Decision to be based on conclusive evidences

Offshore companies case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has made it clear in categorical terms that any decision on offshore companies’ allegations will be based only on the conclusive evidences produced before the apex court. The question, however, arises whether documents leaked by

 leaked by ICIJ on internet could be considered as conclusive evidence in cases of different offshore companies. It is also important whether the evidences annexed with PTI petition which are based on printouts from internet websites, can be considered “conclusive” legally.

“Show us the evidence of connection between these properties prior to 2005 because the two offshore companies mentioned in PTI petition can sell the properties to anyone,” remarked the five-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan while discussing offshore companies of  ruling Sharif family.

In case of offshore companies of Sharifs, opposition so far has been mainly banking on a 1999 decision of the London High Court in Hudabia Papers Mills loan default case to prove that the properties belonged to Sharifs. The loan was acquired from Al-Taufeeq Investment Bank in 1995. However, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa while going through this judgment of London High Court asked where is Maryam Nawaz Sharif’s name in the judgment? It is also important to mention that neither the judgement is reported in any law book or periodical nor its certified copy is annexed with any petition.

Salman Akran Raja Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan while talking to The News said, “Evidence doesn’t mean that whose property is it. But the conclusive evidence means whether the money spent for the purchase of these properties was sent through legal channels and earned through legal means or not”.

The Panama papers are not or cannot be termed as conclusive evidence as this is mere a lead. Whereas in order to present their case before the Judicial Commission effectively, PTI will have to find some concrete evidences on the basis of which the apex court could take any decision against the prime minister and his family.

Earlier on Tuesday when the Counsel for PTI, Hamid Khan appeared before a five-member bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, he totally focused on two offshore companies Nescoll Limited, Nielson Holdings Limited of which Maryam Nawaz Sharif is the secret beneficial owner.

The PTI lawyer, while arguing before the apex court clearly mentioned that they will focus only on these two companies. Upon which the honorable judges of the apex court asked the council whether he has any documentary evidences which can convince the apex court that the allegations made against certain individuals are based on conclusive evidences. The five-member bench then gave its remarks that the court would not take any decision until there is any conclusive evidence against these allegations.

There are three basic questions in order to understand the Panama Papers issue on the basis of which PTI and other opposition parties have alleged the prime minister and his family of corruption and money laundering. Secondly, what evidences, the PTI or other opposition parties have which could be produces before the court. Thirdly, whether these evidences are conclusive on the basis of which the court can pass any verdict against a sitting prime minister or his family.

First of all the PTI allegations are based on the revelations made by International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) released on April 4, 2016 which were termed as Panama Papers. There were over 200 Pakistanis which have been identified in the Panama Papers including the family members of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

According to the Panama Papers, Maryam Nawaz is the secret beneficial owner of two companies set up in 1993-94. She is also shareholder of another company jointly owned by her and Hussain Nawaz. Hassan is sole owner of yet another offshore holding. The companies have last been used for purchasing six properties in London during 2007-8.

Nescoll Limited, Nielson Holdings Limited, Coomber Group Inc., and Hangon Property Holdings Limited are four companies owned by Maryam, Hussain and Hassan. The Panama Papers reveal that as many as six properties were purchased in London during 2007 and 2008 through these offshore companies. Nescol, Nielsen and Coomber entered into a mortgage deal of seven million pounds with a Swiss bank, Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA, for four properties. Hangon bought two properties though a loan from the Bank of Scotland.

Since Hassan and Hussain are not residing in Pakistan so they could not be questioned on tax issue, hence the whole Panama Papers issue revolves around two companies allegedly owned by Maryam Nawaz Sharif. The PTI also focused on these two companies only.

Now the question arises whether PTI or any other petitioner has any evidence which could be termed “conclusive” before the apex court on the basis of which it could take any decision. The documents annexed with PTI petition include London High Court judgment, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s statement on May 16, 2016 and some other papers. However, even the honorable judges of the Supreme Court have questioned the counsel for PTI on these evidences and remarked that London High Court verdict has no mention of Maryam Nawaz Sharif.

“Is there any evidence which could relate the linkage between these properties in 1994 and 2005,” honorable judges asked the counsel. Upon which Hamid Khan, counsel for PTI replied he has no conclusive evidence and this should be done by the investigating agency. The court in its remarks said they are not the investigating agency.

Salman Akram Raja Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan while talking to The News believed it is possible that the Panama Papers issue may take long time than expected. However it all depends upon the Judicial Commission how it takes the proceedings.

“Evidence doesn’t mean that whose property is it. But the conclusive evidence means whether the money spent for the purchase of these properties was sent through legal channels and earned through legal means or not,” commented Mr. Raja.

When asked how long the judicial commission can take to decide the matter, he said it all depends whether the commission asked the alligator to produce evidence to support his allegations or it asked the defendant to prove his innocence by producing solid evidence.

“If the Judicial Commission asked the defendant to prove his innocence then the issue may resolve earlier but if the alligators are asked then it might take time”, he commented.