Panama Papers case: No corruption, misuse of authority charge on PM, says SC

ISLAMABAD: Justice Azmat Saeed on Wednesday remarked that no corruption or misuse of authority was leveled in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT)’s report.

A three-member special bench on the PanamaLeaks’ case, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, and comprising Justice Shiekh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsen, resumed hearing in the Panama case.

During the hearing, the bench remarked that the court will decide the Panama Papers case after reviewing and analysing all the contents and evidence, adding that they don’t have to look into the link of the prime minister with corruption but with the matter.

Concluding his arguments, Khawaja Haris, counsel for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, contended that the JIT, which was assigned the task to probe the allegations of financial irregularities and money laundering of the Sharif family for establishing properties abroad, in its findings did not come up with documentary evidence for proving the Nawaz Sharif’s ownership of London apartments and did not level allegations of corruption and misuse of authority against the prime minister.

Khawaja Haris said that the prime minister had nothing to do with the business of his children as he had separated himself from family business after coming into politics.Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan remarked that there was no proof that the prime minister owns any property by himself.

Khawaja Haris said that the prime minister, when asked about the trust deed by the JIT, had acknowledged that he was aware of the settlement, but did not know the details. He said that the other day he read out the statement made by his client (the PM) before the JIT which aimed that he had declared his assets and sources of income in the statements of assets and liabilities.

He said that the probing body did not place before the prime minister any other document and had not asked further questions.Justice Ejaz Afzal Khanasked the counsel if there were any records available with Hassan and Hussain Nawaz that could prove that the prime minister does not have any connection with the London flats. Haris said that the connection between the prime minister and the London flats was based on speculation. There are no documents available to prove this, he added.

Justice Ejaz Afzal questioned why the prime minister claimed on the floor of parliament that all relevant documents are available to show the source of funds used to obtain the offshore properties.

Khawaja Haris contended that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could not proceed with an investigation against his client without having documentary proof pertaining to the premier’s ownership of the London flats.

The counsel for the prime minister submitted that as per the NAB law, a person cannot be held accountable for the properties and assets that are in the name of his spouse and children.Elaborating his stance, Khawaja Haris contended that under Section 9 (a) (5) of NAB law, if someone took the benefit from the assets of others, then he cannot be declared as an accused in the case for getting the said benefit.

Therefore, extreme caution should be observed while announcing the judgment in this regard, Haris submitted, adding that the probe body did not come up with any allegation that his client had misused his authority.

He submitted that his client had not concealed anything pertaining to the assets as well as any benami properties, adding that the probe body did not inquire from his client regarding any property.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan, however, observed that the probe body has not provided any documentary proof that could establish that Hussain Nawaz, the elder son of Nawaz Sharif, was the real beneficial owner of the London apartments.“It was the JIT that found that Maryam Safdar [daughter of the prime minister] was the real owner of those apartments,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed.

The honourable judge questioned that from where the Sharif family got the money for establishing properties in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and London and the court has not yet received an answer to this fundamental question. If this main question was answered, the instant mater will be settled, he remarked.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that the judges could not shut their eyes to the fact that no document was submitted by the Sharif family to substantiate the source of funds used to establish Hill Metal. “Though source of fund has not been provided by the prime minister, he received 86 percent profit from the same business,” he observed.

During the course of hearing, Salman Akram Raja, counsel for Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz, submitted that the JIT has leveled serious allegations against his clients without procuring authentic evidence. He told the court that he will provide the court, documents, pertaining to beneficial ownership of Hussain Nawaz of London properties, adding that they have obtained data of machinery import case which the probe body mentioned.

Later, Dr Tariq Hassan, counsel for Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, the Respondent No 10 in the matter, submitted before the court that the JIT has wrongly dragged his client in the matter, saying that the probe body had accused his client for not submitting his tax returns of 2001-02.

He said that he had filed his tax returns, adding that all his assets and accounts have been examined and verified by the FBR, NAB and Election Commission of Pakistan.“You said that you filed all this but they are not before us and it should have been before us as well,” Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan told the counsel.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the counsel that his client and his son had transacted money in Gulf Steel, Hill Metal, Azizia Steel, adding that there are other allegations against his client which were looked in detail by the JIT that drew a conclusion.

“You were given an opportunity hence you should have told the JIT that you were not living beyond your means,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan said, adding that in 1993 your assets were nine million rupees but in 1994, these assets jumped to Rs854 million and that would require full scale investigation.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that Ishaq Dar was a suspect and gave a ‘confessional’ statement in the Hudaiybiya Paper Mills case.

Dr Tariq Hassan replied that his client gave the statement under duress and later he retracted hence the matter stands closed and cannot be reopened.

“Your client appeared in that case as an approver for which he was pardoned but now if you say that he retracted from his confessional statement, then he was a co-accused in that case,” Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan told the counsel.

He further told the counsel that they did not direct the NAB chairman to reopen the said case and file an appeal against the Lahore High Court order passed in the matter.“Let all questions be asked and issues be addressed in evidential hearings and you will get due process of law,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan said.

Dr Tariq Hassan also submitted before the court a summary of the matter which was not acknowledged by the JIT. He contended that had the JIT examined his documents, they would have realised his client’s assets actually decreased over the years.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan asked Dar’s counsel that the summary was filed without documents, then how the court could consider it as authentic. The counsel was directed to file it with authentic documentary proof and he would be given an opportunity to defend his case.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen told the counsel that Dar was asked by the JIT regarding his businesses and earnings but he refused to answer, saying that it was his privilege not to disclose his earnings.

All this is shrouded in mystery, Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed, questioning as to what Dar had disclosed to the probe body — nothing.He further observed that Dar opted not to share documents and this approach was adopted by everyone in the case.

“Once your assets come to surface, you are accounted for,” Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed, adding that the probe body had given an opportunity to Dar for providing details about his assets but he refused to provide that claiming privilege. Dr Tariq Hassan said that during the course of interrogation, the attitude of the JIT was not good with his client.

“Tell us as to whether our attitude was good with the learned counsel,” Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed asked the counsel in a lighter tone.The judge further asked the counsel as to whether his client has played any role in the establishment of Hill Metal, and, if not, he should not be worried then.

Dr Tariq Hassan, however, replied that he was not worried but his client. At this, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, in a lighter tone, recalled to the counsel that Naeem Bukhari once, while replying to a question put by the media, had said that the lawyer does not lose the case but the client at which there was a laughter in the courtroom where Naeem Bukhari was also present.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Thursday).