ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court resumed on Thursday hearing of review petitions filed by the Sharif family and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar against the apex court's judgment in the Panama Papers case on July 28.

Nawaz's lawyer, Khawaja Harris, is continuing his arguments from Wednesday in front of the five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa. 

The bench is the same that delivered the final judgment in the high-profile case leading to Nawaz's disqualification and filing of anti-corruption references against Sharif family members and Dar. 

Other members of the bench include Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan ? who along with the latter two headed the special implementation bench in the Panama case that oversaw the work of the Joint Investigation Team.

Khawaja Harris

During the Wednesday's hearing, Harris argued that the final verdict [in the Panama Papers case] by the five-judge bench was not right as two honourable bench members had on April 20 given their verdict [on disqualification].

Justice Khosa observed that the reasons [of the judges] to disqualify Nawaz as prime minister may have differed but the decision was unanimous.

Meet the five-member bench behind the Panama Papers verdict

The five member-bench was headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa

Justice Azmat also remarked that the final Panama case verdict was to be decided by the same five-member bench which had given the April 20 judgment.

The former prime minister, through his petition, has argued that the decision passed by the court on July 28 should have been passed by a three-member bench as Justice Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed's jurisdiction had expired after their dissenting judgment on April 20. The same has been argued in petitions filed by Nawaz?s children, Hasan, Hussain and Maryam and son-in-law MNA Captain (retd) Safdar as well as Dar.

SC to decide whether to hear Panama case or send to accountability court

PM's counsel presented his arguments in Supreme Court today; Ishaq Dar, PM's children's counsels to appear tmrw

"Nawaz's basic rights were usurped by appointing monitoring judge," Harris said further on Wednesday.

Justice Ejaz responded that the accountability court [where corruption cases will now be heard] is free to reach its own decision. The quality of investigation can be reviewed and the petitioners will be allowed the opportunity to cross-question witnesses and JIT members, he added.

Justice Khosa also observed that the content could be different but the result was the same. ?Nawaz Sharif was disqualified in both judgments,? he remarked.

However, Harris maintained that a five-judge bench could not have given the July 28 judgment.

The counsel for Nawaz's children and son-in-law, Salman Akram Raja, was also present in the courtroom and is expected to present his arguments later on.

New bench formed

The Supreme Court had decided on Tuesday to the Sharifs? plea [submitted on Monday] that a five-judge bench is formed to hear the review petitions against the Panama Papers case verdict instead of an already-formed three-member bench.

SC accepts Sharif family's plea for five-judge bench to review Panama case verdict

Sharif's children, son-in-law had submitted plea seeking delay in today's hearing of their review petition by a three-member bench

During the hearing of the plea by the Sharifs for the formation of a larger bench on Tuesday, the Sharif children's counsel pleaded the three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Ejaz and comprising Justice Azmat and Justice Ahsan, to form a five-member bench to hear their review petitions.

He also pleaded that their review petition against the judgment of the five-member bench be taken up first.

Justice Ejaz observed that the three-judge bench gave the majority verdict in the Panama Papers case and that the decision would not have been different had the three-judge bench given a verdict in the case.

However, the bench accepted Raja's plea and sent to the chief justice a request seeking the formation of a five-judge bench, which was notified later in the day.

Nawaz's review petition

On August 15, the former prime minister filed three petitions in the Supreme Court to review the Panama Papers verdict which resulted in his disqualification.

Nawaz files three petitions to review Panama verdict in SC

Appeals pleaded the apex court to dismiss petitions filed by opposition parties

The petitions pleaded the apex court to dismiss the petitions filed by Sheikh Rasheed, Imran Khan and Siraj-ul-Haq.

The former prime minister, through his petition, argued that the decision passed by the court on July 28 should have been passed by a three-member bench as Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed's jurisdiction had expired after their dissenting judgment on April 20.

"That by signing the Final Order of the Court dated 28.07.2017, the hon?ble two Members of the ?Bench? have actually passed two final Judgments in the same case, which is unprecedented in judicial history," said the appeal filed, a copy of which is available with Geo News.

The petitions also called the commendations and appreciations of the JIT "a gross transgression" of the former prime minister's right to a fair trial.

The former premier has also filed a request before the apex court to issue a stay order on the implementation of the Supreme Court verdict.

Ishaq Dar's review petition

On August 21, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar filed a review petition against the Panama Papers case verdict.

Dar?s petition was filed by lawyers Shahid Hamid and Dr Tariq Hasan, who requested the apex court to null and void it's July 28 decision and to halt the NAB references against Dar till the verdict on the review petition.

Dar files review petition against Panama case verdict

Finance minister has objected to working of the Panama case JIT, saying 'the JIT self-evidently exceeded its mandate'

In the nine-page review petition, Dar objected on the working of Panama case JIT, stating ?the JIT self-evidently exceeded its mandate by opining on whether or not Petitioner?s assets were disproportionate to his known source of income and this august Court has regrettably erred in law?. in passing a NAB reference against the petitioner on the basis of a JIT report that was way beyond its mandate.?

The finance minister in his appeal also mentioned that Article 184 (3) of the Constitution cannot be used to usurp basic human rights of an individual, further adding that a three-member bench heard the Panama case after the submission of the JIT report, but the final decision was given by a five-member bench.

Dar also said that the appointment of a judge to monitor NAB?s proceedings will affect the trial proceedings.

Sharif children, son-in-law file review pleas

On August 25, Nawaz's children and son-in-law also challenged the apex court's July 28 verdict.

One review petition was filed against the three-judge decision and another against the five-judge decision of the apex court.

Maryam Nawaz, Capt (retd) Safdar, Hussain Nawaz and Hasan Nawaz

There is no accusation or evidence against Safdar, Nawaz's son-in-law, regarding the purchase of the Sharifs' London properties but still NAB was ordered to file a reference against him, the petition claimed.

It said further that the posting of a monitoring judge to oversee implementation of the verdict is against the law, explaining that the accountability court cannot operate independently after the appointment of an implementation judge.

The petitioners claim that their basic rights have been infringed upon as their objections to the JIT's final probe report were not taken into consideration. Moreover, it is stated that the JIT investigation was incomplete and thus cannot be used as a basis for filing a NAB reference.

It has been argued in the review petition that the original five-member bench could not have delivered the final verdict as two judges from that bench were no longer part of the proceedings since the JIT's work was overseen by the special three-member implementation bench.

The Panama Papers case verdict

Nawaz was disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution by the Supreme Court on July 28.

Disqualified by SC, Nawaz Sharif steps down as prime minister

Nawaz Sharif disqualified for failing to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from UAE-based Capital FZE in his 2013 election nominations papers

Announcing its verdict in the high-profile case, the five-member bench had unanimously disqualified Nawaz for failing to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables constituting assets from UAE-based Capital FZE in his nominations papers for the 2013 General Election, stating that this meant he was not ?honest? and ?truthful?, as per the Constitution.

In the verdict, all five judges ruled to send references against Nawaz Sharif, his children, son-in-law and Dar to an accountability court.

The court also ordered the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to file a reference against the accused in an accountability court in six weeks and directed for the trial to be wrapped up within six months.

The NAB, as per the directives, has filed the references in the accountability court of Islamabad.