Signature not mine, says Maryam
Document shows Maryam is the beneficial owner of the Sharif family’s properties in London
PM's daughter Maryam Nawaz. PHOTO: WASEEM NIAZ
ISLAMABAD:
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam Nawaz has disowned a signature – purported to be hers – on a document, which shows that she is the beneficial owner of the Sharif family’s properties in London as revealed by the Panama Papers in April 2016.
Maryam, through her counsel Shahid Hamid, submitted on Tuesday a reply before the Supreme Court’s five-judge larger bench hearing the Panamagate case. In the reply, she denied two key evidences the PTI presented to establish that she is the beneficial owner of the London flats.
Maryam Nawaz named in Panama Papers, German newspaper reaffirms
Earlier, the PTI submitted the Minerva Financial Services Limited Personal Information Form, dated October 14, 2011, which bore Maryam’s signatures.
In her reply, Maryam said the form did not bear her signatures.
“The applicant/respondent (Maryam) does not recall ever having received this form in which there is no mention of either Nielsen or Nescoll. Had the applicant/respondent received this form and signed it she would have made clear that she was authorised signatory of respondent no 7 (Hussain Nawaz) and not the beneficial owner of the shares in these two companies,” she said.
The PTI had also submitted another document, which is based on ‘confidential’ communication between British Virgin Islands’ (BVI) Financial Investigation Agency and Mossack Fonseca’s Money Laundering Reporting Officer J Nizbeth Maduro.
In the said communication, Maduro had told BVI FIA that “The beneficial owner of the company is Maryam Safdar.”
However, Maryam in her reply also denied the communication. She said that she is not involved in any manner with the alleged exchange of correspondence between BVI FIA and Mossack Fonseca and has never dealt with them. She further stated that neither she is the author nor recipient of these letters, emails, notes etc., except for the copy of her passport and does not admit this document or its contents.
Maryam contended that Mossack Foseca is a law firm and not a court of law and none of its letters can confer title on her or deprive her brother of his title to the shares of the two companies that own the London flats. The legal experts say the PTI’s key evidences have been disputed by the respondent and there is a need for verification of these two documents.
The PTI in its documentary evidences also submitted one of the certificates – dated February 7, 2006 and bearing Maryam’s signatures – which showed her as a ‘sole shareholder’ of Nescoll limited. However, Maryam has yet to submit reply in this regard.
Documents link Maryam to offshore assets
Maryam said her brother (Hussain Nawaz) is very close to her as he was close to his grandfather being his eldest grandchild. Hussain has two families which include 4 children from one marriage and 3 from other. The wives are of two different nationalities.
All the children were minors in 2005-06 and he was very concerned that in the event of his demise someone should ensure equitable distribution of his properties amongst the members of his two families as per Sharia law.
She said in last quarter of 2005, she learnt from her brother that the Al-Thani family intended to transfer to him the shares of the two companies which owned the four London flats in settlement of the investments made by the late Mian Sharif.
He told her that he was in touch with Minerva Financial Services Ltd Jersey to provide the secretarial and connected services for the two companies and that he wanted to authorise her in relation to these properties so that in case of his demise, she should ensure distribution of the properties as per Sharia law between his legal heirs.
The respondent (Maryam) was assured that there would be practically no burden on her during lifetime of Hussain Nawaz as he would handle all matters with Minerva Financial Services.
The respondent accepted her brother’s request and became the authorised signatory on his behalf in communications with Minerva Financial Services which was supplied with the bank reference required by it. However, at no time did she visit the offices of Minerva or meet any of its officers. All meetings with Minerva personnel were attended and arrangements finalised by Hussain.
Meanwhile, Shahid Hamid has submitted a one-page statement on behalf of Maryam before the five judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa. The statement was read by the counsel before the court.
Giving an account of her life after marriage with Captain Safdar and her place of residence before the Oct 1999 coup and after her return to Pakistan in 2007, she said she has not been dependent on the PM since her marriage and was certainly not his dependent at the time of May 2013 polls.
“I value most of all the income that my husband brings to the common pool, previously as a government servant and now as an elected MNA. My husband has filed details of his income as MNA,” she said.
Maryam further explained why her father [Nawaz Sharif] gave her presents so often.
“Primarily on account of the abundance of his love and affection for me. He has been making these gifts with the full consent of my mother, my brothers and my sister and my brothers gave materially assisted him in fulfilling his wishes,” she said.
SC may summon PM Sharif
During hearing of the Panamagate case on Tuesday, Justice Khosa observed that the court might summon PM Nawaz Sharif if there was a need.
He was replying to the JI counsel Taufiq Asif, who requested the five-judge bench to summon the PM and to record his statement regarding the ownership of London properties. “Firstly the court will hear the stance of PM’s children and later we may summon the PM, if needed,” he said.
Justice Gulzar Ahmad Khan observed that the apex court had declared in the Khewra Mines case that it can record evidence under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Sharifs to face legal repercussions if London flats’ money trail not established: SC
When the JI’s counsel said there are serious doubts in everyone’s mind regarding the money trail given by Sharif family for acquiring London flats, Justice Khosa asked who will get the benefit of doubt.
During the hearing, the counsel again read from the Supreme Court judgment in the Zafar Ali Shah case.
He argued that the government in that case had leveled serious allegations of corruption against the Nawaz Sharif government. These allegations were not rebutted by them and the Supreme Court had upheld them against Nawaz Sharif, he said.
He read passages from the judgments referring to the Hudabiya case and the judgment of the London High Court in favour of Al Towfiq Company for Investment Funds.
He said the company had obtained a decree of US $33 Million against the Sharif family and Nawaz Sharif must have paid the amount to settle the claim otherwise the London properties would have been taken over by that company. He argued that this established that in 2000 the flats belonged to Nawaz Sharif.
However, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh pointed out that the four flats were never mortgaged to Al Towfiq as Al Towfiq had merely suspected that the flats belonged to the Sharifs and had sought attachment.
Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan observed that the PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had submitted that there was no evidence to connect the PM to the flats and that the PM was not even a defendant in those proceedings.
“Can Mr Taufiq refer to any document which suggested that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was the owner of the flats,” he asked.
Another JI lawyer Sheikh Ahsen submitted that the proceedings were inquisitorial in nature so the court was free to do almost anything. He then read the definition of inquisition from Black’s Law Dictionary.
At this Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed reminded him that this came from the Spanish inquisition, where the proceedings were conducted in secrecy, confessions were extracted through torture and people were convicted without being given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
The JI counsel frankly admitted that there were contradictions between the petition already argued and the one which had not been argued. He, therefore, submitted that the second petition be adjourned to be argued at a later date.
Shahid Hamid counsel Maryam Nawaz, Captain Safdar and Ishaq Dar then took the floor. He submitted that, on law, the case had already been comprehensively argued by Makhdoom Ali Khan and he would, therefore, adopt his arguments entirely. He said he would be addressing the court on the facts of his case. Hamid will continue his arguments today (Wednesday).
Published in The Express Tribune, January 25th, 2017.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam Nawaz has disowned a signature – purported to be hers – on a document, which shows that she is the beneficial owner of the Sharif family’s properties in London as revealed by the Panama Papers in April 2016.
Maryam, through her counsel Shahid Hamid, submitted on Tuesday a reply before the Supreme Court’s five-judge larger bench hearing the Panamagate case. In the reply, she denied two key evidences the PTI presented to establish that she is the beneficial owner of the London flats.
Maryam Nawaz named in Panama Papers, German newspaper reaffirms
Earlier, the PTI submitted the Minerva Financial Services Limited Personal Information Form, dated October 14, 2011, which bore Maryam’s signatures.
In her reply, Maryam said the form did not bear her signatures.
“The applicant/respondent (Maryam) does not recall ever having received this form in which there is no mention of either Nielsen or Nescoll. Had the applicant/respondent received this form and signed it she would have made clear that she was authorised signatory of respondent no 7 (Hussain Nawaz) and not the beneficial owner of the shares in these two companies,” she said.
The PTI had also submitted another document, which is based on ‘confidential’ communication between British Virgin Islands’ (BVI) Financial Investigation Agency and Mossack Fonseca’s Money Laundering Reporting Officer J Nizbeth Maduro.
In the said communication, Maduro had told BVI FIA that “The beneficial owner of the company is Maryam Safdar.”
However, Maryam in her reply also denied the communication. She said that she is not involved in any manner with the alleged exchange of correspondence between BVI FIA and Mossack Fonseca and has never dealt with them. She further stated that neither she is the author nor recipient of these letters, emails, notes etc., except for the copy of her passport and does not admit this document or its contents.
Maryam contended that Mossack Foseca is a law firm and not a court of law and none of its letters can confer title on her or deprive her brother of his title to the shares of the two companies that own the London flats. The legal experts say the PTI’s key evidences have been disputed by the respondent and there is a need for verification of these two documents.
The PTI in its documentary evidences also submitted one of the certificates – dated February 7, 2006 and bearing Maryam’s signatures – which showed her as a ‘sole shareholder’ of Nescoll limited. However, Maryam has yet to submit reply in this regard.
Documents link Maryam to offshore assets
Maryam said her brother (Hussain Nawaz) is very close to her as he was close to his grandfather being his eldest grandchild. Hussain has two families which include 4 children from one marriage and 3 from other. The wives are of two different nationalities.
All the children were minors in 2005-06 and he was very concerned that in the event of his demise someone should ensure equitable distribution of his properties amongst the members of his two families as per Sharia law.
She said in last quarter of 2005, she learnt from her brother that the Al-Thani family intended to transfer to him the shares of the two companies which owned the four London flats in settlement of the investments made by the late Mian Sharif.
He told her that he was in touch with Minerva Financial Services Ltd Jersey to provide the secretarial and connected services for the two companies and that he wanted to authorise her in relation to these properties so that in case of his demise, she should ensure distribution of the properties as per Sharia law between his legal heirs.
The respondent (Maryam) was assured that there would be practically no burden on her during lifetime of Hussain Nawaz as he would handle all matters with Minerva Financial Services.
The respondent accepted her brother’s request and became the authorised signatory on his behalf in communications with Minerva Financial Services which was supplied with the bank reference required by it. However, at no time did she visit the offices of Minerva or meet any of its officers. All meetings with Minerva personnel were attended and arrangements finalised by Hussain.
Meanwhile, Shahid Hamid has submitted a one-page statement on behalf of Maryam before the five judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa. The statement was read by the counsel before the court.
Giving an account of her life after marriage with Captain Safdar and her place of residence before the Oct 1999 coup and after her return to Pakistan in 2007, she said she has not been dependent on the PM since her marriage and was certainly not his dependent at the time of May 2013 polls.
“I value most of all the income that my husband brings to the common pool, previously as a government servant and now as an elected MNA. My husband has filed details of his income as MNA,” she said.
Maryam further explained why her father [Nawaz Sharif] gave her presents so often.
“Primarily on account of the abundance of his love and affection for me. He has been making these gifts with the full consent of my mother, my brothers and my sister and my brothers gave materially assisted him in fulfilling his wishes,” she said.
SC may summon PM Sharif
During hearing of the Panamagate case on Tuesday, Justice Khosa observed that the court might summon PM Nawaz Sharif if there was a need.
He was replying to the JI counsel Taufiq Asif, who requested the five-judge bench to summon the PM and to record his statement regarding the ownership of London properties. “Firstly the court will hear the stance of PM’s children and later we may summon the PM, if needed,” he said.
Justice Gulzar Ahmad Khan observed that the apex court had declared in the Khewra Mines case that it can record evidence under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Sharifs to face legal repercussions if London flats’ money trail not established: SC
When the JI’s counsel said there are serious doubts in everyone’s mind regarding the money trail given by Sharif family for acquiring London flats, Justice Khosa asked who will get the benefit of doubt.
During the hearing, the counsel again read from the Supreme Court judgment in the Zafar Ali Shah case.
He argued that the government in that case had leveled serious allegations of corruption against the Nawaz Sharif government. These allegations were not rebutted by them and the Supreme Court had upheld them against Nawaz Sharif, he said.
He read passages from the judgments referring to the Hudabiya case and the judgment of the London High Court in favour of Al Towfiq Company for Investment Funds.
He said the company had obtained a decree of US $33 Million against the Sharif family and Nawaz Sharif must have paid the amount to settle the claim otherwise the London properties would have been taken over by that company. He argued that this established that in 2000 the flats belonged to Nawaz Sharif.
However, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh pointed out that the four flats were never mortgaged to Al Towfiq as Al Towfiq had merely suspected that the flats belonged to the Sharifs and had sought attachment.
Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan observed that the PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had submitted that there was no evidence to connect the PM to the flats and that the PM was not even a defendant in those proceedings.
“Can Mr Taufiq refer to any document which suggested that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was the owner of the flats,” he asked.
Another JI lawyer Sheikh Ahsen submitted that the proceedings were inquisitorial in nature so the court was free to do almost anything. He then read the definition of inquisition from Black’s Law Dictionary.
At this Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed reminded him that this came from the Spanish inquisition, where the proceedings were conducted in secrecy, confessions were extracted through torture and people were convicted without being given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
The JI counsel frankly admitted that there were contradictions between the petition already argued and the one which had not been argued. He, therefore, submitted that the second petition be adjourned to be argued at a later date.
Shahid Hamid counsel Maryam Nawaz, Captain Safdar and Ishaq Dar then took the floor. He submitted that, on law, the case had already been comprehensively argued by Makhdoom Ali Khan and he would, therefore, adopt his arguments entirely. He said he would be addressing the court on the facts of his case. Hamid will continue his arguments today (Wednesday).
Published in The Express Tribune, January 25th, 2017.