ISLAMABAD -  The Supreme Court has asked Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his siblings to come out clean on the ownership details of the London flats.

The apex court cautioned Sharif family that if they were unable to establish the ownership of flats in London, the court would have to ‘imagine’ that the petitioners claim was true.

The Supreme Court’s new bench made the remarks while hearing the Panama leaks case for the third consecutive day on Friday.

The court maintained they were not powerless and had jurisdiction under Article 184 of the Constitution to direct Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children to furnish documents related to the UK flats and others.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, heading the five-member bench, said they would try to do everything to meet the ends of justice. He again referred to Section 122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat and said anyone in the knowledge of some wrongdoing should inform the court of it.

Justice Khosa, without taking the name of PTI Chairman Imran Khan, said since somebody had alleged the prime minister had committed illegality, he would have to prove and show that he had done things lawfully. In order to clear his point, he said: “If a man is travelling in a train and someone alleges he is travelling illegally as he has no ticket. In this situation, that person is supposed to prove that he has the ticket and is travelling legally.”

The court had the power to direct the PM and his children to produce evidence as to how, when and which money they got to purchase the properties, he added.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed questioned who would record the evidence as this bench, being a constitutional court, could not do it. Justice Khosa said: “We are not asking for recording evidence, but we can direct the parties to produce the documents. Justice Gulzar said the respondents could submit affidavits.

PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari contended since Maryam Safdar was the ultimate beneficial owner of Neilsen and Nescol, he had referred to the internal correspondence between Mossack Fonseca and Financial Investigation Agency, UK, and with the British Virgin Islands companies – Neilsen and Nescoll.

He argued the correspondence showed that Maryam had been a customer of Samba Bank since December 3, 2005. In response to the inquiry by Mossack Fonseca, the Sharif family stated the family wealth source was spreading over 60 years.

Justice Ejaz Afzal asked the PTI counsel that on Thursday, while to referring to the judgment of Queens High Court, London, he had stated that in Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, Shehbaz Sharif, Abbas Sharif and Mian Muhammad Sharif had paid money to satisfy the loan of Al-Taufiq to get back the flats which had been attached by the court.

Justice Ejaz said they wanted to know how and when the properties were transferred in the name of Maryam Safdar. He further questioned how and when she became the ultimate beneficial owner of the two companies. The judge told Naeem Bukhari that he had not produced any documents regarding his claim. Naeem Bukhari contended: “We have tried our level best and furnished the court whatever they had.”

Naeem argued Minerva Corporate also stated that Maryam was the beneficial owner of the properties. Justice Azmat remarked Minerva was an agent. Naeem said Mossack Fonseca took the details from Nielsen and Nescoll according to which she was not a trustee or settler, but the beneficial owner.

Naeem Bukhari tried to establish that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was the owner of the UK properties and not Maryam Safdar. He argued she did not have money to buy the properties and her father and brothers gave her money to purchase the flats and the money was not transferred through a non-banking source.

He asserted Maryam Safdar had received loans from her father. “In 2011, she received Rs 31.7 million, in 2012, Rs 51.6 million and in 2013, she got Rs 37.8 million. Under loan and advances from Ch Sugar Mills, she received Rs 42.3 million in 2011. Hassan Nawaz also gave Maryam Rs 28.9 million,” he contended.

Justice Khosa observed Maryam, in an interview, had stated that she had nothing to do with the London properties. But the documents established some connection and that she had connection with Minerva in 2005. So was her connection with Samba Bank. The judge asked Bukhari to read his document with the documents placed by the respondents.

Justice Azmat asked Naeem that he had not informed the court whether the trust deed was valid or not. He asked him what the principle of ‘Benami’ was. He added the execution of the documents was disputed. It was not simply enough to say the trust deed contained signatures of Hassan Nawaz and Maryam. “You will have to tell the court when and where it was signed,” he asked. The judge said every trust deed had the tax number.

Justice Azmat asked the PTI counsel that his client’s own house was also gifted. He held mere chit chat would not be enough. He said: “The respondents will have to tell the court about the trust deed and the share certificates and if they fail to do so, it will create a problem for them.” He observed the documents filed by both the parties were incomplete.

Justice Ejaz Afzal said it was not a trial court or a civil court. He asked the PTI counsel to satisfy the court about the authenticity of the documents produced by his client. He said they could not give judgment on photocopies or emails and added it was not right to determine the fate of the documents at this stage without hearing the other party.

Justice Azmat said: “We can’t accept one newspaper article and reject others. The PTI has furnished the photocopies and emails which can’t be accepted as official record.”

Justice Gulzar asked what the FIA did after getting the information from Mossack Fonseca. Naeem replied they wanted information regarding money laundering or terror financing.

Justice Azmat said the documents produced by PTI were taken from The Guardian reporter who had filed the story on the Panama leaks. He asked whether he would come before the court to prove the documents.

Naeem Bukhari contended Nawaz Sharif had received Rs 740 million from his son through a bank channel, but had not mentioned it in his tax return. He said Nawaz was a tax evader and the FBR had failed to fulfill its responsibilities due to the government pressure. He requested the court to take action against the NAB chairman for not filing a reference against the PM and his children.

The case was adjourned until Monday.

Come clean on UK flats ownership, SC tells Sharifs