ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was not pleased on Tuesday to hear yet another explanation for how the Sharif family paid for its London properties, observing that both sides were doing their best to ensure that the court would eventually have to form a commission to decide the Panamagate case.

“This document has completely changed the public stand of the prime minister,” Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed after the Sharif children’s newly-engaged counsel, Mohammad Akram Sheikh, presented before the court an attested letter from a former Qatari prime minister.

“This is all hearsay,” said Justice Khosa, who is part of the five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, which has taken up the Panamagate case.

Like a rabbit out of a hat, Mr Sheikh had pulled out a document dated Nov 5, 2016 — marked private, confidential and not to be disclosed to any party, except for the benefit of the courts of Pakistan — on the letterhead of Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al Thani, who ruled Qatar from 2007 to 2013.

But the court was not amused. Justice Khosa observed the document originated only a few days ago and was not 30 years old, asking the counsel whether the gentleman who signed the letter would appear for cross-examination if the court placed the document on the record. Although he didn’t respond before the court, Mr Sheikh told reporters after the hearing that the former Qatari premier would appear before the court, if necessary.

The letter states that Hamad’s father — Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani — had “longstanding business relations with Mian Mohammad Sharif” — Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s father — “which were coordinated through my eldest brother”. In the year 1980, “Mian Sharif expressed his desire to invest a certain amount of money in real estate business of Al Thani family in Qatar,” the document said.

“I understood at that time, that an aggregate sum of around Dirhams 12 million was contributed by Mian Sharif, originating from the sale of business in Dubai,” the document said, adding that four flats: 16, 16A, 17 and 17A Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, were registered under the ownership of two offshore companies, while their bearer share certificates were kept in Qatar. “These were purchased from the proceeds of the real estate business,” the document claimed.

It went on to explain that “on account of [the] relationship between the families, Mian Sharif and his family used the properties whilst bearing all expenses relating to the properties, including the ground rent and service charges”.

“I can recall that during his life time, Mian Sharif wished that the beneficiary of his investment and returns in the real estate business [should be] his grandson Hussain Nawaz Sharif,” it explained, adding that in the year 2006, the accounts in relation to this investment were settled between Hussain and the Al Thani family, who then delivered the bearer shares of the companies to his representative.

But Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali was not swayed and observed that the court would examine the evidentiary value of the document later.

“Do you understand the implication of the document?” Justice Khosa asked, pointing at Mr Sheikh. He observed that all this document explained that Hamad bin Jassim did not have to account for anything, and that his father was extremely kind and generous to give away money to Mian Sharif.

“You do not have any explanation for the properties except for this?” Justice Khosa inquired again.

He observed that while Nawaz Sharif was everybody’s prime minister, the stance adopted before the court was different from what he said on the floor of the National Assembly on May 16, 2016, where PM Sharif had stated that the flats were purchased using proceeds from the sale of steel mills in Jeddah.

Transaction history

In the 86-page supplementary statement submitted to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Maryam, Hassan and Hussain Nawaz claimed that no amount was ever transferred or remitted from Pakistan in order to set up, finance or run steel mills in the UAE.

The document emphasised that Mariam Nawaz was a trustee for the benefit of Hussain Nawaz in pursuance of a 2006 trust deed executed between the two. Therefore, from 2006 onwards, the London properties were the property of Hussain Nawaz.

The document also traced the history of how Mian Sharif came to the UAE and set up the Gulf Steel Mills in 1974. Mian Sharif had carried on his business through his nephew Mohammad Tariq Shafi, while another person, Mohammad Hussain, was a partner in the mills.

When Muhammad Hussain passed away, his heirs transferred their rights and liabilities to Tariq Shafi, who was holding the shares on behalf of Mian Sharif.

In 1978, Mian Sharif decided to sell 75pc of his shares in the mills to Abdallah Kayed Ahli to settle outstanding liabilities with a Dubai-based bank, where after the mills came to be known as the Ahli Steel Mills.

In 1980, Mian Sharif decided to disengage himself from the steel business in Dubai and sold his remaining 25pc shares in the company for AED 12 million. This amount was entrusted to the Al Thani family, to invest in their real estate business.

Published in Dawn November 16th, 2016

Opinion

Awaiting orders
25 Oct 2021

Awaiting orders

Orders are given for demolition. Some structures go down. Some still stand.
Is it our own?
25 Oct 2021

Is it our own?

It is fair to ask what truly determines our success.
No-trust resolution dynamics
Updated 24 Oct 2021

No-trust resolution dynamics

It is heartening that the effort to remove a chief minister is following constitutional norms.

Editorial

25 Oct 2021

Party to a vile campaign

THE PTI government’s hostility towards the media and its intolerance for dissent is well known. The target of ...
25 Oct 2021

Financial crisis

DESPITE having progressed to ‘very good step’ and being ‘close to concluding the agreement’ a few days back,...
25 Oct 2021

Morals and Pemra

TIME and again, Pemra has come under fire for issuing arbitrary instructions to TV channels on matters ranging from...
Anti-government rallies
Updated 24 Oct 2021

Anti-government rallies

Banning a party because it can create a public nuisance sets a dangerous precedent which can be repeated to justify future bans.
24 Oct 2021

End of polio?

AFTER a long struggle, the reward is finally in sight. With only a single case of wild poliovirus reported this year...
24 Oct 2021

Heritage work

IT is encouraging that, slowly, projects of heritage conservation and preservation appear to be taking off. These...