SC asks: How were London flats bought?

Says petitioners threaten to boycott proceedings if court insists on recording evidence; will go extra mile to dig out truth; if Sharif family fails to submit proof about flats, apex court will have to rely on PTI’s evidence; Naeem Bokhari also asked to present more proof; Maryam says signature on Nescol documents bogus

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday asked the respondents in the PanamaLeaks how the London flats were purchased.

The learned judges of the apex court observed that the petitioners threatened to boycott court proceedings if the court stressed upon evidence as they vowed to go an extra mile to dig out the truth.

The SC observed if the Sharif family failed to submit evidence about the flats, the judges had to rely on the proof given by the PTI as the petitioner’s counsel Naeem Bokhari was stressed to submit more proof in the PanamaLeaks case.

While rejecting the allegations leveled by the PTI, Maryam Safdar, daughter of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, on Friday informed the Supreme Court that she was not the beneficial owner of offshore companies and London flats but an authorised signatory as per the trust deed.

In her reply before the apex court, Maryam Safdar said that the Mayfair properties didn’t belong to her and she was not a beneficial owner of the trust established in relation to the Avenfield House Flats, London. 

She contended that she was an authorised signatory to perform (assigned roles in case of demise of the Hussain Nawaz). She further informed that the trust deed was drawn up and signed by her on February 2, 2006 in Jeddah and sent to London where it was signed by Hussain Nawaz on February 4, 2006.

Meanwhile, continuing his arguments before a five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa hearing the PanamaLeaks case, Naeem Bokhari, counsel for PTI, contended that Maryam Safdar was the ultimate beneficial owner of the London flats.

Maryam Safdar, however, turning down the PTI documentary evidence purporting to be a Nescol Company resolution signed by her, termed the document an atrocious forgery.

She contended that documents submitted by the PTI about the Nescol Company were not on any letterhead of the company, saying neither was it an email nor there was an accompanying letter whereas there was misspelling of bearer as barer. The PTI has not disclosed the source of the documents and she termed it self-evidently false.

She informed the court that at no time she visited the office of Minerva or met any of its
officers, adding all meetings were attended and arrangements were finalised by Hussain Nawaz.

In his arguments, NaeemBokhari on Friday submitted that Maryam Safdar had received loans from her father. In 2011, she received Rs31.7 million, in 2012 Rs51.6 million, and 2013 she got Rs37.8 million. In 2011 under loan and advances from Ch Sugar Mills, she received Rs42.3 million. Bokhari argued that Hassan Nawaz also gave Maryam Safdar Rs28.9 million.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, a member of the bench appreciated the arguments of Mr Bokhari but observed that the piecemeal documents and the information would not present the complete picture.

The learned counsel contended that Maryam Safdar was the ultimate beneficial owner of Neilsen and Nescol and as per the documents London properties were rented but they were living and occupied by the owners.

Bokhari further said that it had been disclosed in response to query of Mossack Fonseca from the Sharif family that source of the family spread over 60 years and their bank was Deutsch Bank whereas Maryam had been the customer of Samba Bank since December 3, 2005.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan recalled to the learned counsel that he had referred the other day to Queens High Court, London and said that in Hudaibiya Paper Mills case Shahbaz Sharif, Abbas Sharif and Mian Muhammad Sharif had paid money to satisfy the loan of Al-Taufiq.

“We wanted to know as to how the properties were shifted in the name of Maryam Safdar”, Justice Ejaz Afzal asked Bokhari to which he replied that properties came through Neilsen and Nescoll.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan further asked Naeem Bukhari to tell as to how and when Maryam Safdar became ultimate the beneficial owner of the companies, adding as to whether the learned counsel was not interested in placing any documents regarding the claim.

“We have tried our best and produced before the court the latest documents”, Bokhari replied adding that Maryam Safdar was the beneficial owner of Minerva Corporate. 

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, another member of the bench however said that Minerva was the agent. Bokhari however, replied that Mossack Fonseca took the details from Neilsen and Nescoll and, according to them, she was not the trustee or Settlor, but the beneficial owner.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asked the PTI counsel to satisfy the court about the authenticity of the documents. “We could not give judgment on the photocopies or the emails”, justice Ejaz Afzal Khan said adding that at this stage, it was not right to determine the fate of documents without hearing the other party.

Justice Azmat Saeed further told the learned counsel that he did not inform the court as to whether the trust deed was valid or invalid. “What is Benami?”, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked Bokhari adding, “If a person gives money to the other, we would call it Benami.”

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that it was under multiple layers and if investigation was not done, it would go deep down. He again referred to Section 122 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat stating as to if anyone had the knowledge of the crime, should come forward and explain.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Azmat said that the respondents would have to tell about trust deed and the share certificates and if they did not tell, the problem would be for them. “Both the parties have filed incomplete documents”, he said adding that PTI had provided the court with photocopies and that was not the official record. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing till Monday.