Imran says contradiction in Nawaz’s statements in SC

ISLAMABAD: Expressing satisfaction over the proceedings in Panama Papers case in Supreme Court, Imran Khan on Thursday said that the statements of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were different from his earlier statements.

Talking to the media in Islamabad, he said that Supreme Court has never taken up such a case before.

“I’m more hopeful than ever before that the verdict of the case would be beneficial for Pakistan, he added.

PTI chief said that the judges confirmed contradictions in three speeches of Nawaz Sharif, adding that the allegations against the PM were bigger than the one against former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Talking about PTI’s boycott of parliament session, he said that the party was boycotting Nawaz Sharif as they do not consider him a prime minister anymore, adding that the PTI’s boycott was not against Turkish President Recip Tayyab Erdogan.

Imran Khan said that the presence of federal ministers during the court hearing was perplexing as the case was against the Sharif family.

“What are federal ministers doing in Supreme Court? The case is against the Sharif family and these ministers are not required during the hearing. In a democracy, the ministers do not cover up the corruption of one family”, he added.

The Prime Minister during today's hearing submitted his reply in which he said that PTI's 'proofs' were based on lies.

Imran Khan has not come up with solid evidence, the reply stated.

On Wednesday, the children of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif submitted a petition in the Supreme Court against documents submitted by PTI in the Panama Leaks case.

The petition submitted by Maryam, Hasan and Hussain Nawaz states that the 683 pages submitted by the PTI were just pieces of paper and did not have any legal standing.

The petition was submitted by Advocate Akram Sheikh on behalf of the prime minister’s children.

In the last hearing, Justice Azmat Saeed said documents submitted by PTI had no relevance with the case. “The documents also include newspaper clippings. The petitioner himself has buried the truth,” Justice Azmat remarked.

The court maintained that one side had submitted 700 pages while the other had submitted 1600 pages. "We are not a computer that we scan the documents in a minute," Justice Azmat Saeed said.