ISLAMABAD: Questioning the finances for the purchase of the Sharif family’s London apartments, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday observed that no documents had been produced to trace the money trail of flats.
A five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, observed while hearing the Panamagate case that all the documents submitted by the Sharif family as well as their statements were contradicting the speeches delivered by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
The top court, however, made it clear that the burden of proof would be shifted to the Sharif family if the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) established a link between the family and London flats before 2006.
Examining the documents provided by the legal teams of both the parties, the court asked as to how the finances were generated for the steel mill in Jeddah and for how much the same was sold. The top court further asked through which source of remittance the money was transferred from Jeddah to London.
Wednesday’s hearing in the top court started with the arguments of Naeem Bukhari, leading counsel for the PTI after Hamid Khan.
Bukhari produced a summary of transactions under the share sale contract of 1978 between buyer Abdallah Kaid Ahli and seller Tariq Shafi, cousin of Shahbaz Sharif, as well as record from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) Dubai.
According to it, the balance liability of Tariq Shafi to the BCCI after payment of 75 percent of the shares by the buyer directly to the bank was 6,289,589 dirhams, while an amount payable to the Dubai Electricity Co by the Gulf Steel Mill (GSM), was payable by Tariq Shafi in equal monthly installments of 60,000 dirhams.
Similarly, the remaining liability of Tariq Shafi was 5,506,651 dirhams. The report alleged that a total amount of 14,648,899 dirhams was paid from undisclosed sources.
He said that a contract was made for the GSM on April 14, 1980, and added that Tariq Shafi was represented by his cousin Shahbaz Sharif. Tariq Shafi had sold his 25 percent shares to Ahli Steel Mill for 12 million dirhams. Bukhari said that contrary to this, the premier had claimed that the shares were sold for 33 million dirhams.
Bukhari alleged that Shahbaz Sharif had forged his cousin’s signature, as there was a difference in the signatures on the affidavit and the contract.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, another member of bench, observed that the documents produced were not signed by the officials concerned.
However, arguing on Jeddah factory, Bukhari said that it was bought in 2007 and the London flats were bought before that.
Justice Azmat Saeed said that the documents submitted by the premier’s children did not state from where investment for the Jeddah factory came.
Naeem Bukhari said that the PM in his address on April 3 misguided the nation and also gave false statements on the floor of the House on May 16. He said that the PM concealed the actual sources through which the London flats were bought, and hence evaded tax. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed observed that actual documents were being concealed from the court.
Bukhari further argued that Maryam Nawaz was a dependent of her father, while she was also a beneficiary owner of the London flats. He said that the Gulf government had granted the land on lease but no one knew when the steel mill was established.
He claimed that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had failed to perform its duties, and had been protecting the premier and his family in the instant matter. He also called for proceedings against the NAB chairman under Article 209.
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, a member of the bench, asked about the current status of the money acquired from the sale of Jeddah Steel Mill if it was not used for the London flats.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan, another member of the bench, observed that the PM’s statements on floor of the House and in court were also contradictory.
“The prime minister has not remained honest after the contradictory statements,” Naeem Bukhari said, pleading the bench to disqualify him.
Naeem Bukhari will resume his arguments on December 6, the next date of hearing.
