NAB in London High Court against arbitration penalty of $21m

LONDON: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has taken it’s case to the London High Court challenging the arbitration of nearly $21 million in favour of assets recovery form Broadsheet LLC by Sir Anthony Evans at the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) – but the move is set to cost Pakistan’s national exchequer more money.

This correspondent has learnt that the NAB’s law firm Allen & Overy took the case to London High Court against the award of more than $21 million in favour of Broadsheet LLC by Arbitration judge Sir Anthony Evans but didn’t inform the LCIA that it was going to challenge the award and the findings. The case was taken to London High Court on 23rd of January and Sir Evans found out about it around two weeks ago. Former English Court of Appeal judge Sir Anthony Evans QC heard the case as sole arbitrator in a London-seated proceeding under the rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. According to information from credible court sources, the NAB wants the London High Court to reduce the award of cost by around a million dollars. The appeal, filed by NAB before London High Court under Section 68 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996, claims that the Arbitration Court didn’t conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the parties and the form of the award was not correct. The NAB also sought rectification in the clerical mistakes made in the award but only partial changes were allowed by the court.

It’s understood that the litigation will be expensive and will cost the NAB further. While a decision will be made by the London High Court judge whether or not to cut the award cost but in normal circumstances it’s unlikely for the judges in England & Wales to cancel or invalidate the previous court decisions unless compelling new evidence is established or factual faults found in previous awards and judgements.

Around three months ago, this correspondent had reported that the NAB is set to foot the bill of more than $45 million (approx Rs6.238 billion) after losing at the LCIA to the asset recovery firm Broadsheet LLC. This firm was hired by the NAB during Pervez Musharraf’s era to trace assets in UK and US of more than 200 Pakistanis including generals, politicians, businessmen with Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and several businessmen as the chief targets.

The total cost to the NAB was estimated to be over US $60 million when all costs, damages and fines taken into calculation but with the NAB’s decision to litigate further the costs will continue increasing. The costs will include legal fees, fines, costs and interests.

In 2000, Pervez Musharraf’s govt entered into an agreement with the Isle of Man-registered Broadsheet LLC in early 2000 with the task to help track down assets of Nawaz Sharif and more than 200 other politicians, generals and officials at its own expense -- in return for 20 percent of any sums recovered from the designated targets.

The deal went pear shaped when Pakistan suddenly pulled out of the agreement and the Broadsheet sued.

The total award to Broadsheet against around three months ago was $21,589,460 against the following targets: Schon Group: $48,760 interest from 1 Jan 2013; Lakhani: $25,000, 1 July 2005; Kasmi: $85,600, 1 July 2005; Lt Gen Zahid Ali Akbar: $381,600, 1 Jan 2016; Sherpao: $210,000, 1 Jan 2018; Ansari: $180,000, 1 Jan 2005, $158,500, 1 Feb 2007 and $1,089,460; Sharif Avenfield $1,500,000 and Sharif (other assets) $19,000,000.

The original arbitration order stated that “the parties are requested to calculate the amount of interest from the above dates to the date of this award (17 December 2018) and although dates of all the ‘targets’ for interest rate application has been given but no dates have been given against the work carried out against sons of Nawaz Sharif.

The News sent questions to NAB for its version on the latest twist in its case in London but received no reply in three days.

In the last report filed by this scribe in December last year about the award, the NAB had issued a rebuttal stating that it was incorrect to state that the NAB is set to foot the bill of around $60 million (approx Rs8 b) after losing its case. The NAB said in its clarification that the report was “concocted and a classic example of cherry picking of facts of the case” and that the figures of expenses and award are incorrect and based on hearsay but the NAB had not pointed out which part of the report or figures were incorrect or based on hearsay.