Thanks for this compilation. The arguments in the video are mostly about whether these "experts" agree with the law (Sadiq/Ameen in 62/63) or not and whether or not they think the judgment was "wise."
There was no error of law. Even the review is being considered on the grounds that the petition did not include FZE. There is no other basis to challenge this decision.
A question was asked on Law Stack Exchange
before the verdict and experts on the site thought this was a case of dishonesty unless it was an "innocent mistake." Unfortunately, not pleading that this was an "innocent mistake" (which is very likely) was only one of the manye legal blunders made by Nawaz's lawyers.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/21395/panama-papers-scandal-is-a-salary-withdrawn
In the 20th April two judges followed the "spirit of the law" and believed that Nawaz was dishonest in his speeches. The three latter judges followed the "letter of law" and because that was a matter of mixed law and fact, the Supreme Court could not judge against the respondent in the absence of a trial. However, the letter of law says that the misdeclaration on the ECP form was dishonest. My thinking is that the first two judges might have let Nawaz go on this one.
The judiciary's job is to apply law to all equally without concern for any consequences.