LONDON: Adviser to the Prime Minister on Accountability Shahzad Akbar alleged that a story filed by this correspondent — published on September 27 under the title ‘UK court issues order to unfreeze Shehbaz Sharif, family’s bank accounts’ — was based on lies and a twisted narrative in support of the PMLN leader.
Instead of responding to the story with facts, it is unfortunate that the adviser on accountability resorted to ad hominem attacks against this correspondent and questioned his professionalism and integrity.
Following is a step-by-step rebuttal of the various allegations raised against this correspondent. Allegation 1: My story erroneously implied that Shehbaz Sharif was acquitted from a money laundering case whereas court order did not mention his name.
Answer: Allegations of money laundering against Shehbaz Sharif by Pakistan’s authorities were cited by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) at the time it had submitted an application to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in December 2019, seeking an Account Freezing Order (AFO) and the launch of a formal probe against Shehbaz Sharif and son Suleman Shehbaz.
The National Crime Agency NCA, in its application, said it was approached and provided alleged evidence of Shehbaz Sharif’s and Suleman Shehbaz' unlawful activities by Pakistani authorities via the National Accountability Bureau’s Assets Recovery Unit (ARU).
The NCA worked with the Pakistani authorities to investigate whether there had been any money laundering. However, Suleman, Zulfiquar Ahmed and Shehbaz Sharif were able to show that the monies were legitimate and there was no organised criminal activity. They were able to satisfy the NCA investigators.
Allegation 2: The story gave the impression that the NAB/FIA case concerning fake telegraphic transfers (TTs) has no grounds.
Answer: This correspondent never made this claim in the story. The TT case is for Pakistan’s courts to decide and in fact a lot of print and airtime has been spent covering this case earlier, including some of the most rigorous interviews of PMLN representatives on this subject.
Allegation 3: The story was factually incorrect; that it was an investigation against Suleman Shehbaz, not Shehbaz Sharif, as clear from court orders.
Answer: Shahzad Akbar’s claim that the NCA investigation was only on Suleman Sharif is incorrect and misleading. The evidence and the court documents expressly stated the name of Shehbaz Sharif as the centre of investigation, being a public officeholder.
During the investigation, a loan Shehbaz received from Aneel Musarrat, banking institutions as well as the payments he made to Suleman from his bank accounts, all came under the microscope. The NCA carefully investigated each transaction that was connected with Suleman and Shehbaz accounts.
I have seen documents showing that the Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Lahore director general met a senior official of the NCA in London on December 9, 2019. Shehbaz Sharif was the focus of the discussion and NCA’s letter confirming the same had come out. That meeting was followed by the ARU writing to the NCA, providing the basis of the cases against Shehbaz Sharif and his son.
A week later, on December 19, the NCA made an application at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court to obtain AFOs. The overall money-laundering investigation failed to establish any unlawful transactions or misuse of public funds or organised criminal activity.
At the beginning of the investigation, NCA informed Westminster Magistrates’ Court that Pakistan had asked the NCA to ‘assist in the recovery of criminal assets to the state of Pakistan.’ At the end of the investigation, the NCA told the court that it had not found any ‘recoverable property.’
The investigation report from Pakistan, according to an NCA document was related to alleged acquisition of criminal property by Shehbaz Sharif and his family totaling Pakistani Rs7,328,000,000 (nearly £35 million). The same report carried alleged receipts of funds acquired through dishonest means (Rs65 million).
Allegation 4: The story states that the investigation was launched on request of the government of Pakistan, which is untrue.
Answer: The NCA made it clear before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court that it was relying on the information received from the NAB’s ARU. Court documents that have been disclosed clearly establish the collaboration between the two government bodies.
The NCA told the court that the ARU is formed of representatives from the NAB; the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA); Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). The NCA also told the court that “on December 11, 2019, the National Crime Agency received a letter from the Asset Recovery Unit (ARU) of Pakistan.”
The NCA, quoting the ARU letter, explained that Shehbaz Sharif was currently being investigated by NAB and had been granted bail by an accountability court on February 14, 2019.
Referring to the ARU’s letter, the NCA mentioned that this is in relation to the two cases involving the Ashiana Housing Scheme and the Ramazan Sugar Mills – the alleged criminality being misuse of authority and associated money laundering.
Allegation 5: UK court did not give an acquittal and calling it acquittal is wrong.
Answer: This correspondent maintained that AFOs had been set aside and the accounts can be accessed again, which meant the allegations have been dropped.
It was NCA which submitted an application to the court for the AFO to be discharged, as the allegations of money laundering were not substantiated by any evidence.
Allegation 6: The correspondent is affiliated with Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PMLN) and Shahzad Akbar will sue him.
Answer: As journalists, we have a working relationship with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), PMLN, PPP and other Pakistani groups in the UK and have always provided coverage to all parties. This correspondent will defend the story vigorously at the London High Court. The story can be proved and substantiated with evidence.
Editor’s note: Murtaza is a credible reporter and has adequately defended the allegations against him made by government representatives. The Jang/Geo Group stand by its reporter on any personal attacks regarding his integrity and intent and requests government representatives to refrain from ad hominem criticism.
