ISLAMABAD: A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa resumed hearing of Panama Papers case on Thursday, Aaj News reported.
Maryam Nawaz’s lawyer Advocate Shahid Hamid resumed his arguments before the Apex court. The counsel told the court he would submit tax returns regarding gifts given to the prime minister from his children.
Later, the proceeding moved towards a BMW car Maryam Nawaz was allegedly gifted by her brother Hassan. Hamid told the court the BMW was bought by Hassan Nawaz in 2006 and gifted to Maryam Nawaz two years later. Maryam sold that car for Rs2 million in 2011, he added.
In today’s hearing, a second letter signed by Qatari royal Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani was also submitted to the Supreme Court. The first one was submitted in November 2016. The second letter like the first one is marked private, confidential and not to be disclosed to any party.
The letter is accompanied by transaction details and auditor’s reports regarding the Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai and the Azizia Steel Mills in Jeddah.
Hassan and Hussain Nawaz’s counsel submitted more documents during the hearing included a land acquisition deed for the Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai and a letter verifying the existence of the mills, as well as other documents pertaining to the sale of the Gulf and Azizia mills.
The documents contained details of Dubai mills and Sharif family’s Park Lane flats in London.
Talking to the media, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chief Imran Khan has said that if decision was made on the properties of Maryam Nawaz, Panamagate case will come to an end. PTI chief said that Maryam had to provide evidence whether he was beneficial owner or trustee of the London flats.
In previous hearing on Wednesday, Shahid Hamid, while submitting his arguments before the bench said that the petitioners have built the case on forged documents. He, in this regard, referred to the documents carrying disputed signatures.
In his remarks, Justice Ejaz Afzal said when documents are relied upon by a party, it is its duty to prove the custody of them as well.