Wednesday, May 22, 2024
Main Menu

Panama Leaks Case: PM’s counsel presents arguments


ISLAMABAD, DEC 07, (DNA) – A larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Cheif Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali will resume hearing of Panama Leaks case today on petitions by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and other parties.

In its earlier hearing on Tuesday, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa asked three questions from the prime minister’s lawyer Salman Aslam Butt.

a)      How did the prime minister’s children form the companies?

b)      Explain the issue of dependency

c)      Were the prime minister’s speeches true or not?

The response on the questions is expected to be given today by the Prime Minister and his family before the bench.

Speaking to Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath, CEO of Sharif family businesses, Haroon Pasha, maintained that the offshore accounts in Panama were set-up by the Sharif family for the revenues received after selling mills in Dubai.

Pasha added that Maryam Nawaz is not financially dependent on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

“Mrs Maryam Safdar has her own sources of income, which were mentioned in the income tax returns of 2014 to 2016; her assets are all declared,” he said.

Imran Khan’s lawyer Naeem Bukhari drew the court’s attention towards Maryam Nawaz as dependent of Nawaz Sharif.

“I have evidence to prove that Maryam Nawaz is dependent on the Prime Minister,” Bukhari said.

“Where has the Prime Minister written in his tax files that Maryam Nawaz is his dependent?” the Supreme Court remarked in the case.

Naeem Bukhari said that in his first speech the Prime Minister never gave a date on which his mills based in Saudi Arabia were sold.

“How were the London flats bought?” Bukhari asked, “Were they bought after selling the Dubai mill or the Jeddah mill?”

Hussain Nawaz had said that he bought the London flats through investments from Qatar, Bukhari argued.

There are discrepancies in the Prime Minister’s speech and his children’s statements, Bukhari added.

To this Justice Azmat Saeed directed him to not repeat his old arguments.=DNA


Comments are Closed