ISLAMABAD - The Sharif family yesterday submitted another letter from a Qatari prince in the Supreme Court to establish the money trail of London apartments.
The London apartments are at the centre of the Panamagate case being heard by a five-judge larger bench of the Supreme Court being headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.
Also on Thursday, PM’s sons Hassan and Hussain Nawaz submitted their replies in the apex court to establish the money trail for the purchase of the offshore property.
In his second letter to the apex court, Qatari Prince Hamad Bin Jasim Bin Jaber Al Thani claimed that an investment of 12 million dirhams contributed by Mian Muhammad Sharif (father of PM Nawaz) was made “by way of provision of cash”.
A statement, submitted in the apex court by the premier’s counsel Salman Akram Raja, further stated that an amount of $8 million which was due to Mian Sharif in 2005, was settled “by the way of delivery of bearer shares of Nescol Ltd and Neilson Enterprises Ltd to a representative of PM Nawaz’s son Hussain Nawaz in 2006”.
Meanwhile, the record showed that Jeddah steel mill was sold for Rs6.31 crore in 2005.
An affidavit by Tariq Shafi showed how the AED 12 million were deposited with Fahad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani of Qatar on instructions of his uncle Mian Muhammad Sharif.
Also, as ordered by the court the other day, a transcript of Maryam Nawaz Sharif’s TV interview given in 2012 to Geo TV was also submitted before the Supreme Court in which she claimed of no property in Pakistan or abroad in her own name or in someone else’s name.
PM’s sons Hassan and Hussain Nawaz in their replies, which were backed by some business documents, sought to clarify their position regarding their properties.
In his reply, Hussain claimed that he completed his education in the UK in 1996 and was involved in father’s business till October 1999 in Pakistan. Hasan Nawaz’s reply mentioned business interests owned by the Qatari prince.
Hussain Nawaz also submitted affidavit of Shezi Naqi who used to appear in the court as Al-Toufeeq Company’s employee.
Qatari Prince Al-Thani, in his second letter to the Supreme Court also sought to answer the questions raised after presentation of his first letter.
The letter says PM Nawaz’s father, Mian Muhammad Sharif, made an investment of approximately 12 million dirhams in the Al-Thani family’s real estate business.
“The investment was made by way of provision of cash which was common practice in the Gulf region at the time of the investment. It was also, given the longstanding relationship between my father and Sharif, a customary way for them to do business between themselves,” it said.
“At the end of 2005, after receiving all accruals and other distributions made over the term of the investment, it was agreed that an amount of approx $8,000,000 was due to Sharif. The amount due to him was settled in 2006,” the letter explained, “by way of the delivery to Hussain Nawaz Sharif’s representative of bearer shares of Nescoll Ltd and Nielsen Enterprises Ltd, which had been kept during that time in Qatar.”
The letter is accompanied by transaction details and auditor’s reports regarding the Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai and the Azizia Steel Mills in Jeddah.
In November last year, the Sharif family revealed that the four luxury apartments were purchased through offshore investments involving a member of the Qatari royal family. A letter purportedly written by a Qatari prince claimed that the London properties were proceeds of their real estate businesses in which the prime minister’s father, Mian Muhammad Sharif, had invested 12 million dirhams in 1980.
In the earlier letter, the Qatari prince stated that his father had longstanding business relations with PM Nawaz’s father which were coordinated through the prince’s eldest brother. “As per my understanding at that time an aggregate sum of around 12 million dirhams was contributed by Mian Sharif, originating from the sale of business in Dubai, UAE,” it said.
Gifts and dependency issue
The Sharif family’s attorney faced a tough time in the Supreme Court on Wednesday as judges looked to him to clarify the money trail for London apartments. On the 15th hearing of the case, the court examined the issue of whether PM Nawaz’s daughter Maryam Safdar was his dependent and whether she is a beneficiary of the London properties or had acted as a front-person for her father.
During Thursday’s hearing, Justice Khosa asked PM’s counsel to provide dates of the gifts given by Hussain to Nawaz Sharif, Nawaz’s gift to Maryam for purchase of 143 kanal land and also Maryam’s gifts to the PM.
Maryam Nawaz’s counsel Shahid Hamid told the Supreme Court that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif bought land on his daughter’s name and transferred it after the payment of money.
During the hearing, Justice Ejaz asked how can the premier transferred land to Maryam Nawaz when it was already purchased on her name.
Justice Khosa inquired about when Hussain Nawaz gave money to Nawaz Sharif as a gift and when the PM transferred it to his daughter.
Shahid Hamid has told the court that his client responded to the allegations in her interview.
The lawyer said that married woman is not dependent of her parents over which the court remarked that the definition of dependent is different in every case.
He said that Maryam responded to the allegations in her interview which she gave in 2012.
In PM’s defence
Shahid Hamid also submitted a written reply over petition submitted by Jamaat-e-Islami. According to details, the reply stated that the premier had not misrepresented in National Assembly (NA) speech and also not violated the oath.
It was also stated that Nawaz Sharif is not beneficial owner of any of the four flats in London. PM has given valid information in wealth statement and income tax returns while he has also not demanded immunity as per article 248. The reply further added that every parliamentarian has right to express views in the NA.
PTI demands solid evidence
PTI’s Fawad Chaudhry cried foul stating that instead of evidence, letters were being furnished before the court, and fraudulent documents were being prepared and presented instead of proof.
Arif Alvi said the prime minister had presented himself as a dependent in the tax returns filed by him.