Sharifs don’t answer 13 basic questions

Panama Leaks

Waste opportunity to clear doubts; explain position
about foreign assets, but not corruption allegations

ISLAMABAD: Though replied comprehensively to some questions, Sharif family members could not respond to at least thirteen basic questions in their responses submitted in the apex court regarding their offshore wealth and foreign money transaction.

Apparently, Sharifs lost a golden chance to clarify their position on the questions being raised and doubts being created about them. Respondents to petition by PTI Chief Imran Khan also include Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as respondent no-1, Maryam Nawaz as respondent no-6, Hussain Nawaz as respondent no-7, Hassan Nawaz as respondent no-8, Captain Safdar as respondent no-9 and Ishaq Dar as respondent no-10. Interestingly, younger brother of the prime minister, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, has not been made respondent in this petition.

The unanswered questions include: —

1)- The responses of the respondents (Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz, sons Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz) to different petitions before Supreme Court in Panama Case give an impression in categorical terms that Maryam Nawaz was never a beneficial owner of British Virgin Island (BVI) offshore companies Nielson and Nescoll in any sense and was simply a trustee of a trust which was managing these offshore companies and their assets/properties.

Hussain Nawaz is stated as the real owner of these BVI companies since 2006 and that his family members will be real beneficial owners. BVI Financial Services Commission (BVIFSC) is the organization in BVI which register offshore companies and control all affairs related to them. First question arises why the BVIFSC documents regarding ownership of these offshore companies and type of ownership, whatsoever it is, are not referred to in these replies.

A trust deed registered in UK will be a legal document to prove that Maryam Nawaz is in fact trustee and not the real owner. But if BVI documents show that Maryam is a beneficial owner or even a legal owner having legal title of these BVI entities, she was bound to declare the same in her asset statements here in Pakistan in any case. She is not supposed to declare these foreign properties/offshore companies in her annual statements only if she is simply a trustee (as will be proved through trustee deed registered in UK) and never hold legal title of beneficial ownership of any property or offshore company. Same can only be proved by presenting the complete and original files of the BVIFSC before Supreme Court. In some European Countries, the trustee is also supposed to file statements/declarations and provision of any such statement will also add to the credibility of the claims being made by Sharifs. 

According to credible reports, Hussain Nawaz, along with trust deed and other documents, will also present original sale deed of two offshore companies Nielson & Nescoll in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. However, it is more important that complete file of these offshore entities showing ownership since inception of companies in early 1990s is presented before apex court.

2)- Sharif family has already admitted owning these companies since 2006 and real issue is their ownership before 2006. The unanswered question is as who was the owner of these companies before 2006.

As documents were not required to be submitted at this stage, the Sharif family could have easily stopped the blame game by referring to the official documents of BVIFSC which can proving that Hussain Nawaz has been continuously owning Nielson & Nescoll since 2006 until now. These documents could have been submitted in apex court afterwards. If there is no mention of name of Maryam Nawaz as legal owner or beneficial owner in these BVIFSC documents (the complete files of Nielson and Nescoll), the most important claim of Sharifs would have stand proved.

As most of the questions relate to pre-2006, the most important unanswered question is from whom Hussain purchased these offshore companies which already owned Park Lane flats. Had he purchased or these companies were transferred in his name as a result of some property division/settlement within the family? This option was speculated but is not possible now as replies state categorically the offshore companies were purchased in 2006 by paying money and obviously the transfer of these companies as a result of division of property is less likely an option.

When Hussain, Hassan or Maryam use words, “no family member” or “respondent or any of their family members”, by family member they mean six persons including their father Nawaz Sharif, their mother Kulsum Nawaz, and the four sibling including three of them. Lawyers however are not clear when PM Nawaz uses word ‘family’ in his reply, whether he makes a statement on behalf of above six or also includes his brother, a deceased brother and his deceased father.

3)- It is a known fact and narrated by numerous politicians as well as journalists the Sharif family has been staying these flats since 1992. Many of them visited Sharfis in these Park Lane flats. The basic question which remained unanswered was about details of arrangements under which Sharifs were living in these flats since 1992 though they purchased them only 2006. They must be in the knowledge as to who owned these flats right from 1992 and this information must have been shared. There must not be any hesitation in making this disclosure if there was nothing wrong. Instead of taking refuge behind statement that those making

allegation should come up with the evidence, this basic document should be presented as was promised by Hussian Nawaz that all evidences will be presented to prove the allegation wrong. This could have brought an end to needless speculations. It should also have been cleared in the replies why Kulsum Nawaz stated to Guardian in 2000 that her family bought these flats for the education of children.

4)- This point is repeatedly pressed in Sharifs’ replies that no funds were ever transferred from Pakistan for the purchase of these offshore companies. Still the total amount used to purchase these offshore companies ‘in 2006’ was not disclosed even at this stage. Clearly, there is no need to hide this fact any more along with the name and details of lucky person from which these companies were bought.

5)- Prime Minister has already stated on the floor of the national assembly that no funds were transferred from Pakistan to set up steel mills in Jeddah or to purchase London flats but money invested in UAE in 1973 was used to purchase these flats in 2006. Still the Prime Minister in his reply hasn’t mentioned how much money was spent in 1973 to set up Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai? How much money was sent to UAE from Pakistan in 1972/73 and how much was arranged from there from banks? Clearly, it was impossible to avail financial facilities from banks in UAE without taking any money from here. Prime Minister stated in National Assembly that his family was earning tens of millions from the country’s top engineering and steel mills before 1972 nationalization. So despite nationalization of factories and blocking of bank accounts of these factories, Sharif family must be having huge amounts to take to the UAE to make new investments.

It is a basic and important question as it will help in understanding the money trail. According to revelations by Sharifs so far, the money trail is as follows: a) money sent to UAE and arranged in UAE to set up Gulf Steel in 1973, b) Gulf Steel sold for $9 million in 1980 and money was kept ‘somewhere’, c) it was taken to Saudi Arabia from ‘somewhere’ in 2002/03 to set up Azizia Steel Mills in Jeddah, d) Jeddah mill was sold for $17 million in 2006 and money was transferred through “proper banking channel” to London, and e) Offshore companies Nielson and Nescoll owning three Park Lane flats were purchased in the name of Hussain Nawaz, not Maryam Nawaz, in 2006.

Regarding any money transfer six basic facts have to be revealed and there must be no problem in this revelation if nothing wrong was done.

i)- How much and where money was sent?

ii)- On which date the money was sent?

iii)- Which method was used to transfer money?

iv)- How that specific money was earned in Pakistan?

v)- How much tax was paid on that money?

vi)- Was that money declared in annual statements of the concerned companies and personal returns of directors/shareholders of the companies and in which years?

None of the above detail has been provided about investments in the UAE in 1973. On the floor of the National Assembly, PM Nawaz admitted that his father invested in the UAE in 1973. However, in his reply before the apex court to Para-18 of the Imran Khan’s petition, he has stated he never transferred any money abroad for the purchase of properties or business concerns. Instead of taking refuge under a legal point that it was not him but his father who transferred money to the UAE, he should have presented the evidence of transfer of money from offices of his family businesses. He was a participant of inaugural ceremony of Gulf Steel Mills and was quite mature at that time. This would have cleared his family of unnecessary allegations.

Basic question remains whether 1973 investments were reflected in annual statements in Pakistan or not and why those tax documents from 1972/73 to 1980 and UAE official documents especially bank documents were not discussed in replies?

Another question on the same subject still unanswered is about a loan taken from BCCI in UAE in 1970s. Is it true that the Sharif family has taken a financial facility from BCCI Bank in Gulf and defaulted? Is it true that same loan was written-off?

There are some PML-N leaders who tried to imply that whatever happened in Dubai has nothing to do with Pakistan but a political leader is supposed to be clean and answer each and every question to prove transparency of his financial matters. It is believed worldwide that the one who is not transparent in his personal financial matters could not act transparently while handling financial matters of the state. Some other leaders imply that BCCI gave financial facility to Sharifs without any collateral and the whole investment in UAE came from loans. It is obviously not possible. But, if Sharifs are claiming this, the official documents of acquiring of loans, payment of loans and all related matters should be made public so people may know how much was invested to set up Gulf Steel Mills in 1973, how much loans were taken and how much money was taken from Pakistan. It is simple to come clear even on this point.

6)- Now it comes to selling of Gulf Steel Mills in 1980 for $9 million. Is there any documentary evidence that Gulf was sold out for $9 million? Why it was not mentioned in response to Supreme Court? It was not specifically asked but this detail was a must to explain the money trail.

7)- According to replies and so far official statements, Gulf Steel Mills was sold for $9 million but money was not brought to Pakistan. This money was used to set up Azizia Steel Mills in Jeddah in 2002/03. There is complete silence on the question as to where this money was kept for 23 years? This is also a very important question and needs a comprehensive answer along with the documentary evidence where the money had been parked during all this time?

8)- There is also no explanation whether this $9 million was declared in tax papers in Pakistan? There are repeated assertions in Sharifs’ replies that everything, every asset is declared in wealth statements and returns were always filed. However, there is no specific mention when this $9 million was shown in Pakistan’s tax declarations.

9)- How and when this money was transferred from the UAE to Saudia Arabia for setting up Azizia Steel Mills? There is no explanation of this point so far. What instrument was used to transfer the money to Saudi Arabia and what were the dates of different transfers? Copies of documents of all these transactions documents could be presented along with evidences to clear the dust.

10)- Another basic and unanswered question pertain to Sharifs failure to bring this money to Pakistan during these 23 years. They admit officially that they never brought this money to Pakistan. Sharif family remained involved in active politics for almost 20 out of these 23 years and not bringing such a huge investment to Pakistan raises many eyebrows.

If these questions about money transfer are answered, the whole campaign of allegations will come to an end.

Sharifs put forward evidences of transfer of money from Jeddeh to London in mid-2000s in which no one is interested. The basic problem is that the real questions are not being answered and self-made questions are being responded repeatedly.

Why Sharif family didn’t bring this money to Pakistan despite the fact it was very close to the military rulers in 1980s and Nawaz had become Punjab’s finance minister in 1981? The prime minister usually argues that he and his family were compelled to invest abroad because of the adverse actions of the governments against their business group. However not only the factories and properties, nationalised by the State in 1972, were returned to his family by 1980 that became huge profit earning units by 1982 according to PM speech in NA, but also the Zia regime was friendly towards them. The Sharif family ruled Punjab throughout the 1980s and Nawaz Sharif became the Prime Minister of the country twice during nineties. Not bringing the money to the country after selling the Dubai factory in 1980 despite being in power is a real question the prime minister and his family need to answer.

11)- All the four members of the Sharif family in replies have very tactfully tried to avoid the question about taking loan from Al-Toufeeq Investment Bank UK on February 15, 1995, defaulting the same loan and facing a case in London High Court regarding default. The Al-Toqfeeq case of loan default in London High Court was against respondents Hudabia Papers Mills, Mian Muhammad Sharif and Mian Abbas Sharif and Mian Shahbaz Sharif. PM Nawaz has simply stated in para-13 of his response that he was not the respondent in that judgement.

Children have responded, ‘It is also incorrect that any loan was obtained by the Answering Respondents against the Properties as collateral, or any judgment was passed against them’. So they denied the judgement admitted in their father’s reply.

Among the respondents of Al-Toufeeq case in London High Court, Shahbaz Sharif is alive and can be asked to apply for complete record of this case as he was a party to that case. This is because London courts are denying provision of certified copies to ordinary citizens who were not relevant to the Al-Toqfeeq case.

If Park Lane flats were never used as one of the collateral for acquiring any of the loans, the record of cases in London High Court and other courts of London which heard this matter in late 1990s can prove all accusers wrong. It is not a big deal to present complete record of the case before court to silence critics. As a matter of fact, a London court has ordered to attach properties but before any such action the defaulted amount was returned to the bank. The return of money is not the subject of discussion here. The issue to be investigated is whether these London flats were used as collateral for availing financial facility for the Hudabia Papers Mills or not?

12)- Importantly, only allegation regarding foreign properties have been answered and allegation regarding corruption charges are not specifically responded. A comprehensive response to these allegations could have closed the mouths of critics forever. Like regarding allegation of selling wheat to some friends in US levelled in Para-2 of the petition filed by PTI chief, there is no specific answer with accurate or facts and figures of that time. Being in the government and having access to all the documents, it was the best chance to provide relevant documents to court and make the accusers silent forever. Such a response was missing.

13)- Another missing response was regarding taxes. PTI chief’ petition alleged that out of the total taxes paid (Rs9.8 billion) during last almost three decades by the Sharifs and their businesses, 92% was sales tax taken from consumers. If it is untrue, this could have been denied by providing separate figures of income taxes paid by companies owned by Sharif family and the sales tax figures. Figures could easily give a lie to claims made in para-16 of Imran Khan’ petition but the same opportunity was also wasted. It is, however, important that these taxes declared by Sharifs are of businesses owned by whole extended family but while making responses to some specific allegations the definition of ‘family’ also changes.

It is also important to mention that the judgements — being referred to and relied on to get clearance that certain matters have already been decided by courts and thus are past and closed transactions — were passed after 2008 when some institutions defending the cases were functioning under direct administrative control of the respondents (or their political partners). These institutions were party to the cases and the courts were left with no option but to give relief to the accused because of friendly prosecution. These cases were never independently probed. Al Toufeeq Investment Bank Loan Default issue and transfer of money from Lahore to London through Kazi family are the classic examples where subordinate departments even hesitated to file appeals against court’s decision. It is true that some affidavits might have been taken through torture/use of force during Musharraf regime but it is an established fact that money was transferred from Lahore to London in 1990s. Why institutions were never allowed to conduct a fair and transparent inquiry into the matter and the issue was put under the carpet by securing favourbable judgements from court through friendly prosecution?

The prime minister’s family members, including his son Hussain Nawaz, admit owning these offshore companies now. Will the prime minister volunteer to present financial details and annual statements of accounts of all the offshore companies owned by his family members before courts and media? This will encourage PTI chief Imran Khan to also come up with financial statements of his offshore company Niazi Services Limited.