Different principles and 10 basic questions

ISLAMABAD: Though the Supreme Court observed on Thursday that if children could not prove how London flats were purchased, the issue will go to the public office holder (Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif) but the same principle was not upheld in case of Arslan Iftikhar and brother of former Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kiyani.

It is admitted that there are no allegations of corruption or misuse of authority in case of prime minister’s family whereas there were strong allegations of corruption and wrongdoings, some of which were proved, in both the cases of Arslan Iftikhar, son of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and in case of brother of former army chief General Kiyani. Whereas in case of civilian prime ministers things are taken to worst level despite no instance of corruption or misuse of authority could be proved.

As this point is being raised repeatedly as a conclusive and winding up argument that if children will prove how flats were purchased the case will be closed and if they failed to prove, the issue will go to “the Public Office Holder”, at least 9 basic questions arise on this philosophy;

1- If a person from a middle class family becomes prime minister or a top office holder and any other member of the same family acquires some big property like flats in London or anywhere in the world, reasonable ‘doubts’ can be raised that funds were taken from the only possible source of income, the top office holder. But if the family has one of the biggest declared businesses since many decades, how purchasing any such expensive property can be linked with one member of the family who happens to be the public office holder?

2- Is it a false statement that business of Sharif family was leading in steel sector in the country in 1950s, 1960s, 1980s and onward? Weren’t all these businesses and income from them declared?

3- Isn’t it a known fact that Mian Muhammad Sharif remained the head of the family and head of all these businesses throughout his life time until he lived in Pakistan?

4- Isn’t it a known fact that Hussain Nawaz, son of the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in fact remained attached to his grandfather and actively worked with businesses of the later where PM Nawaz remained busy in his politics?

5- Isn’t it a routine matter in Pakistan in many cases that properties are directly transferred from grandparents to grandchildren because of trust in our family system while parents continue to benefit from income of such businesses?

6- According to a statement of Sharif family, the London Flats were owned by Qatari Royal family, which own hundreds of such flats in the capital of Great Briton, and as result of a settlement with the Qatari family with Mian Muhammad Sharif, these flats were to be transferred in the name of Hussain Nawaz as per decision of division of inheritance. What point of this statement could be proved as wrong by the high-powered JIT through any evidence? And even if is not true or could not be proved, as being claimed and observed, how Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif can be linked with it in any way when the family was independently running a huge business set up since decades and even before Nawaz Sharif become a public office holder?

7- How documents are being termed fake? All points (arguments) being forwarded to declare documents fake are being proved wrong the same day. Why conclusive remarks are made by lawyers? The Dubai agreements are a known fact and present in records of Dubai authorities who were fooled by tricky questions of JIT. Why Supreme Court doesn’t seem to be interested in getting all these Dubai agreements verified from the authorities concerned in Dubai and ministries by ordering sending fresh and correct requests for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)?

8- The only evidence presented by the JIT to prove London flats were ownership of Sharif family since 1990s was that these flats were pledged by the Sharif family to acquire loan from Al-Towfeeq Investment in 1990s which proved they owned it at that time. This conclusive finding of the JIT has been proved wrong as London flats were not used as collateral to acquire financial facility from Al-Towfeeq Investments in 1990s and original agreement and the documents submitted with State Bank of Pakistan and Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Corporate Law Authority at that time) in 1990s prove that only collateral used to avail this loan was all moveable assets of Hudabiya Papers Mills which also include expensive machinery and the plant. When this basic evidence presented by the JIT to prove that flats were owned by Sharif family even in 1990s has been trashed, what exactly is the evidence required now?

9- The frivolous issue of alleged “offshore company” of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is still continuing to create ripples in minds of some who desperately want at least one point on which they can seek disqualification of the prime minister though all points reported by the JIT have been proved completely wrong, baseless and misleading.

It has been proved that FZE Capital is not an offshore company and thus the JIT is fully exposed by terming it an offshore company to create sensation.

In its statement, the counsel for the prime minister stated in categorical terms that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had never ever taken any salary from the company and his position as the chairman was honorary simply to get facilitation regarding UAE visa and travel which is very common thing. There is illegality attached with it. Though JIT termed it one out of four of its major successes, the JIT simply forgot or failed to find out any instance of transfer of salary from the company to the bank accounts of the PM Nawaz. The Jabel Ali Free Zone, Dubai letter has only this information which doesn’t prove any wrongdoing. Clearly or deliberately specific clarification of ownership was not obtained or not included in JIT findings in order to mislead the apex court. Only the shareholder(s) can be termed owner whereas neither PM Nawaz had any single share, nor ever obtained any financial benefit from this company and same is proved from the JIT itself. The prime minister was not at all supposed to make declaration of anything relating to his honorary position in this UAE company in annual tax returns or in any Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) document as he was not having any financial benefit.

After all these proved points on count of alleged Dubai “offshore” and failure to establish any other wrongdoing why this failed adventure of JIT and its facilitators is still echoing?

10- London flats land registry documents are submitted in Supreme Court. According to these official UK government documents, two BVI offshore companies namely Nielsen & Nescoll own these London flats. So basically the ownership of offshore companies has to be proved. Under BVI laws the government or any of its department do not maintain registration of real owners of offshore companies and same is sublet to law firms and registered service providers (introducers). The law firms are bound under the law to provide complete information about any offshore company as and when required by the BVI government or any of its agencies. Law firms do maintain record of real ownership and in case of any query from the government ask the concerned service provider (introducer) to provide the information and subsequently these firms transmit the same to the government or its agency demanding the information. In this setup, the service providers have the conclusive information. Now the clients, the real owners of the offshore companies remain in touch with service providers and pay them fees.

It is being questioned that the service providers who are taking big fees from clients will always give the clients the desired information. It is not so. They can made mistake but in case of providing wrong information such service providers can face harsh punishments under BVI laws. There are many who say what kind of system is this? This is the system of offshore companies and functions this way. One can dislike it but this is what it is!

An offshore company holder can’t take proof of ownership directly from the BVI government and he/she has to contact his service provider. In case of London flats which are owned by offshore companies, details from service providers have been taken and submitted to Supreme Court and JIT. But, not knowing the laws, rules and practices regarding offshore companies, these documents are not being accepted as conclusive evidence of ownership of flats. It is interesting that while rejecting these letters from the service providers, the only possible documents that can be produced; no one is specifically mentioning which document they in fact want and by which they will be satisfied.

The government can directly take info from the BVI government through MLA requests but even in that case the BVI government will follow the same pattern of writing to law firms, the firms writing to service providers will be followed. As the JIT never asked FIA of BVI regarding confirming beneficial ownership of the offshore companies, the Supreme Court can order even now moving of a proper and correct MLA request to confirm the same from BVI authorities.

If all this is not correct, the apex court should either declare all offshore companies illegal or interpret BVI laws and rules for Pakistan and define what could be a conclusive evidence to prove the ownership of an offshore company. Until unless it is not done, the neither the justice will be done nor this debate will ever come to an end.