SC seeks replies from AG, Hussain Nawaz on JIT's response

Posted June 12, 2017

Sharif's office on Monday (June 12) confirmed the prime minister had received a summons by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), set up by the Supreme Court to investigate corruption claims that surfaced following the Panama Papers leak.

Another judge, Justice Azmat Saeed Shaikh, observed that there would be far-reaching consequences in case of forgery.

Meanwhile, Justice Ijazul Ahsan wondered why the heads of some government departments resorted to writing to the apex court after their appearance before the JIT in connection with the probe.

Justice Ejaz stated that the JIT has rejected most of the accusations levelled by the petitioner, adding that "who leaked the picture and what action was taken against those responsible" is all in the report. He said he would also review the progress on the Model Town carnage.

Pakistani cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, whose Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party has spearheaded the push against Sharif, has called on the prime minister to resign until the investigation is completed.

More news: Turkey's Erdogan calls for lifting of Qatar blockade, approves troop deployment
More news: Josh Giegel: Europe is the 'Perfect Region' for Hyperloop One
More news: Murray into French Open QF with 650th career win

To this, the additional attorney general replied that the JIT has no issues if the report is shared with the petitioner's counsel.

He opined that the JIT turning the matter controversial by building unnecessary pressure threatening officials of state institutions and misbehaving with the family members of the prime minister.

PM's elder son Hussain Nawaz has appeared before the JIT five times till now.

The Joint Investigation Team, formed by the Supreme Court to probe the money trail of the property owned by Sharif family in London, had questioned Sharif's sons - Hussain and Hasan, last month over the family's alleged improper business dealings.

The Supreme Court took the case past year and in its judgment held that an investigation team should probe the money trail after the Prime Minister's family failed to establish how it had amassed these assets overseas.