PM to bear brunt if children fail to give money trail: SC

Says Nawaz Sharif’s entitlement to salary as chairman of Capital FZE board will be treated as his asset

ISLAMABAD: A member of the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench hearing the Panama Papers case has observed that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s entitlement to salary as an employee of a UAE based company will be treated as his asset, which was not declared.

The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) after its probe into the Sharif family’s offshore properties had revealed that the PM was chairman of the board at Capital FZE from August 6, 2006 to April 20, 2014 against a salary of 10,000 dirhams. The salary was revised on February 2, 2007 vide Employment Contract Amendment Form 9 – duly signed by respondent No 1 i.e. the PM – filed with Dubai’s Jebel Ali Free Zone (Jafza).

“On the basis of this employment, respondent No 1 was able to procure ‘Iqama’, dated 5-7-2009, and valid up to 4-6-2015 to work and reside in Dubai,” said the JIT report.

The PM had, however, not disclosed this in his nomination papers and wealth record.

At the conclusion of the Panamagate case hearing on Thursday, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan posed the key question about the PM’s employment at the company.

Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the PM’s children, submitted that though the prime minister was the Capital FZE’s chairman of board, he did not receive any salary from the company.



“The PM was entitled to a salary and his entitlement will be considered as part of his asset, which should have been declared,” Justice Khan observed.

He also made it clear that if the PM’s children failed to satisfy the court about the source of fund for the purchase of their London flats then the public office-holder i.e. the PM would not be exonerated.

“If they fail then public office-holder [the PM] will bear the brunt,” he said.

The PTI’s legal team believes that this fact is enough to disqualify Premier Sharif under Article 62 (1)(f) because he concealed the asset in his nomination paper for the 2013 general election and his wealth statement. They say the PM has also violated his oath in the matter.

Meanwhile, the PML’s lawyers are contending that the JIT did not confront the documents related to Capital FZE with the PM during the interrogation. They believe that the Supreme Court will not disqualify the PM without giving him opportunity in this matter related to his employment in the offshore company.

During the hearing, Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh also asked the PM’s children to explain how the fund came in Capital FZE and how 650,000 ponds were transferred to Flagship Company.

He said there was no explanation of the source of fund in the matter related to the establishment of Hill Metal Company but it is established in the report that the PM got 86 per cent profit from it.

However, Raja told the bench that he would explain the source of fund related to Capital FZE today (Friday). It is expected that the third round of Panamagate proceedings will concluded today and the SC may reserve its judgment, which might be announced after one week.

Sources said in the wake of the SC’s observation on Capital FZE, the Sharif family has started consultation with its legal team to evolve legal options to avoid PM’s disqualification.

Qatari prince’s conduct

Expressing disappointment over the Qatari Prince’s attitude with the JIT, the bench said he did not agree to get his statement recorded through a video link nor was he willing to come over to Pakistan Embassy in Doha. “Should we all go to Doha to get his testimony,” Justice Sheikh remarked.

Another judge, Justice Ijaz-ul Ahsan, asked the Sharif family’s attorney why they did not produce the Qatari prince before the JIT  despite the fact that he was their ‘star witness’ and the entire case relied on him.

The bench observed that the Sharif family could produce the record regarding transfer of money from him to them, even if the prince was not interested in appearing before the JIT. “Did he deliver you money in hand-carried bags?” said Justice Ahsan.

However, Raja here cited Arsalan Iftikhar case judgment to establish that the JIT was bound to send a questionnaire regarding its interrogation. In that case, the prince could have better explained the transfer of fund, he added.

Forged documents

The bench observed that prima facie a case could be filed against the PM’s children for submitting forged documents in the apex court.

Justice Ahsan observed that respondents might face consequences for submitting ‘forged’ documents to the apex court.

Responding to a query, Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana said seven years of imprisonment could be awarded to someone who was found involved in a forgery.

“We cannot shut our eyes as law will take its course because fake documents have been submitted in the Supreme Court,” Justice Sheikh observed. “What have you people done by submitting forged trust deed!” he exclaimed, addressing Raja.

When the counsel tried to convince the bench that Calibri font was in the market before 2007, Justice Sheikh asked him if he could imagine that a Microsoft font – which was not available for commercial use in 2006 – was used by a law firm in the UK “where people are very careful in such matters”.

Justice Ahsan observed that the Dubai government had revealed that the documents of Gulf Steel Mills provided by the Sharif family were forged. “Dubai Customs has no record of transportation of machinery of Gulf Steel Mills from Dubai to Saudi Arabia,” he observed.

The judge also asked the PM children’s counsel as to why the family did not explain how they paid Rs21 million liability after the selling of Al Azizia Mills in Saudi Arabia and how Rs63 million were transferred into Hussain Nawaz’s account.

Justice Sheikh observed it had been confirmed that Maryam Nawaz was the beneficial owner of London flats.

“It is not an allegation but a ‘matter of fact’ that Maryam is the beneficial owner of the flats,” Justice Ejaz observed.

He said the petitioner sought disqualification of Maryam’s husband, Captain Safdar, for not showing his wife’s property in his 2013 nomination paper. Likewise, she is benamidar and dependent on her father i.e. PM Nawaz Sharif, and he did not show her wealth in his nomination papers.

Raja said the JIT did not confront his clients on the material which was collected by the probe team, adding that they could not be prosecuted in this matter. He said there was no allegation of wrongdoing against his clients.

However, the SC bench responded to him by saying that the allegation against the PM’s children was that they forged documents and should be prosecuted for forgery.

The counsel told the bench that all the assets had been given by grandfather “who is no more in this world”.

BVI refusal

Responding to the JIT’s request, the British Virgin Islands (BVI) have refused to assist and render the information regarding offshore companies, Nielson and Nescoll, allegedly owned by the PM’s children.

In a letter sent by the BVI to the JIT, it is maintained that in order to get the required information, the probing team should tell them how the offence was committed and provide extract of the law vis-a-vis the offence committed.

The request sent by the JIT did not clearly indicate whether criminal investigations were going on or proceedings had been commenced with respect to the company, or with respect to the persons closely affiliated with the said company, says the letter written by BVI’s attorney general office.

It says the summary of the facts did not provide any background information that showed the nexus between the companies mentioned and any offence.

The bench opened the sealed envelope of the letter in the open court and gave copies to all parties.

It is learnt that the JIT wrote three letters to the BVI but got a response to only two of them.

Another letter was received from the Qatari prince who said he stood by the statement made in his earlier two letters and that he was still willing to meet the JIT team in Doha.