JIT report isn’t perfect nevertheless plausible

Its findings may require  further probe but can’t  be dismissed easily;  contradictions in  statements of Sharif family  members indicated     

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.