Qatari letter seeks to establish money trail

The letter of former premier and foreign minister of Qatar, Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al-Thani was submitted to the Supreme Court on Thursday with a view to establishing money trail of Sharif family's Mayfair properties in London. Filing additional documents on behalf of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's sons Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz in the Panamagate case, Salman Akram Raja said his clients' grandfather Mian Muhammad Sharif had placed an amount of AED 12 million with the late Sheikh Jassim bin Jabber Al Thani, a senior member of the royal family, in 1980.
Raja submitted that such money was obtained from the sale of shares of Gulf Steel, the UAE, established in 1973, adding that Al Ahli Group purchased the shares of the Gulf Steel in 1978; and in 1980 the plant was shut down. Consequently the machinery of the plant in the UAE was available for installation and it was used at Al Azizia Steel Company near Makkah, Saudi Arabia.
Salman Akram Raja said that during his lifetime, Mian Muhammad Sharif had informed his grandson Hussain Nawaz that he had asked the Al Thani family from time to time to consider Hussain Nawaz as the beneficiary of the amount after deduction of such amounts as might have been utilised during his lifetime. Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al Thani said in his letter of December 2016, "I wish to clarify that in 1980, Mian Mohammad Sharif, a longstanding and trusted business partner of my father, made as investment of approximately twelve million AED in the real estate business of the Al Thani family."
The royal family member of the Qatar added, "This investment was made by way of provision of cash, which was common practice in the Gulf region at the time of the investment and also, given the longstanding relationship between my father and Mr Sharif, a customary way for them to do business as between themselves. At the end of 2005, after reconciling all accruals and other distributions made over the term of the investment, it was agreed that an amount of approximately $8 million was due to Mr Sharif and in accordance with Mr Sharif's wishes, the amount due to him was settled in 2006 by way of the delivery to Hussain Nawaz Sharif's representatives of bearer shares of Nescoll Limited and Neilsen Enterprises Limited which had been kept during that time in Qatar."
Resuming his arguments on the issue of dependency of his client in the matter, the counsel for Maryam Nawaz, Shahid Hamid, informed the bench that one wife of Hussain Nawaz belongs to Palestine whereas the other one hails from the UK.
In pursuance of the court's earlier directives, Shahid Hamid submitted that his client's interview to a private television about Sharif family's properties abroad will have to be examined in the relevant context where she has only responded to the allegations in the matter.
He argued that income tax department has not mentioned a specific column of dependents in the tax return form for which Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif showed property of his daughter in the same column.To which Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that the definition of dependent has not been clearly mentioned in laws, including Income Tax Ordinance, Representation of Peoples Act and National Accountability Ordinance.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa remarked that lawmakers have left the definition of 'dependent' ambiguous and the court would have to define the definition of the word according to facts in every case.
Justice Khosa wondered if all the family members are doing business then what actually would constitute the definition of a dependent. Shahid Hamid replied that dependency may be considered under emotional relationship, saying the issue of dependency may be different in the context of various cultures.
Justice Ejaz Afzal observed if there is no exact definition of dependent available then general meaning of the dictionary would be accepted, to which Shahid Hamid submitted that law dictionary defines the word 'dependent' as the one who depends completely on others for living.
Shahid Hamid argued if one has paid tax then there is no issue of dependency. He provided details of Maryam Nawaz Sharif's properties to the bench which her father had gifted her from 2010 to 2011.
He further told the bench that his client earned a profit of Rs 20 million through the sale proceed of a BMW car, to which Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked the counsel if it was the same car which Hussain Nawaz gifted her and a substantial amount of Rs 3.5million was paid as customs duty.
Responding to a query of Justice Ijazul Ahsan about Maryam's source of income, Shahid Hamid submitted that agriculture land was his client's source of income.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked if most of her income is in the shape of gifts, wouldn't she be described as a dependent? Shahid Hamid replied that most of the source of income of his client is agriculture land. Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked him to let the court know about his client's source or sources of income other than gifts.
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh questioned whether the dependency can be measured on the basis of one's income and expenditure.
Shahid Hamid pleaded that the petitioner has invoked the apex court's jurisdiction in the current matter on grounds of political animosity; to which Justice Khosa remarked that difference of opinion cannot be considered as political animosity, saying every political party is showing willingness to bring about some improvement in governance.
Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh asked from Shahid Hamid whether there was any ill-intention in the current case. He also asked why the court cannot hear a case of political enmity.
Shahid Hamid argued that in 1999, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan welcomed the martial law of former Army Chief Pervez Musharraf.
Terming it a matter of past, Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the then emir of Jamaat-e-Islami Qazi Hussain Ahmed, also did the same.
Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan observed that people behind the bars are waiting for adjudication of their matter in the apex court, saying there was procrastination in the current matter because the court had decided to give due time to every party to the case.
Meanwhile, Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted a reply on behalf of his client, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, saying that he did not make a false statement or suppress any fact while exercising the right to "freedom of speech" in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) during the course of its proceedings on May 16, 2016.
The Prime Minister submitted that he is qualified under Article 62 of the Constitution and that he is also not disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution.
He further submitted that the petition was filed by Jamaat-e-Islami emir Sirajul Haq, who had prayed the apex court to summon Prime Minister to clarify his position on 'contradictory' statements that he and his family members had given on the Panama issue.
The Prime Minister further submitted that he had not violated his oath as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Moreover, the Prime Minister denied the ownership of four flats bearing numbers as 16, 16-A, 17, 17-A, Park Lane, Mayfair, London, saying he is not legal or ostensible or the beneficial owner of any one of the "four flats".
He said that in his capacity as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, he does not claim any immunity under Article 248 of the Constitution, saying every Member of Parliament, however, has complete freedom of speech in Parliament for which he is not liable to any proceedings in any court, subject to Articles 68 and 204 of the Constitution.
"This is the "privilege" of Parliament. It cannot even be waived by Parliament and not by any individual member of Parliament," the Prime Minister contended, adding that he has the same privilege of freedom of speech as any other member of Parliament under Article 66 of the Constitution.
The Prime Minister said that inconsistent and opposite positions taken before two constitutional institutions by the petitioners make it evident that the petitioners are not at all interested in a resolution or adjudication of the issue by the apex court.
"Their only interest is to settle political scores and pursue their election and media campaigns by abusing legal and constitutional processes and they are not litigating in the public interest," the Prime Minister submitted.
Later, adjourning the hearing of the matter till January 27 (today), Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa said in a lighter vein, "What a huge task awaits us!"