Sharif Family Needs To Show Money Trail

Nawaz Sharif family to show money trail.

The five member SC court panel formed to investigate the Panama Leaks and money trails from Dubai to Qatar & Qatar to London is closely looking at the matter.

This five-member panel, led by Justic Khosa, is hearing the petition submitted by PTI, JI, Pakistan Awami Muslim League and Tariq Asad, advocate of the Panama Leaks.

The bench is already hearing the case on a daily basis from 9:30 am to 1:00 pm. On Fridays, the panel hears the case till 11:00 am.

During the case argument, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa was of the view that the allegations made by the petitioners for conflict of interest need to be looked into. The advocated made the point that Mr. Nawaz Sharif had parted ways with family business back in 1997.

Opposing Counsel Representing the PM Nawaz

Supreme court hearing on Panama Leaks

The opposing counsel representing Mr. Nawaz Sharif, Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan reassured the court that he will provide complete details about when the PM joined politics, when he became a Minister, Punjab’s Chief Minister, and finally country’s Prime Minister.

Justice Khosa gave his observation that Mr. Mian Muhammad Sharif passed away in the year 2004. The settlements for the London flats were made in the year 2006. He also questioned if there was a will in which Mian Sharif asked about transferring his property in the names of his grandsons.

Naeem Bukhari argued that there existed no evidence of any money transaction taking place. He also questioned the PM’s stance that sale proceeds of the Dubai steel mill were used to purchase the property with the London address Flats 16, 16A, 17 and 17A.

Justice Ejaz Afzal asked if there existed a law determining how money was carried from Dubai to. And if it was a crime to take money from one country to another by means or channels not approved by law.

PTI chairman said that he was holding press conference outside the parliament because of compulsion. He said that when he tried to uncover the rigging in elections he did not have any evidence. He said that raising objections about matters not seen perfect was the job of the opposition.

Share

LEAVE A REPLY