As the Panamagate hearing resumed Friday, the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) began its arguments before a larger bench of the Supreme Court, adopting the stance that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's parliamentary speech can be used as evidence in the case.

The premier had spoken on the floor of the lower house last May following mounting pressure from opposition parties in the wake of the Panama leaks.

The speech, which presented an overview of the premier's family business, became controversial when the PM's counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan asked the apex court to set aside its contents.

During his arguments in Friday's hearing, the JI counsel insisted that the premier's speech be considered a confessional statement. "The prime minister's speech should be taken to be a confession. There is no other way," he asserted.

He also pointed out that certain details regarding the properties and assets owned by the premier's family were not provided in the speech.

Taufiq Asif told the court that the Sharif family's Ittefaq Foundries, located in Punjab, were a loss-making entity in 1980. However, he said, by the end of the following three years, the foundries had reported a profit of Rs60 million.

He added that, by 1985, the foundries had also become one part of a larger group of companies.

Bringing the focus of his argument to the Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai, the JI's counsel told the court that they were sold for $9m. However, he said, no details had been provided regarding the source of financing used to establish the business in the first place.

Moving on to the Sharif family's London properties, the JI lawyer maintained that "Nawaz Sharif hid his assets in London" in a reference to the Sharif family's Park Lane apartments.

The lawyer insisted that by hiding his assets, Nawaz had failed to uphold his oath as prime minister and therefore should be disqualified.

"He [the prime minister] should be disqualified. He is no longer sadiq and ameen," he argued.

He said that under Article 184(3), the court holds the authority to make a declaration in this regard.

Asif also told the court that the premier, in his tax returns and nomination papers, had not mentioned the London flats. "He has not denied ownership of the flats," he added.

In his remarks, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed said "You claim that the speech is a confession; show us which part of the speech contains the confession [regarding the London flats]".

JI's lawyer also earned the court's ridicule when he asked for arguments presented by a lawyer in a previous case to be included in the Panamagate case.

Referring to the Zafar Ali Shah case, which had validated the Oct 12, 1999 military takeover, Taufiq claimed that the London flats had been mentioned as PM Sharif's property then as well.

However, the court observed that the London flats had only been mentioned by the then attorney general in his arguments during the case.

"The court did not give those arguments any importance in its decision," Justice Ejaz Afzal asserted.

Justice Khosa also remarked that PM Sharif's ownership of the properties "was not established in that case".

"You are referring to arguments made by the lawyer, not a precedent set by the court," he added.

"Have you no fear of God," Justice Azmat admonished the counsel.

"The arguments you are making are tantamount to Naeem Bokhari [PTI's counsel in the Panamagate case] asking us to include arguments made in the PTCL case in the Panamagate hearings," Justice Azmat remarked.

The lawyer then retracted his arguments based on the Zafar Ali Shah case.

"You have made incorrect statements in your argument. Should we apply Article 62 or Article 63 to you too?" Justice Azmat asked the lawyer amid laughter in the courtroom.