JIT report isn’t perfect nevertheless plausible

ISLAMABAD: The JIT report has been under debate since its release on Monday last. It has received gushing appreciation from those whose biases it confirmed and fierce criticism from those who thought the investigators were biased against the Sharif family. The reality is somewhere in-between.

That JIT has done its best, nay, beyond its capacity within a given deadline of 60 day is remarkable. It sought Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) from six countries for acquiring the documents; only two responded though. Very useful information was collected about the Sharif family’s businesses in Saudi Arab, the UAE and the UK.

The banking, tax and business record of the family was thoroughly examined. Interviews were held with the accused, experts and the witnesses. This entire exercise was carried out within a short span of time.

The report, however, courted controversy for making unnecessary commentary about Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his son-in-law Capt (R) Safdar and Senator Rehman Malik in particular. That it produced the documents that may not stand the test of law of evidence is yet another criticism it faced.

Having gained access to such papers for corroborating the evidence that the accused refused to share, is what has been conveniently ignored by the critics. Whether the state resources were used or ‘state within the state’ was at work to collect these details is beside the point. Important is the accuracy of information.

The report is also under criticism on the basis of assumption that it has attained the status of finality and will form the basis of decision. This is incorrect. The JIT report, at best, is a challan that can be used for initiating a trial in the court of law or a reference with the National Accountablity Bureau (NAB). The latter is the most likely as the major charge is assets beyond known means of a public officeholder.

That court ordering disqualification on the grounds of perjury can’t be ruled out. However, the judges will have to establish that there are evidence beyond reasonable doubt about misrepresentation of the facts from the accused party.

As far as the findings of the JIT report are concerned, they may require further investigation but can’t be dismissed easily. A detailed reading indicates contradiction in the statements of the members of Sharif family and negative evidence has further been corroborated through documentary information obtained by probe body.

They, for instance, have been consistent in denying Panama Papers findings that Maryam Safdar is the beneficial owner of London apartments, saying she’s trustee and Hussain Nawaz is the owner. However, during appearance before the JIT, Mian Nawaz Sharif showed his ignorance about the trust deed though declaring he stood by the position taken by his children who are also contradicting each other.

Hassan said he came to know for the first time about this deed. Maryam’s spouse who purportedly had signed this deed as witness said “even today he didn’t know about the owner” of the apartments whereas the deed he signed claims Hussain as the owner.

Likewise, there are contradictions that who filed the Know Your Customer (KYC) details of Maryam with the service provider, Minerva Services, which was dealing with Mossack Fonseca, the law firm representing the British Virgin Islands (BVI) based offshore companies owning London’s flats (Nielsen and Nescoll). Hussain said he had submitted the Maryam’s KYC with Minerva Services whereas Maryam denied having any knowledge of brother’s act.

Acquiring the companies’ documents from the Financial Services Commission of British Virgin Islands (BVI) wasn’t possible for the JIT in absence of any bilateral agreement of information exchange with the BVI. It was doable only if the owner of companies would give consent for disclosure that was refused by Hussain Nawaz who claimed to be the owner.

Only option left was to get verified the letters exchanged between Mossack Fonseca and the BVI’s Financial Investigation Authority (FIA). The FIA’s letter dated June 12, 2012, and made public (courtesy Panama Papers) had inquired about the beneficial owner of Nielsen and Nescoll, among other details. The law firm representing these companies in official record of the BVI had declared Maryam as the beneficial owner after verifying from Minerva Services. 

Sharif family, without denying these letters, had stated the information was passed on without checking with them which looks highly unbelievable. The family also admitted that the claimed trust deed declaring Hussain as owner was also not shared with the Minerva Services thus strengthening the impression the actual information was the one the service provider shared with the law firm for further submission to the BVI. 

So long as the accused don’t given consent of disclosure for independent verification from the BVI’s Finance Services Commission, the letter verified by the FIA will be considered authentic information. More so, because the burden of proof regarding the ownership of the admitted companies and the properties they own will rest with the accused party. Failing in that will not save them.

If Sharif family’s claims are any guide, their entire foreign investment is rooted in funds from Al-Thani family no matter the apartments in London or the Hassan Nawaz’s first company that made him billionaire, Flagship Investments and Azizia Steel Mills. However, their explanation not only lacks evidence, glaring contradictions have also been noted in the statements.

Hassan, for instance, told the JIT that he got funds for the companies from Hussain but didn’t know where he managed this money from. Hussain, when questioned by the JIT, denied having ever been approached by Hassan with this request. 

He rather said he learnt about the provision of funds for Hassan companies through Nasir Khamis, the representative of Al-Thani family, something that was never shared with him before either by Hassan or any other member of the family. The JIT through its own sources acquired some record of Hassan’s properties and banking record. He didn’t explain when asked how did he manage all this.

Likewise, Hussain claimed before the JIT that most of the initial funding for Azizia Steel Mills came from Al-Thani family. He claimed that a Saudi friend of Al-Thani also contributed a significant sum but didn’t offer any evidence in support of his claims. 

Inconsistencies have also been noted in the JIT report about the Gulf Steel Mills set up in Dubai and 12 million dirhams were transferred after its sale to Al-Thani family, the first step of money trail explained by the family with regard to the purchase of the London’s apartments.

Tariq Shafi, the cousin of Mian Nawaz Sharif, who was benamidar in this business and point man for transferring money to Al-Thani family, denied many contents of his affidavit drafted by Salman Akram Raja and thus failed to justify many points in the affidavit submitted before the court. “He apprised that his lawyer Barrister Salman Akram Raja, on his instructions drafted the affidavit, but he only cursorily reviewed the document prior to signing it as he trusts his lawyer.” 

He could neither produce the sale agreement with Abdullah Kaid Ahli of Gulf Steel Mills that he claimed to have signed and received 12 million dirhams in return, nor he knew the persons, the supposed representatives of Al-Thani family, to whom he handed over this amount on the directions of Mian Sharif. Controversies regarding notarised documents that they were not found in Notary Public in Dubai is apart from it.