ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court has given all parties in Panamagate case to submit whatever documents they want within a week, saying that no document will be entertained after Nov 15.

The five-judge bench made it clear that their priority was to investigate the allegations against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and settle the case as soon as possible.

The PM’s children yesterday submitted their replies which did not satisfy the court as it observed there were apparent discrepancies in the details submitted by the respondents.

The respondents include Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his sons Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and his son-in-law Muhammad Safdar as well as Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.

The PM, Safdar and Dar had already submitted their replies while the replies of the children of the PM were filed on Monday.

In their written reply, Hussain admitted owning offshore properties while Hassan out-rightly denied owning any property abroad. Maryam claimed she is ‘a trustee’, and not a beneficiary owner of Nielsen and Nescoll – the offshore companies named in Panama leaks.

Salman Aslam Butt appeared before the court on behalf of Nawaz Sharif, his children, son-in-law and Ishaq Dar, and submitted the replies of Maryam, Hussain and Hassan.

Butt informed the court that both the sons of the PM had rejected allegations of corruption made by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf. He said that Hassan Nawaz has been running a business lawfully for the past 22 years and Hussain for 16 years.

The counsel added that all the three children of the prime minister were not dependent on him, and they were not holding any public office.

On this, the court remarked that this is nothing new as they ‘already know it’.

Maryam’s statement mentioned that she was a regular tax payer and duly files her tax returns with the taxation department, wherein all of her income, assets and liabilities have been duly disclosed.

Hassan and Hussain Nawaz statements said they were non-resident and settled abroad and have been doing their lawful business outside Pakistan for almost two decades.

Their statements said that Nawaz Sharif has no concern or role in their business and properties. They vehemently denied the allegations levelled against them.

Hussain Nawaz stated in his reply that he has been doing business abroad for 16 years, and he did not have the ownership of the properties in question before 2005. However, he admitted gifting his father a huge amount of money.

On this occasion, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh asked Butt why they haven’t submitted relevant documents with the replies. He replied that the time was short and they could submit the documents before the proposed commission.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that “there appears a difference between the properties and the income of the respondents. We can ask them to explain and satisfy the court.”

He remarked: “You (and your clients) will be in trouble if, God Forbid, you failed to do that! Because, it would mean that you are hiding something.”

The court observed that the respondents have to satisfy the court when the properties and entities were acquired, how the money was transferred from Pakistan, who paid for it and from which bank account the funds were used or transferred.

Salman Butt sought two weeks for submitting the documents, but the court gave all parties until November 15 to submit any documents they wanted to support their case. It said that no further opportunity will be available to them for it.

The SC bench is hearing the petitions of the PTI, the Jamaat-e-Islami, the Awami Muslim League (AML) and advocate Tariq Asad.

The PTI demands probe against PM Nawaz Sharif and his family only while the JI wants that everyone who has offshore companies should be held accountable.

During the hearing the court asked petitioner Tariq Asad as to how many names of Pakistanis have appeared in the Panama leaks. He replied there are around 400 companies and persons whose names have been mentioned in the leaks. On that, the CJP said that if 800 people are investigated the case would become a five-year-program.

Chief Justice Jamali remarked that their priority is to look into the allegations made against the prime minister.

“The matter of the ruler (PM) is different from that of the others,” the CJ remarked in response to calls for also investigating the other people named in Panamagate.

“The position of the prime minister is different from others. The PM has presented himself for accountability. We won’t pick and choose. We are not kings here, we will do what the law and the constitution permits us to do.”

The SC short order said: “First, they (court) would go through the documents before deciding the question of appointment of commission or otherwise.”

And, “if the commission is appointed, then, this order will not be prejudiced or curtail its (commission’s) authority to call any record from any source”.

The chief justice said that the bench would see the documents so that later no one could raise an objection and say that the commission didn’t give enough time.

The chief justice said, “They (also) don’t want to give the impression that delay is being caused due to the apex court”.

PTI counsel Hamid Khan during the hearing insisted that a commission should be formed for thorough investigation against the PM and his family.

The court observed that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners. Hamid Khan informed the court that whatever documents they had, they have already submitted with their petition.

The chief justice said that people were losing confidence in state institutions. He said the relevant institutions including the SECP, the FIA and the NAB won’t see any wrongdoing (in anything done by the powerful); therefore, the Supreme Court had to take up the Panamagate case.

The chief justice said that they could not go beyond their jurisdiction, but as two factors - public importance and fundamental rights - were involved, therefore, the SC was hearing the case.

Justice Khosa remarked that the PM has already stated that he would resign if the decision comes against him.

PTI leaders Imran Khan, Jehangir Tareen and Shireen Mazari were present in the court to witness the proceedings.

AML chief Sheikh Rashid argued that the prime minister was habitual of concealing his money. He said that the court should probe why the prime minister gave Rs24 million to Maryam Nawaz.

Meanwhile, a two-member bench of the apex court headed by the chief justice, dismissed PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi’s application against PTI chief Imran Khan and Secretary General Jehangir Khan seeking to club his petition with the main petitions in the Panama leaks case. The court, however, issued notices to the respondents.

Akram Sheikh advocate, representing the PML-N leader, said that he wanted to cross-examine Imran Khan as he was not a clean man.

The counsel contended that the PTI was being run through foreign funding, while Imran and Jehangir also have offshore companies.

He argued there was an impression of the court’s tilt towards one side, adding in order to maintain the prestige of the court, it should also take notice of Khan’s offshore companies. He said that equity is equality and equality is equity.