Qatari prince’s letter invalid unless he is in witness box: Aitzaz

ISLAMABAD: Top PPP leader and senior lawyer Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan has raised 14 points on the latest development of entry of a new character from Qatari royal family in Panama Papers, and has questioned if it was so why Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif forgot to mention the main character during his speech in the parliament.

Aitzaz Ahsan's points are:

Qatari Letter gives a fabricated story. 

1. The PM addressed the nation twice regarding Panama Papers. He addressed NA and placed all the documents before the Speaker. Why didn't he mention Hamad bin Jasim then?

2. The entire money-trail was spelt out by PM Nawaz but there was no mention of the Qatari Prince or his father.

3.  Jasim's letter is hearsay and cannot be taken as evidence. Hearsay is inadmissible. "Suni sunai Baat" is not evidence. And Jasim starts the letter with "I am informed...." Mei'n nay suna hai k..."

3. Born in 1959, Jasim was a teenager when Mian Sharif allegedly gave 12 million dirhams to Jasim's father. Jasim can have no direct first-hand information of this transfer. His letter is worthless in court.

4. Jasim's letter can become admissible as evidence only if he personally appears in court and is subjected to cross examination and volunteers to go to jail for perjury if proved wrong. Then alone will he be a witness to be relied upon?

5. But if he appears in the witness box he will have to explain, among other matters:

i. What real estate projects did his family and Sharifs undertook together? (Full particulars of projects to corroborate his statement)

ii. Who were their bankers, and which bank statements and third-party contracts can establish these arrangements? (Bank statements and contracts to corroborate his statement)

iii. Names and particulars of other business partners, senior executives and employees who may be summoned to corroborate him along with the relevant record.

6. Sharifs will have to explain how Mian Sharif came about 12 million dirhams that he invested in Al-Thani family business? How did he initially raise the money outside Pakistan despite strict SBP controls?  Could he have done so through legitimate means?

7. REMEMBER: the issue is not that since the Mian Sharif is not in this world now, there is no one to answer. No. The question still is whether the money-trail provided by the living Sharif is correct and legitimate or not? Could the elder Sharif have actually raised foreign exchange abroad without declaring it in Pakistan? If not, then the 12million dirhams contributed by elder Sharif in 1980 (as per Jasim's letter) were PROCEEDS OF CRIME and any property made through these funds is liable to confiscated by the state and the owners punished for profiting by laundered money.

8. Thus it doesn’t matters if Mian Sharif is no more in this world. If the proceeds were illegal to begin with, all purchases from them would be illegal and liable to criminal prosecution. No one can profit from his or his predecessor's crime.

9. Jasim's letter clearly states that the original source of the funds with which the Mayfair apartments were purchased, were generated through a business partnership with the Qatari Royal Family. Quite convenient because the Royal family pays no taxes and is bound by no fiscal discipline. (Note, the LNG contracts and the purchase of No-1 Hyde Park for £42.5 million). The question is: why did NS make no mention of the Qatar connection in the purchase of the Mayfair Apartments?

10. The point remains that having admitted ownership of the apartments, the burden of proof is on the Sharifs to prove the legitimate means of the purchase. Here conflicting evidence (Jasim million vs NS) has been provided.

11. There is no explanation of the question how Mian Sharif took out (or even generated outside Pakistan) 12 million dirhams (per Prince Jasim) without declaring these funds to the State Bank of Pakistan? That alone is a criminal act and proceeds thereof are proceeds of crime. That has become the original sin.

12. The Supreme Court should summon Nawaz Sharif, Hussain Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz Sharif, Interior Minister and now Hamad Jasim and subject them to cross examination.

13. IMPORTANT:   Significant is the sudden departure from Pakistan of the Interior Minister Nisar Ali. If summoned he would have to confirm his video-recorded statement that the Flats were purchased by NS in 1992-3. 

PS: this is just the time when the Lahore-Motorway contract was signed!!! What if Nisar has to appear in court he would have to reconfirm his statement demolishing Hussain Nawaz's version of purchase in 2005-6. So Nisar has been sent into involuntary exile on so-called medical grounds.

14. FINALLY: for the record:

I). both in the Wali Khan case (1975) and Mohtarama Shaheed BB case (1997) newspaper reports were relied upon against the respondents. How can the Supreme Court not rely on newspaper reports against Nawaz Sharif.

II. If Prime Ministers Yusuf Raza Gillani and Raja Pervaiz Ashraf can be summoned to court, why cannot Nawaz Sharif?