Panama Papers case
ISLAMABAD: The burden of proof or disproof will keep shifting from one party to the other during the proceedings on the petitions filed against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children Hussain, Maryam and Hassan in the Supreme Court relating to the offshore companies, writes Tariq Butt.
But the obligation to offer evidence that the court could reasonably believe in support of any contentions will have to be backed up by documents. Mere high-sounding political statements will not be helpful or of any consequence.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan fired the first salvo of allegations against the premier and his children by placing the burden on them to admit his charges or disprove them. These were just accusations without having been supported by any credible documentary evidence.
Thus, the onus of disproof landed on the shoulders of the Sharif family, failing which it would certainly attract disqualification, conviction and consequently massive, irreparable political damage.
Reacting to the call, the ruling family rebutted the scandalous claims and assertions not just verbally but in black and white and with documents. Hussain expressly owned the four London flats as well as the two offshore companies - Nielsen and Nescoll. He also submitted to the court the papers of proprietorship.
The second document he filed was a trust deed signed by him and Maryam in 2006 that declared him as the beneficial owner and her as the trustee, which rebutted the contention that she was in fact the beneficial owner, having financial stakes in the offshore companies.
The third paper Hussain handed over to the apex court is the signed and attested letter of Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Al Jaber Thani, the former prime minister and ex-foreign minister of Qatar, which stated how the prime minister’s son became owner of the London properties and the two offshore companies. The document also spelt out the money trail that created Hussain’s ownership.
The fourth paper is the concise statement of Sharifs in which they categorically denied Imran Khan’s allegations by relying on various documents they filed with the Supreme Court.
According to this cycle, in the first phase the PTI chairman leveled allegations, putting the onus of disproof on the Sharif family and the burden to establish that if they own the London properties and the offshore companies, they got them through legitimate means; in the second stage, the prime minister and his children denied the charges, accepting the challenge of onus of disproof, and in the third phase Imran Khan is required to give a lie to their assertions on the basis of documentary evidence.
The fourth stage of the proceedings will come when the key members of the Sharif family will be under obligation to deny, by producing documents, any paper that Imran Khan will present in the court to contest their proofs.
Whatever his lawyer will say to refute the contents of the documents filed by the Sharifs, he will be required to support his arguments with documentary proofs. Whenever he will point out flaws or contradictions in their papers, he will have to support his contentions by authenticated documents.
Most importantly, the lawyer will need to negate the notarized trust deed, the ownership papers, attested Qatari Shaikh’s letter and the money trail through credible papers. In a case like this, only documents matter.
A question may also arise in the hearings whether a ‘stolen’ document, which will at times undoubtedly make a superb story for the electronic and print media, is admissible in the apex court because it is always stressed by the judicial forums that the papers that are presented and are being relied upon must be legally attested and certified by the competent authorities. Mere unverified photocopies or computer printouts don’t suffice.
Another vital question that may also crop up in the proceedings is whether business or other dealings of a deceased person, Mian Muhammad Sharif in this case, can be scrutinized by the court. The present entire deal is focused on the grant of the London properties by Mian Sharif to one of his grandsons, Hussain. And Hussain owns them by producing all the required papers to the court.
Nowhere does the prime minister, the number one defendant in Imran Khan’s petition, figure in any papers of the London flats and offshore companies. Same is the case with Hassan. Maryam is mentioned only as a trustee, having no monetary stake, while Hussain is the actual proprietor.
The forthcoming proceedings in the present case are likely to revolve around the documents submitted by the Sharifs to the court. However, any paper produced by Imran Khan will not be less than a surprise and will certainly give a new twist to the case. In such eventuality, the burden of disproof will move to the Sharifs to deny his claims by producing documentary evidence.
