Defendants playing gamble by passing on buck to one another: SC

PanamaLeaks case

Justice Ejaz says PM’s speech didn’t mention Dubai, Qatar businesses

ISLAMABAD: Resuming the hearing in the PanamaLeaks case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday told the counsel for Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz — prime minister’s sons — that the defendants were playing a gamble by passing the buck on to each other.

The court was informed that the petitioner had leveled allegations against the Sharif family but failed to provide solid evidence in support. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa heads the five-member bench hearing the case.

Continuing arguments, Salman Akram Raja, counsel for Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz, questioned if the prime minister could be sentenced if Hussain Nawaz concealed anything from the court.

He said the petitioner had not provided solid evidence in support of his allegations against the Sharif family adding that it was their job to allege without evidence. Justice Ijaz, however, observed that the court could only give its verdict on undisputed facts.

At one point, Salman Akram Raja submitted that he could not explain the money trail and should not be expected to give details as well.  told the counsel that when asked he had replied that the sons of prime minister should be asked but when Maryam was asked she denied being the beneficial owner of London flats.

“You’re gambling with the court”, Justice Khosa told Salman. 

Salman, however, replied that he will not gamble adding that whatever was between Sheikh Jasim and late Mian Sharif should not be expected.

The court was informed that chairman NAB on the advice of former prosecutor general did not file an appeal against the judgment of high court in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case.

In pursuance of the apex court’s earlier order, NAB Prosecutor General Abbas Qadeer Dar submitted a report to the court wherein it was decided not to challenge the high court verdict.

It was contended that the former prosecutor general had advised the chairman NAB not to file an appeal against the high court verdict in Hudaibya Papers Mills case to which Chairman NAB had consented.

Justice Gulzar however asked the prosecutor general NAB to give the volume of cases wherein the NAB had not filed appeal against the High Court verdicts. 

The prosecutor general replied that there were several cases wherein the anti-graft body did not file appeals with the apex court against the high court due to dissenting views of the judges.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, another member of the bench, observed that the decision to avoid filing appeal against the referee judge of Lahore High Court decision in Hudaibya Paper Mills reference was an important matter.

Justice Khosa said the NAB’s detailed point of view would be heard on their turn. Salman Akram Raja apprised the court that one of his clients, Hussain Nawaz, obtained a degree of barrister in 1993 form Lincoln’s Inn whereas Hussan Nawaz graduated from the London School of Economics in 1999.

Responding to Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan’s query about 15 million Dirham liability against Dubai Steel Mills, Salman submitted that there was no explanation in this regard, saying the sale proceed of 12 million Dirham of Dubai Steel Mills was not in question.

He said it may be possible that during the period 1978 -1980 the liability was paid to which Justice Ejaz Afzal asked why Tariq Shafi (a cousin of Nawaz Sharif) had not disclosed payment of the liability.

However, Raja submitted that business affairs were being overseen by late Mian Sharif who could have inform the court about payment of million Dirham liability saying Tariq Shafi was mere a representative of the entrepreneurship.

Salman Akram Raja further informed the court that Mian Sharif was looking after his mega businesses as he was running as many as six businesses in Pakistan. He said the details of all the businesses would be submitted to the court.

He submitted that on the desire of Mian Sharif, his grandson Hussain Nawaz re-purchased the machinery of Dubai Steel Mills in 2001 which was installed at Alaziza Steel Mills near Makkah. Justice Khosa asked why the court had not been informed about this fact.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked that nothing had been mentioned about business in Dubai and Qatar in the premier’s speech. Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that with the pace of adjudication in the current matter, the related information was being produced in patches.

He said the Qatari royal family letter emerged on November 05, 2016 adding that if the prime minister was well aware of the letter then what stopped him from disclosing it in his speech. 

Raja replied that after permission from the Qatari Royal family the letter was disclosed due to sensitivity of relations to which Justice Ijazul Ahsan again asked as to why Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had not disclosed investment in Qatar.

At one point, Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked that intentionally or unintentionally the prime minister missed the fact of business investments in Qatar during his speech. Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that investment in Qatar was an important question of fact which had not been mentioned in the premier’s speech.

Referring to the documents placed before the court, Justice Ejaz asked whether it would be possible to examine evidence without presence of the author of the document. To a query, Salman Akram Raja replied that from 1993 when Hussain Nawaz was studying in London, the Qatari Royal family rented out the flats to Sharif family due to friendship and Hussain Nawaz lived in the flats on rent for 13 years. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Wednesday).