Panamagate case: Qatari prince gave money for London flats, Sharif family submits letter to SC

  • Global Moderator

    Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam Nawaz while submitting documentary evidence on legitimacy of their assets before the top court on Tuesday claimed a Qatari prince paid for their London apartment.

    The Sharif family along with a 397-page document consisting details of transactions as well as receipts of payments since 2011, submitted a letter from a Qatari prince stating he gave money to the premier’s family for the purchase of flats in London.

    Panama leaks case: PTI submits ‘evidence’ against Sharif family

    The Sharif family submitted a letter from Qatari Prince Shaikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Hamad bin Abdullah bin Jassim bin Muhammed Al Thani to the top court’s larger bench.

    The letter addressing the apex court states that PM Nawaz invested 12 million Dirhams in the Al Thani company belonging to the Qatari prince’s father in 1980. “In the year 2006, the accounts in relation to the above investment were settled between Hussain Nawaz Sharif and Al Thani family, who then delivered the bearer shares of the companies referred in para 4 above to a representative of Hussain Nawaz Sharif,” the letter read.

    However, responding to the letter Justice Khosa asked Sharif family counsel, Akram Sheikh, whether the Qatari prince will appear as witness in court. The justice also observed the letter contradicts PM’s earlier stance on the London flats.

    The move came hours before a larger bench of the Supreme Court resumed hearing of a slew of petitions filed primarily against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the wake of Panamagate scandal.

    The documents consisting of 397 pages contain details of transactions as well as receipts of payments since 2011. The documents also consist of details of PM’s wealth tax of 2011 and 2012. The premier has also submitted nomination papers and his daughter’s wealth tax details.

    The apex court had directed all parties to submit documentary evidence in support of their claims in connection with Panama Papers leaks case by November 15.

    The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf on Monday submitted stacks of documents to substantiate its allegation of corruption against the ruling Sharif family.

    Panama Papers, a leak of classified documents of a Panama-based firm, revealed in April that three scions of the Sharif family owned offshore companies in international tax havens.

    In its documentary evidence, PTI’s legal team has tried to establish that the Sharif family has owned London properties since 1993 and not since 2006 as they claim. Along with Premier Sharif, the PTI is also trying to implicate his daughter, Maryam Safdar, who is regarded as his political heir.

    One of the certificates – dated February 7, 2006 – which bears Maryam’s signs, shows her as a ‘sole shareholder’ of Nescoll limited – one of the two companies that allegedly owned the Sharif family’s properties in London as revealed in the Panama Papers.

    “The undersigned Maryam Safdar, being the sole shareholder of the company, hereby confirms the adoption of the following resolutions. It was noted LZ Nominees Limited was reappointed as a nominee director of the company.

    “Thus; Resolves that reappointment of LZ Nominees Limited as nominee director for the company with effect from 13 May 2004 be and is hereby accepted and approved by the company and the sole shareholder of the company,” reads the document.

    Earlier, Maryam in her reply before the Supreme Court had claimed that she was only a trustee and not a shareholder or beneficiary of the properties.

    Moreover, her brother in his reply had claimed that he had purchased these properties in 2006 through the money given to him by his grandfather after selling his business in Dubai.

    “According to entries in Her Majesty’s Land Registry the said suites are owned by the above offshore companies namely M/S Neilson and M/S Nescoll, both registered in BVI Ansbacher AG Zurich.

    “These companies are again operated and controlled by Mr Urs Specker. The management of these suites is being done by Mr Ridley of Dibb Lumpton Broomhead, Solicitors of London. The link of these luxury suites is beyond any speck of doubt,” reads another document in volume two.

    Volume one of the PTI documents focuses on Maryam Safdar and Hussain Nawaz Sharif’s overseas assets. Volume two is mainly based on purported money laundering of Sharif family in 1980 and 1990s. In this volume, the PTI has reproduced the case prepared by Rehman Malik as the Federal Investigation Agency’s (FIA) former additional director general.

    Malik sent his articulation in 1998 to then president of Pakistan, chief justice, Ehtesab commissioner and army chief during Nawaz Sharif’s second term as the prime minister. No action was taken on his investigations by any of the investigating agencies.

    Volume three gives details of tax record of the Sharif family since the 1970s and details of loans the family got written off. In some of the documents, the PTI has delineated how wealth of the Sharif family multiplied and they became business in three decades.

    Most of the documents are reproduction of record already published in media or submitted before different forums in the past. Many of the details given in these documents seem extraneous and appear to be enhancing the scope of investigations beyond Panama Papers.

    “We should have provided concise record and must have remained focused on Panama leaks. There seems to be no coherence in the material submitted today,” one of the members of the PTI legal team said, while commenting on the record before the court.

    PTI Chairman Imran Khan had a detailed meeting with his lead counsel Hamid Khan late in the evening. According to Ishaq Khakwani, the PTI’s 686-pages are chronicles of the Sharif family’s wrongdoings, adding it is now for the lawyers to submit summaries in their narratives.

  • This is one side of the story, perhaps the weak side. There is another side of the story which the valued writer has totally eclipsed – not fair for a writer.

    • The SC observed that this Alif-Laila tales submitted by petioners do not make evidence. These “news-paper cuttings” statements and articles, are only hearsay unless supported by documentary evidence or the writer/news provider affirms solemnly before the court and faces the cross examination.
    • The petitioners have wasted the SC time which is public time.
    • Akram Shaikh, new advocate for Nawaz Sharif has submitted documents which he claims are sufficient enough to prove that not a single rupee has been transferred legally or illegally from Pakistan to purchase London flats. And that is the whole case insofar as Nawaz Sharif is concerned.
      A general misconception is that in corruption cases the accused has to prove his innocence. Yes, but this rule is in parliament, NOT in a court of law. The law says if the accused denies the charges the onus of proof shifts on the charger/s. Nawaz Sharif is proving his innocence volunteerily.

    • "The SC observed that this Alif-Laila tales submitted by petioners do not make evidence."

    Did the Supreme Court used the words Alif-Laila? I doubt it.

    "The law says if the accused denies the charges the onus of proof shifts on the charger/s. Nawaz Sharif is proving his innocence volunteerily."

    Do we know the law better than the Supreme Court?

    What IZ wrote needs to be comprehended by an able mind.

  • Global Moderator

    @anjaan i paste the story published in today's Express paper and yes SC used word Alif Laila in proceeding

  • @anjaan
    You are not called upon to raise the question. And don't try to pollute a well standard house with your meaningless posts. Full stop.

  • @IZ I am very surprised and disappointed to read that the Supreme Court used "Alif-Laila". Can you please provide the link?

  • @Imtiaz

    You are not called upon to raise the question. And don't try to pollute a well standard house with your meaningless posts. Full stop.

    You must not lose sight of the fact that this is a public discussion forum and therefore no participant has to be called upon by anyone to make a comment and I feel sorry for you if you found my posts to be meaningless. Maybe, a re-schooling is in order!

  • @IZ

    I have now managed to find the source of your post and here is the link for the benefit other readers. But the Report does not mention the word "Alif-Laila" used by the court. Do you have any other source for this?

  • Global Moderator

  • Thank you, I have already seen it and offered my views on it.