‘Qatari family may have bought London flats for Sharifs’, SC observes

Salman Akram Raja fails to give satisfactory replies to judges’ queries

ISLAMABAD: The Sharif family’s attorney faced another torrid session in the Supreme Court on Tuesday when the judges asked for documentary proof of the investments made by the ruling family in Qatar during the 1980s. The attorney was left nonplussed as he knew there were no satisfactory replies he could offer.

Salman Akram Raja, the counsel for the PM’s sons, quoted several judgments in his effort to convince the five-judge larger bench hearing the Panama Papers case to not pass any adverse verdict against his clients. He, however, struggled in removing ambiguities linked with the money trail through which the London flats were acquired in 2006.



The counsel was also unable to give a cogent reply to another key query: how the Sharif family could have made the investments after selling the Dubai Steel Mills during the 1980s when they had 15 million dirhams in pending dues.

He left another important link to the case unanswered, ie, the ‘originator’ of Nielsen and Nescoll -- two offshore companies that owned the luxury properties in London.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, who was heading the bench, observed that the Sharif family was playing a ‘gamble’ with the court, saying when the father (the prime minister) was asked about the money trail, he referred the matter to his daughter (Maryam) and she passed the burden of proof on to her brothers (Hussain and Hassan) by saying she was just a trustee.

“Now both her brothers are saying that they cannot say anything, because it was a matter between their grandfather who died in 2004 and Qatari Prince Sheikh Jassim.”

Justice Khosa also observed that there was a probability that the prime minister’s father might have invested 12 million dirhams in the Qatari family’s real estate business and they then purchased the London flats using that amount.

“In November 2016, we came to know about the Qatari investment,” he adds.

“We have no information about the originator of both the companies.” the judge said.

He said the counsel might ask the Qatari family how they purchased the London flats. He further directed the counsel to present the educational record of the sons of the prime minister in the UK.



Justice Khosa also observed that the repurchase of machinery for the Dubai Steel Mills and the Qatari investments were not mentioned by the prime minister in his two speeches – one made on the floor of the National Assembly and the other while addressing the nation on state media.

In an apparent reference to the remarks made by Railways Minister Khawaja Saad Rafiq at a recent public gathering, Justice Khosa said: “A member of parliament commented in a rude manner about the court’s observations and claimed that nothing is missing in the PM’s record.

“Perhaps, we cannot see that, and that’s why we are asking you about the missing links.”

He also observed that the counsels for the Sharif family expertly used circumlocution to extricate discrepancies in the PM’s speech and his stance in the court.

“PM’s first counsel Salman Aslam Butt stated that it was a political speech, while his second lawyer (Makhdoom Ali Khan) claimed that the premier was giving an overview of his business, and now the third one (Salman Akram Raja) is saying that it was imperfection in his speech.”

Justice Khosa observed that in the present case, when all investigating agencies refused to look into the Panamagate case, the Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 187 of the Constitution.

“Nobody objected to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in this matter.”

When Raja stated that the Supreme Court could pass a directive to federal agencies to probe the Panama leaks as it did in the NICL, Hajj scams, etc, Justice Khosa told him that those were not the cases wherein the chief executive of the country (PM), who was the appointing authority of the NAB chairman, was involved.

The counsel, while referring to several judgments, stated that the court could not record evidence under Article 184(3), adding the Supreme Court could just examine the available material.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the counsel to provide any document that could elaborate terms and conditions on the basis of which the late Mian Sharif invested 12 million dirhams with the Qatari royal family. However, the counsel failed to give a satisfactory reply.

The justice also remarked that the entire story was based on the Qatari investment but it was neither mentioned in the prime minister’s speeches nor in the affidavit his cousin Tariq Shafi had attached [with the documents].



Justice Ahsan wondered: “When all businesses were routinely conducted through banking channels in the 1980s, then why was hard cash used by the Sharif family for the investments in Qatar?”

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that since the late Mian Sharif was a businessman, he must have told his family members regarding the details of the Qatari investment.

He also observed that the Supreme Court and high courts could not directly give a ruling under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

“If the court rules that Hussain and Hassan have concealed the truth, then what will be its implications?” he asked.

To which the counsel replied that it would not affect the qualification of the prime minister, adding, “The matter can be referred to any investigating agency for further probe.”

Justice Gulzar Ahmad also expressed his amazement at the language used in the affidavits as well as the second letter of the Qatari prince and observed that, “Apparently, it is all hearsay.”

Salman Raja also referred to the Arsalan Iftikhar case judgment, wherein the court had constituted a commission to further probe the matter.

He admitted that the prime minister’s sons resided in London flats for 13 years before getting their ownership. The bench; however, asked him to give details about the educational record of both the PM’s sons in the UK.

At the start of the hearing, NAB Prosecutor General Waqas Qadeer Dar submitted a report regarding the bureau’s decision to not file an appeal against the Lahore High Court’s judgment made three years ago whereby the reference against the Sharif family was quashed.

The report said that the then NAB prosecutor general had recommended its chairman to not file appeal against the high court’s order. However, the bench observed that it would consider the matter later.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 1^st, 2017.