ISLAMABAD: A five member larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa resumed hearing into Panama case, Aaj News reported. 

Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel of the Prime Minister, today submitted before the bench details about the properties and their settlement amongst the family members of the prime minister.

Meanwhile, Shahid Hamid, Counsel of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar has completed his arguments.

Dar's counsel asserted that his client cannot be disqualified on the basis of these allegations because the money laundering case against him had been dropped.

Hamid maintained that Dar's confessional statement could not be used against him since he had been acquitted in the Hudaibiya reference.

Salman Akram Raja, the counsel of Hasan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz started his arguments.  He pleaded that Hussain Nawaz is the beneficial owner of the London flats.  He said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has no link with the London flats.

He added that he would address accusations levelled against his client that Hussain was the benami owner of the family's London properties while his father Nawaz was the real owner. Justice Ejaz Afzal told Raja he would have to prove the properties belong to Hussain Nawaz.

Salman Akram Raja will continue his arguments on Tuesday.

In last hearing on Friday, the Supreme Court sought Federal Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s confession record when he was behind the bars after General Pervez Musharraf’s military coup in October 1999.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the confession is not just a piece of paper but a part of evidence that remained unattended, saying that NAB reference in the matter was disposed of on grounds of technicalities. Justice Khosa further remarked as to why the NAB failed to challenge Lahore High Court’s verdict before the Supreme Court against the acquittal of Ishaq Dar in the matter.

Shahid Hamid submitted that the NAB reference against his client was not maintainable on grounds that a two-member bench of the High Court disagreed to reinvestigate the matter, adding that double jeopardy is prevented under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act. Responding to a court’s query, Shahid Hamid submitted that his client was not member of the Parliament when the aforesaid Act was legislated.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed if the chairman NAB had invoked the apex court’s jurisdiction against the High Court verdict then the Supreme Court would have to issue directives for reinvestigation into the matter.