JIT/NAB failed to prove any allegation they levelled against Sharifs
Ahmad Noorani July 5, 2018
Avenfield Reference
No conclusive evidence
could be presented regarding any allegation.
All witnesses
presented by NAB/JIT testified against what NAB/JIT claimed while framing the
charges
Ahmad Noorani
ISLAMABAD: National Accountability Bureau
(NAB) officials argue on the basis of the Panama JIT report findings that the
case against Sharifs is strong as they failed to answer some key questions
still the marathon accountability court proceedings, proofs submitted by NAB
and documents of the Panama JIT show that no evidences could be furnished to
prove any wrongdoing at the part of accused persons.
Benami ownership of Nawaz Sharif:
The only major allegation of ‘benami’
ownership of Nawaz Sharif of London flats totally demolished as all the
witnesses presented by NAB themselves admitted that neither they have nor they
ever come across any information or evidence whatsoever suggesting that in fact
Nawaz was the benami owner of this UK property. After prosecution completely
failed to substantiate this basic allegation, the defence (Sharifs) opted not
to present any witness in their favour stating that prosecution couldn’t even
establish the charge and the prosecution witnesses themselves testified against
what NAB was alleging.
Overall viewpoint of NAB:
NAB officials and those close to the JIT
insist that despite repeated admissions of the JIT head Wajid Zia before the
accountability court that no connection of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
could be established with London flats or related transactions, Sharif family
failed to answer some basic questions which has weakened their case. According to
the JIT and NAB, these points/questions include; how Nawaz children bought
London flats, how the money reached in London i.e the money trail, investment
was impossible because of the BCCI loan default, how money was invested with
Qatari family and finally if Nawaz failed to prove how his children made these
assets, he is punishable under the NAB law. Documents, the case proceedings and
the evidences submitted by the NAB however tell a different story.
How teenager Children bought London flats when they didn’t have
any source of income – NAB Vs Sharifs
Though NAB, on the basis of the JIT’s
opinion, insists that these were children of Sharif family who bought the
London flats in early 1990s, in the first place, there is not even single
admissible evidence that children bought these flats in 1990s.
Though huge electronic and social media
campaigns were run on this point that how the teenagers bought flats, NAB
completely failed to come up with any evidence that flats were bought by
children in 1990s.
There was one document in the Panama
Papers showing Maryam Nawaz as beneficial owner since 2006 of the offshore
companies which own London flats. This letter was from a service provider firm
written in response to a query from Financial Investigation Agency of BVI (FIA
of BVI). According to the statement of Sharifs, Maryam Nawaz was trustee of
this property and offshore companies are owned by Hussain Nawaz since 2006 when
London flats came in his ownership following distribution of property of Mian
Muhammad Sharif, the grandfather of Hussain. Sharifs have pleaded that this
letter in Panama Papers was not an official document but was the wrong
understanding of some employee of a service provider firm which the firm sent
to the FIA of BVI.
When the JIT couldn’t get any official
confirmation regarding the ownership of these offshore companies from BVI
government or related government departments, it simply sent these letters
present in Panama Papers to the FIA of BVI and simply asked whether these
letters were present in its record. It is matter of record that the JIT didn’t
even ask the BVI authorities as to who is the beneficial owner of these
offshore companies. The letters were actually present there and there was no
confusion regarding their presence in the record of FIA of BVI.
FIA of BVI responded in positive
regarding presence of the letters in its record and the JIT, simply on this
basis, alleged that Maryam Nawaz was the beneficial owner of these offshore
companies. On the other hand, Sharifs provided letters of the current service
provider firm that Hussain Nawaz is the beneficial owner of these offshore
companies since 2006. Sharifs never denied the ownership of flats after 2006.
In recent proceedings, Sharifs have
submitted along with documentary evidences that that flats are owned by Hussain
Nawaz and he will provide all the details. It was also submitted by the Sharifs
that the flats came in the ownership of Hussain Nawaz as a result of the
property distribution of Mian Muhammad Sharif, the grandfather of Hussain
Nawaz, so neither there is any link of Nawaz Sharif with acquiring these flats
nor he can be asked to provide any more details. However, Sharif family
presented complete details and money trail before the JIT.
NAB hasn’t furnished any single evidence
to prove this statement of Sharifs wrong.
Trust Deed is fake – The Calibri font Issue – NAB Vs Sharifs
Another allegation levelled by NAB to
prove the statement of Sharifs as wrong was that the trust deed showing Maryam
Nawaz as trustee is fake. The JIT and NAB presented the report of a UK forensic
expert as evidence. However, the same also proved untrue during the cross
examination of the concerned witness.
Robert William Radley, a British forensic
expert was cross examined in the accountability court regarding use of Calibri
font in a trust deed prepared in 2006. It was alleged by the JIT and then by
NAB that Calibri font was made commercially available in 2007 so the trust deed
prepared in 2006 could not be typed using Calibri font and hence it is fake. During
his cross examination, Radley first admitted that Calibri font was available
for download in 2006 and even in 2005 but only IT experts used to download it.
When Radley was asked whether he downloaded the same font in 2005, he responded
“Yes”. When asked whether he was an IT expert, he replied, “No”. This grounded
the case of the JIT and NAB on this count. However, NAB officials insist that
bureau has a case against Maryam Nawaz on this count.
How money reached in London i.e the money trail is missing – NAB
Vs Sharifs
According to the NAB officials, money
trail of London Flats is missing and Sharifs failed to prove before the JIT as
to how the money reached in London.
The money trail, starting from early
1970’s investment of Mian Muhammad Sharif in Dubai by setting up Gulf Steel
Mills, has been explained by the Sharifs. The same will have to be accepted or
proven wrong.
The only major point presented by the JIT
is that when 75% shares of Gulf Steel Mills was sold and it became Ahli Steel
Mills, it was facing losses. According to the JIT, after selling its remaining
25% shares of Sharifs in Ahli Steel Mills, Sharifs were supposed to pay off
debt of around 14 million dirham to the bank BCCI and thus they were having no
money to make further investment. This point is beyond ridiculous for any sane
person as if a huge business is facing losses, it never means that value of all
the assets of that business has also become zero. Secondly, when a business is
sold, it is sold along with its assets as well as liabilities. According to the
statements of the Sharifs, they got 12 million dirham by selling remaining
shares after all adjustments of liabilities. This money was later invested in
Qatar according to the Sharif’s statements. The JIT couldn’t come up with a single
evidence to prove it wrong except the strangest interpretation of a business
transaction.
The JIT admitted in its report that
because of this very reason (that according to JIT’s understanding there
remained no money for further investment), they didn’t even investigate the
Sharifs’ claim of a subsequent investment with Qatari Royal family as they were
certain that after selling shares of business in UAE, Sharifs were left with no
money to invest so whole story of investment in Qatar was fake. Sharifs had
also informed the JIT that there was a huge quantity of raw material which was
handed over to Ahlis at the time of final adjustment in 1980 while selling
remaining 25% shares along with all liabilities and agreeing to receive 12
million dirham.
The basic question is the Gulf Steel
Mills is a reality known internationally as the major steel business in Gulf at
that time. Where the money went if it was not invested in Qatar? If Tariq Shafi
hasn’t received 12 million dirham as reflected in a response from a UAE
Authority acquired by the JIT through a twisted question, where the 25% shares
in Ahli Steel Mills gone missing? Question arises whether these 25% shares were
simply gifted to the UAE invester, the Ahlis? And most importantly, why the JIT
hesitated to take the statement of the owner of Ahli Steel Mills despite of the
fact that he was present and willing to be testified?
If there was an investment with the
Qatari family, which the JIT hesitated to investigate, this Qatari family is
the biggest investor in real estate in London and still has large number of
properties in the Great Briton’s capital. So if the investment was made in 1980
and according to the statement of Sharifs and Qatari prince, the adjustment of
the investment was made in 2006 in the shape of transferring the ownership of
the flats to Sharifs, there remains no question of transfer of money to London.
There is only one question and that is
about the understanding of the JIT that when a business is sold, the
liabilities of that business are not the part of the sale agreement. This
really is a new business concept.
The question of how the money was transferred
to London becomes irrelevant as the Qatari family who received the investment
in 1980s has huge investments in London in the real estate in all these years.
NAB deputy prosecutor Zulfiqar Bhutta
while talking to The News said that Sharifs should have submitted the documents
of the concerned bank to prove their case which they couldn’t. On the question
that when the said bank was closed some 25 years before, how the bank documents
can be furnished now to establish this point when other documentary evidence is
presented, Bhutta said the children of Sharif family could have appeared before
the court to record their statements. It is important to mention here that
Nawaz Sharif lawyer has pleaded before the court that as flats are property of
Hussain Nawaz acquired by him as inheritance so Nawaz Sharif cannot be dragged
into this issue. He also pleaded that NAB hasn’t furnished any single evidence
to prove any connection of Nawaz Sharif with London flats and instead
prosecution witnesses repeatedly admitted that neither they ever come across
not they have any information that Nawaz Sharif ever was a benami owner of
these flats.
However, on this point, the NAB officials
say that keeping this aside, there is sufficient evidence against Sharifs.
BCCI loan default and Sharifs failure to furnish BCCI documents
– NAB Vs Sharifs
JIT head Wajid Zia, in response to
repeated question of Khawaja Haris that JIT couldn’t belie Sharifs’ investment
with Qatari royal family, said that Sharif family was left with no money as it
had to pay off loan and that it couldn’t present any BCCI document to prove its
statements.
This confusion of the JIT has been
discussed above and if the BCCI which was closed in 1991 exists no more and no
document can be obtained from it, the same cannot be made basis to admit an
imaginary story made up by the JIT in a situation where all other relevant
documents are provided to the JIT.
Former deputy prosecutor of NAB Raja Amir
Abbas on the question of novel understanding of the JIT and NAB regarding a business
transaction according to which liabilities could be adjusted while selling a
business and that BCCI has been closed down since decades, said that this very
point has to be decided by the court and he will not comment on it.
Qatari Prince didn’t appear before the JIT – NAB Vs Sharifs
According to the NAB officials, Qatari
prince failed to appear before the JIT despite he was given different options.
No evidence of financial transaction has been provided to the JIT explaining
how the money was invested with the father of the Qatari prince and how it
finally reached in London.
As a matter of fact, the JIT in its
report has admitted that though there were problems in testifying the Qatari
prince, it was not interested in investigating the investment in Qatar because
of its understanding that Sharifs were left with no money after selling
remaining 25% shares as they were to return the BCCI loan. It is also on record
that the Qatari prince gave different options to the JIT for recording his
statement but the JIT members remained reluctant clearly because of the above
mentioned reason.
Raja Amir Abbas was of the view that it
was responsibility of the accused persons to prove them innocent by presenting
witnesses and proofs which they haven’t. Raja Amir Abbas maintained that it was
a different case and was not well handled by the Sharifs.
Twisted
JIT question sent to other countries to get desired answers in order to mislead
courts:
Besides, all these points, all the
correspondence of the JIT with the UAE authorities, which is also made basis of
proving the statement of the Sharifs wrong regarding their investments in the
UAE in 1970s and subsequent investment in Saudi Arabia, were obtained by asking
twisted and irrelevant questions.
Like the JIT wrote to the UAE port
authorities to seek information of transportation of some of the factory
machinery from UAE to the Saudi Arabia in the given dates. However, Sharifs had
informed the JIT that the machinery was transported by road. Sharifs were
shocked to see the response of UAE authorities negating any transportation
through port as they never claimed any transportation through the port. Later,
members of the Sharif family shared with media the original receipts of a
transportation company of the transportation of the machinery through roads in
early 2000s.
Apparent motive behind framing concocted charges:
Basically, the JIT through its
investigations tried to prove that there was no solid investment of Sharifs in
the UAE at that time. Keeping the JIT’s findings aside, the Gulf Steel Mills
was the first major investment in the steel sector in the Gulf region at that
time which is an internationally admitted fact. Apparently, it seems that all
these concocted allegations were framed as part of strategy of rigging 2018 general
elections to install a puppet government in Islamabad.
No comments:
Post a Comment