ISLAMABAD: Resuming hearing of the Panamagate case, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked that the counsel of PM would have to inform the court what has been done in 2006.

Justice Asif Saeed Khose remarked that a ruling cannot be based on newspaper clippings submitted as 'evidence', to which the PTI counsel responded saying that the court has ruled on the basis of newspaper clippings in the past.

A five-member larger bench led by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa on Wednesday resumed hearing the Panama Leaks case on Tuesday.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa maintained the court could not scrutinize this matter the whole life adding that it can summon any one if deemed necessary.

The counsel of Imran Khan Naeem Bukhari and chief of Awami Muslim League (AML) Shaikh Rasheed completed their arguments.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Naeem Bukhari continued with his arguments “we want the court to give a verdict on disqualifying the Prime Minister," he said. He contended that there are contradiction between Nawaz Sharif and his scion’s statements.

He questioned that whether a barrier certificate of offshore company be equated with prize bond. Bukhari asked whether is it possible that person possessing certificate becomes owner of company.

As per new law, it is mandatory for person to inform custodian of company about possession of certificates, said Bukhari.

Bukhari stated that as per legal term dependent is a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support.

PTI's Bokhari presented in court an investigative report from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) ex-deputy director Rehman Malik.

Bokhari alleged that the report proves money laundering allegations against Finance Minister Ishaq Dar. In response, the court reminded Bokhari that the Panamagate case is restricted to the London flats.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa told the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) to knock on the doors of accountability courts if it wishes to receive a judgment on the basis of National Accountability Bureau investigations.

Justice Khosa, heading a larger bench of the apex court, remarked that the Supreme Court is a constitutional court, not a trial court.

Justice Aijaz Afzal advised PTI counsel Naeem Bokhari to approach NAB to reopen the Hudaibiyah Paper Mills case.

He added that the SC could direct NAB to investigate cases, but it is not in the apex court's jurisdiction to ask the NAB to investigate references.

"The sanctity of the court needs to be maintained at all costs, do not take us out of our parameters," he warned.

"We will only hear the case within the limits of Article 184/3," Justice Aijaz said. Article 184 pertains to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that going by Naeem Bukhari's definition Maryam Nawaz is dependent on Hussain Nawaz. "Even now one has to determine when the London flats were bought?".

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, pointing towards PTI’s Advocate Naeem Bokhari, had emphasized the need for caution in deciding a disqualification case under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution on the basis of a statement made by the holder of a public office, which later turned out to be false. "If we start disqualifying people under this pretext, no one will be spared, not even your clients," the judge observed.

Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rasheed in his arguments said, "The court knows what is happening, we are simply here to assist it. The Sharif family is hiding behind the Qatar letter. The Qatar prince is Rescue 1122 for the Sharifs." His arguments were met with laughter in the courtroom, while the judges expressed their displeasure.
The case was adjourned till January 12 (Thursday).