual owner of business was Mian Shareef.

He remarked that according to Nawaz Sharif, his name was not in Panama papers, so he could not be blamed for such leaks.

Toufeeq Asif in his arguments also referred to the example of Ayyan Ali and Attiqa Odho case to which Justice Azmat quipped that he should decide whether he was representing Ayyan Ali or Attiqa Odho.