Panama Leaks case: PM Nawaz says, PTI evidences based on lies
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court resumed hearing into Panama Leaks case during which Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif submitted his reply on PTI’s evidences and said proofs were based on lies.
The petitioner has not come up with solid evidence, the reply stated.
PTI counsel Hamid Khan will present his arguments on the documents shared by the Sharif Family regarding London properties.
The SC on Tuesday told the PTI counsel point-blank that hearsay could not be admitted as evidence and asked him to focus on the Mayfair flats.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Anwar Zaheer Jamali, is heading the five-member larger bench of the apex court hearing the petitions.
On the last hearing, the CJ observed that the parties seeking a probe into the Panama Leaks case had filed so many documents that the court could not give a verdict in two or three days.
Salman Aslam Butt submitted documents on behalf of the prime minister, while Akram Sheikh filed documents on behalf of Maryam, Hussain and Hassan Nawaz.
Muhammad Akram Sheikh also filed with the court a letter of Qatari ruler Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabar Al-Thani, showing that Nawaz Sharif’s father Mian Muhammad Sharif had launched a joint business venture with the Qatari royal family and purchased four flats in London from the proceeds of real estate business.
He contended that not even a single penny was shifted abroad from the country. The CJP directed Akram Sheikh to satisfy the court by proving that money that was sent abroad was through legal means.
The children of prime minister Nawaz Sharif informed the court that Flats No. 16, 16a, 17 and 17a, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London (the “Properties”) were purchased by the Al-Thani family and their ownership was secured through two companies — Nielsen Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited (the “Entities”) — the bearer share certificates of which were kept by the Al-Thani family in Qatar.
Maryam Nawaz. Respondent No 6, Hussain Nawaz, respondent No 7 and Hassan Nawaz, respondent No 8 filed their joint concise statements with the apex court.