PML-N, PTI at loggerheads after Panama case hearing

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders were at loggerheads after the hearing of Panama leaks case on Tuesday.

Talking to the media, Federal Minister for Railway Khawaja Saad Rafique said that PTI chairman Imran Khan changes his stance so frequently that even a chameleon doesn’t change its colour that often.

“They abuse us. Now they should listen to our speech”, said Rafique as the PTI leaders listened in the background while Imran Khan just kept smiling.

State Minister for Information Maryam Aurangzeb argued that the PM had not asked for immunity.

Daniyal Aziz said that Imran Khan hurls allegations but he does not have any evidence to present in the court.

He said that Imran Khan had already submitted an apology in the foreign funding case in the ECP. "Very soon he will submit an apology in the SC," he said.

He added that in the case it was important to include article 62 and article 19 of the constitution.

When PTI chairman finally got the chance to speak to media, he said, “That was a fiery speech. The smoke could be seen from afar.”

Imran Khan alleged that the Prime Minister had lied to the nation on the floor of the parliament, and so was asking for immunity in the court.

He said that the Prime Minister has asked the court for immunity over his speech in the parliament which was tantamount to dishonouring the institution. “What would the position of the parliament be if the prime minister lies on its floor.”

The Prime Minister had no idea that he will be held accountable in the Supreme Court, he added.

He said that the Prime Minister had read from a written text in the parliament, he had not spoken extempore, and so his speech could not be ignored during proceedings of the Panama Leaks case. “Initially he said all of the family worked together. Now he is saying they are all separate entities.”

Earlier during the hearing, The Prime Minister's counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan clarified that the PM had not sought immunity under Article 248 of the constitution.

“The speech could not be presented as evidence in the case”, he argued.