Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali remarked that the court has kept its options open. "We will form a commission if we feel the need to."
The chief justice remarked that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) have not done their job. "If these institutions do not want to work, why not close them," he observed.
A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Amir Hani Muslim, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijaz ul Hassan heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, Naeem Bukhari Counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf continued his arguments and said that the prime minister has not intimated the court about how the money was sent to London though he has disclosed that funds from Dubai Mill were used for setting up Jeddah Mill and he has also said that London flats were purchased from the proceeds of sales of Jeddah and Dubai Mills .
Bukhari said that Hussain Nawaz has said that London flats were purchased in lieu of investment in Qatar and this shows a contradiction between the statements of the father and the son. There was no money to be sent from Dubai to Qatar, he added.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan asked Naeem Bukhari to submit evidence that Maryam Nawaz was dependent of her father as per wealth Tax 2011. Naeem Bukhari said that there are concrete proofs about this as well: the father gave her and son Hussain Nawaz Rs 31.7 million and Rs 20 worth of gifts respectively.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked that Bukhari's arguments show that Maryam Nawaz is a dependent but it remains to be pinpointed whose dependent is she. Over this Naeem Bukhari replied that Maryam Nawaz is a shareholder of Chaudhary Sugar Mill. On this the chief justice remarked that it may be that Maryam Nawaz's source of income is Chaudhary Sugar Mill.
Continuing with his argument Naeem told the court that Maryam Nawaz has said that she has not paid any utility bills over which Justice Shaikh Azmat remarked that paying the bills is the work of the men of the house. Does this prove that Maryam Nawaz is dependent on her father, he asked.
Bukhari said that Maryam Nawaz's assets increased in 2011 and 2012 over which chief justice asked how the value of an already used BMW car increased by Rs 19.6 million?
Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that "We have to read the Constitution how it defines the word dependency".
Naeem Bukhari said that Maryam Nawaz has said that she has no assets but she owns shares and also agricultural lands and as per Nawaz Sharif's tax returns she was his dependent in 2011.
He said that Nawaz Sharf gifted Maryam Nawaz Rs 30 million first and Rs 50 million later. In an interview in November 1999 Hussain Nawaz said that he lives in a flat on rent and the money for which comes from Pakistan, he added.
Justice Khosa said that the court has noted that definitely the rent comes from Pakistan but it comes from the business.
Naeem Bukhari said that there is no documentary evidence of paying rent from business. Hassan Nawaz was a student in 1999 so how his company earned funds in two years, he questioned.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa asked if Hassan Nawaz's statement supports the letter of Qatar prince who says that he owns London properties, it means that the rent of London flats went from Pakistan to Qatar.
Naeem Bukhari said that Hassan Nawaz has said that the rent of the London flats was paid by his grandfather instead of his father.
On this the Chief Justice asked when did Mian Sharif die over which Bukhari replied that he does not remember the exact date but Mian Sharif died in 2004.
Chief Justice Jamali asked if Mian Sharif ran the business himself or it may be that he takes care of his children and grandchildren. On this Naeem said that Hussain Nawaz has said that he gave money to Hassan Nawaz for business.
Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that reading all statements it showed that money was transferred from Dubai to Qatar and from Qatar to Saudia Arabia and latterly the amount was transferred from Saudia to London.
Naeem Bukhari said that Maryam Nawaz received gifts from her father and brothers and she also received the used BMW car as a gift which suddenly gained value of as much as Rs 19 million. Justice Khosa remarked that the question is whose depenedent Maryam Nawaz is?
Naeem Bukhari said that Maryam Nawaz decalred agricultural and non-agricultural lands as her assets and that she took Rs 40 million and Rs 1.2 million loans from the Chaudhary Sugar Mill. The PTI counsel said that Shahbaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, and Hussain Nawaz were the directors of Hudabiya Paper Mill while Mian Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif, Hamza Shahbaz, Shamim Akhtar, Sbiha Akhtar and Maryam Nawaz were in the board of directors of London flats in January 1999 and a London court had also issued an order that same year.
Justie Khosa remarked that Yusuf Raza Gillani was declared ineligible to continue as prime minister after being sentenced by the court.
PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari completed his arguments and he submitted his remaining arguments in writing. He requested the court to hear the case on daily basis.
On this Akram Sheikh counsel for Nawaz Sharif's children said that he has already filed an application for hearing of the case on daily basis.
On this Justice Azmat remarked that the court will decide how the case would be heard.
Salman Aslam Butt counsel for the Prime Minister would rebut the allegations leveled in the petitions because only the accusations raised in the petitions does not fall under 184/3.
The Chief Justice remarked that the court could go beyond these allegations under the public interest Article. Justice Azmat remarked that prime minister's speeches have been read already 27 times.
Salman Butt said that Maryam Nawaz has been accused of taking benefit and she has been accused of not disclosing companies as being a dependent.
On this Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan remarked that there are also accusations regarding transfer of funds. Justice Khosa remarked that primary question is that how the children made assets.
Nawaz Sharif's lawyer Salman Aslam Butt said there was a failure to provide evidence from the petitioners regarding the companies being formed illegally.
On this Justice Asif Saeed Khosa asked the following three questions to Salman Aslam Butt:
How did the prime minister's children form the companies?
Explain the issue of dependency
Were the prime minister's speeches true or not?
Justice Khosa remarked that providing evidence was the responsibility of those who accept ownership.
Salman Aslam Butt said that Maryam Nawaz was not a dependent of Nawaz Sharif in 2011 and 2012 and she was not dependent on him after her marriage in 1992.
Justice Amir Hani Muslim remarked that there are allegations that the companies and assets were made illegally. Salman Aslam Butt replied that the petitioners have not provided any proof about this. Justice Khosa remarked that after accepting the ownership of the assets providing these proofs is your responsibility.
Children of the Sharif family submitted a petition in the Supreme Court requesting for hearing on a daily basis. "The issue is very critical and the work of institutions is getting affected," the petition stated.