SC poses three questions

PanamaLeaks case

How did the PM’s children form companies, from where did the money come and how it was transferred?; were the prime minister’s speeches true or not?; explain the issue of dependency; constitution of commission to probe Panama Papers an open option

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday posed three important questions for the counsel representing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. These were: How did the prime minister's children form the companies; from where the money came and how it was transferred; were the prime minister's speeches true or not; and stated the issue of dependency also needs an explanation.

The apex court also observed that constituting a commission to probe the PanamaLeaks scandal was an open option and if considered appropriate, it will be constituted to investigate the issue.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Justice Ameer Hani Muslim, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen, resumed hearing in the petitions filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and others seeking a probe in the Panama Papers as well as disqualification of Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif.

During the course of hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, on the request of the counsel for JI for the formation of a commission, said they had left the option open for constituting a commission, saying if considered appropriate, the commission will be formed to probe the issue.

Salman Aslam Butt, the counsel for Nawaz Sharif, when said the petitioners could not provide evidence that the Sharif family illegally formed the companies, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that providing evidence was the responsibility of those who accept ownership.  “So you have to provide the evidence Butt Sahib,” Justice Khosa asked Salman Aslam Butt.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa asked the counsel that there were allegations that the premier sent the money to children for establishing companies, adding that there was an issue of truth in the speeches made by the prime minister on the floor of parliament and address to the nation and the other issue related to the dependency.

“You have to explain about the properties as to how the children of prime minister formed the companies and you have to show us the trail of money as well,” Justice Khosa asked Salman Aslam Butt, adding that the learned counsel should also explain the issue of dependency as well as to establish whether the speeches made by the prime minister were true or not. 

Salman Aslam contended that Maryam Nawaz is not dependent on his client (Nawaz Sharif) since 1992. The counsel referred to the income tax returns as well as the nomination papers filed by his client in 2013, saying all the details about the properties were declared in them and nothing was withheld.

Referring to the petitioners’ claim that Maryam Nawaz is dependent on the PM on the basis of his tax returns in 2011, Salman Aslam explained that in 2011 the prime minister gave
for purchasing 43 kanals land in mauza Mansehra. Therefore, the counsel contended that in his tax returns in 2011 in the column of dependents, he mentioned ‘land in the name of Maryam Nawaz’ as the prime minister did not like to hide anything. He submitted that Maryam in the same year did not mention that property in her tax returns, but following years when she had paid back money to his father then she mentioned that property in her wealth tax statement, while the PM had excluded it in his wealth tax statement in 2012.

Earlier, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, chief of Awami Muslim League (AML), while arguing before the court in-person told the court that Nawaz Sharif received kickbacks worth $300 million from foreign investors in motorway projects in 1992 and 1993.

He alleged that during his tenure as information minister, Robert Harsch, a German agent, visited Pakistan to hold meetings with dignitaries and offered $300 million as commission. He claimed that he was also part of those meetings, however, when the court asked him to provide documentary evidence, he replied with a light tone that he should be considered like a Qatri prince.

“My case is to know why Nawaz Sharif did not declare the Neilson and Nescol companies while filing nomination papers returns,” Sheikh Rashid said, adding that in fact the Sharif family did not know that the world reputed journalist one day will unearth this glaring issue.

He said that at present, 7.8 million people were looking for the country’s highest court to give its decision. He said this is the last chance to dispense justice, he concluded.

Earlier, concluding his arguments, Naeem Bokhari, counsel for PTI, submitted before the court that there was contradiction between the two speeches of the prime minister including April 5 and May 16, hence he remained no more as Sadiq and Ameen.  At this, Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali observed as to whether the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution can go to such an extent.

Naeem Bukhari contended that in his first speech, the prime minister never gave a date on which his mills based in Saudi Arabia were sold.The learned counsel questioned how the London flats were bought and were the flats bought after selling the Dubai mills or the Jeddah mills? He said that Hussain Nawaz had said that he bought the London flats through investments from Qatar while there are discrepancies in the prime minister’s speech and his children’s statements.

He further submitted that the prime minister had evaded taxes between 2014 and 2015 and received Rs740 million as gift from Hussain Nawaz. He said Prime Minister did not give tax on these gifts. He contended that in Hudaibya Papers Mills loan default case, Al-Towfeeq Investments, which has given loan for the mills, had alleged that it was owned by Mian Muhammad Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif while Hussain Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz and Hamza Shahbaz Sharif were its directors.

He contended that on January 14, 1999 the London High Court passed a decree in Towfeeq’s favour and also imposed fine. Justice Azmat said that in February 1999 when $34 million loan and fine was paid then the charges were lifted. Justice Ijazul Ahsen questioned as to whether the amount was paid by the respondents or someone else.

Naeem Bukhari replied that someone made the payment as the London properties were owned by the Neilsen and Nescol Ltd. Bukhari submitted that in 1999 Hassan Nawaz in an interview with Tim Sebastian stated that he was just a student and the rent for the flats comes from Pakistan. He said that in 2001 he has flagship company and in 2005 it was flourishing.

Naeem Bukhari contended that according to the Earl George letter and the reply of Mossac Fosenca, Maryam Nawaz had beneficial interest in Neilsen and Nescol.  At this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed said that a firm Minerva, which has been handling the affairs of the two companies, was in the name of Maryam. He said that the documents about this firm have to be provided by the respondents.

Justice Azmat and Naeem Bukhari also engaged in a banter when the latter asked the former not to joke with him as he is senior in age. Justice inquired Naeem about his age. Justice Azmat inquired Naeem Bukhari about his age, upon which Naeem replied that he was over 68 years old. Justice Azmat replied that he should better go home and say Allah, Allah. 

On another instance, Naeem said ‘I beg pardon’, to which the judge asked ‘inside the court or outside’ on which those present in the court burst into laughter. Later, the court adjourned hearing for today (Wednesday) wherein Salman Aslam Butt will continue his arguments.