Anusha Rahman addressing media in Islamabad

ISLAMABAD: PML-N leader and Minister of State for IT and Telecommunication, Anusha Rahman, has rubbished the report by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), labeling it ?trash? based on ?dishonesty?.

Speaking to the media as the Supreme Court resumed hearing the Panama case on Wednesday, Rahman said the JIT?s findings were not final and questioned if another JIT would be formed to investigate the allegations against the existing JIT.

?The JIT report has lost its [standing] in front of the Supreme Court. It?s a trash basket and uses harsh, condescending language. Will [they] now form another JIT to investigate the allegations against this JIT,? she remarked.

Claiming that the JIT went beyond its mandate, the PML-N leader alleged that the JIT members abused their authority.

?JIT members are government employees and abused their powers. The JIT chairman gave the nation?s money to his relative,? she said.

?The JIT presented Ishaq Dar?s statements and records in the wrong way. Nothing was presented regarding Prime Minister?s property,? she said, claiming that the trial against the PM was ?one-sided?.

?What kind of a JIT is this, that its report was made public and is even available on the internet?? she questioned.

?Nawaz Sharif is the Prime Minister now and will remain the Prime Minister tomorrow,? she added.

As the Panama Papers case hearing went underway on Wednesday, the Supreme Court repeatedly inquired from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's counsel regarding the money trail of the London properties.  

Khawaja Harris argued before the bench that the prime minister was not asked about any of his assets. "If the JIT had something [related to his assets], they would have asked questions," he said.

Panama case: Money trail question still unanswered, observes bench

Counsel for the premier's children is also expected to initiate his arguments today

The counsel said the premier has no assets other than those he has declared.

Justice Ijaz remarked that the prime minister said he would provide a money trail of all the properties but he did not explain when he bought the properties and where he generated funds for their purchase.

Everything is clear except for the ownership of the London properties, observed the bench.