ISLAMABAD:The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday reserved its decision with regard to the Panama Leaks case, stating that the decision would be announced later.

Justice Khosa stated that a short order would not be issued on the matter and that the court would look at the case from all angles.

“We will take some time and look at the case in depth,” he said.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan had conducted 26 proceedings of the Panama Leaks case from anew, with PTI chief Imran Khan, Sheikh Rasheed and JI filing petitions. While Naeem Bokhari had represented PTI chief Imran Khan, Makhdoom Ali Khan had represented Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. NAB and FBR heads were also summoned by the Supreme Court before it reserved its decision.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan resumed proceedings into the Panama Leaks case on Thursday with PTI lawyer Naeem Bokhari concluding his arguments.

A five member larger bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa earlier resumed hearing into the Panama Leaks case petitions, as lawyer Naeem Bokhari was present in a packed courtroom filled with politicians and lawyers, to answer a couple of queries.

PTI lawyer Naeem Bokhari cited the decision given by the court in the case of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani to which the bench replied that the decision had been taken in response to a contempt of court petition against the then-premier.

“This is also a petition filed against a Prime Minister who concealed his assets,” said Naeem Bokhari.

Naeem stated that the Prime Minister had made no mention of the Qatari letter before in his speech in the parliament.

Justice Ijaz Afzal stated that both sides had submitted documents which could not be confirmed through verified sources. He stated that the documents bearing the signature of Maryam Nawaz were termed fake by her while PTI claimed they were genuine.

“Should we consider ourselves above the law while operating? Can these documents be considered as evidence? The court has always taken decisions keeping in mind uncontroversial acts,” said Justice Ijaz Afzal.

Before concluding his arguments, Naeem Bokhari stated that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had not demonstrated honesty. He claimed that the Qatari prince had not been mentioned before in the speeches of the Prime Minister and just like the Gillani case, he was asking for a declaration from the court.

“Since 1980 to 2004, the Qatari prince was acting as a bank,” said Naeem Bokhari. “The Qatari has said that he has paid the liability. How was such a huge amount transferred without a bank?”