ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court yesterday focused on the hefty gifts exchanged between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his children, raising the question if this could be a tactic to whiten the alleged black money.
The court inquired after large sums of money that were gifted by the premier’s son Hussain Nawaz to his father, asking him to explain how he earned $1.9 million (Rs510 million) which he “remitted to his father as a gift in 2011”.
Hearing a slew of petitions filed by PTI and others for Panama leaks investigations, the apex court also raised questions about a piece of agricultural land which the premier had allegedly bought in the name of Maryam in 2011 but claimed that he had gifted the land to her daughter.
The five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa directed PM’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan to submit details of all such gifts.
The court also instructed the PM’s counsel to clear the confusions about prime minister’s statements in Thursday’s [today] hearing, saying that there were discrepancies between the arguments presented in court and the speech delivered by Nawaz in the National Assembly.
During the proceedings, the counsel continuing his arguments refuted the allegations of tax avoidance, saying that his client exchanged gifts with his children through banks.
He told the court that Nawaz had received a gift of $1.9 million from his son which was non-taxable. To this, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said, there were two aspects of the case; first is suspected tax evasion and second is alleged money laundering.
“We want to know the source of the amount, where such a big amount is coming from,” Justice Ijazul Hassan posed a question to PM’s lawyer, referring to the huge amount gifted by Hussain Nawaz to his father over a period of four years.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that the court wanted to see the account number of PM wherein he received money from his son. According to him, the move signalled that a significant amount of money had been circulating.
Makdhoom Khan told the court that an amount of Rs210m was sent by Hussain Nawaz in 2012 and another Rs129.8m was gifted by him in the same year.
Justice Gulzar Ahmad asked Makhdoom why verified bank documents were not submitted before the court. He also questioned why the gift money was not reflected in the prime minister’s wealth statement.
The lawyer said that submission of documents regarding the transactions was not necessary since he had already informed the court that gifts were transferred through the banks. He added that if the court asked for such documents, details of the accounts will be provided.
About the gifts to Maryam Safdar, the counsel said they were mentioned in the prime minister’s wealth and income tax returns, which have been submitted in the court.
“It could be that this is black money. The son (Hussain Nawaz) sent the amount to the father (Nawaz Sharif) and the father bought the land in his daughter’s (Maryam Nawaz’s) name.” Justice Khosa observed.
The judge was referring to agricultural land spread over 5.38 acres in Mansehra district, which is worth Rs243m. The land was declared under Maryam’s name by the prime minister in his 2011-12 income tax returns.
“This property was not benami, was it?” asked Justice Gulzar, referring to the agricultural land. “Why did Hussain Nawaz only give gifts to his father?” Justice Ijazul Hassan asked.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed reiterated the bench’s desire to see the records of transactions. “We are not speaking in Persian,” he said. “Present the records,” he told the PM’s counsel.
In his remarks, Justice Khosa said it has been observed that people illegally sent money abroad and later some of it was remitted back in the country. He went on to say that now, the premier’s son has to provide the money trail of the amount which he remitted to his father.
During the hearing, the SC judge also referred to former interior minister Rehman Malik’s investigation report on “Sharif family’s money laundering in 1990s and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s confession statement”.
The judge, however, observed that the report could not meet its logical conclusion as National Accountability Bureau (NAB) did not file an appeal against Lahore High Court’s order to quash the reference against the Sharif family in 2014. The apex court judge further said SC cannot re-investigate the matter under Article 184-3 of the Constitution.
Azizia Steel Mills
During the hearing, the court also put forth an inquiry regarding the Azizia Steel Mills in Jeddah. The focus remained on how money received from the sale of the mills was transferred to Pakistan.
“One aspect of the case is concerned with money laundering. The accusation is that the amount was sent abroad through unlawful means,” Justice Khosa observed. “You will have to give details as to how the amount was transferred,” the judge told him.
In response, the counsel told the court that the amount was sent by Hussain Nawaz from Saudi Arabia in 2010.
“Other than this, what other business does Hussain Nawaz have in Saudi Arabia?” Justice Ijaz asked.
The counsel told him that details of the prime minister’s son’s business will be provided by his own lawyer.
“Hussain Nawaz gave the gifts in 2010 but the steel mill was sold in 2005,” Justice Ijaz observed. “We will want to see that the amount of $1.9m came in through banks,” the court said. “It is normally determined whether tax returns were submitted.”
“The accusation is that income has been masked as gifts to evade tax,” the counsel said. “Gifts can only be said to be income when they are given by a person who does not have a national tax number,” he added.
“From what business is so much money coming in? Has the father ever asked his sons where the money is coming from?” Justice Azmat asked.
The counsel told the court that the money is coming in from the businesses of the premier’s sons.
“What is the reason for giving the amount as a gift?” Justice Ijazul Hassan asked.
Observing that there are discrepancies between the arguments presented in court and the speech delivered by the prime minister in the National Assembly, Justice Khosa said PM’s speeches would be analysed from all angles on Thursday (today).
The judge instructed the PM’s counsel to clear these confusions in court when the hearing resumes on Thursday.
Maryam’s dependence status
Maryam Nawaz’s dependence status was also brought into focus once again as PM’s counsel maintained that her name was listed as the PM’s dependent on tax forms because there was no other column on the sheet.
“The purpose of writing her name on the form was not to declare her a dependent,” Makdhoom Khan argued. “It was alleged that Maryam Nawaz was declared a dependent in the nomination papers. The prime minister does not accept these accusations,” he said.
“The premier had said that in his household it is only him and his wife and he has no dependants,” he added.
Justice Gulzar observed that the tax forms had been edited in 2015 and inquired, “When did the Panama matter emerge?”
“Panama [scandal] came forward in 2016. Before this, the tax forms have been edited,” the lawyer responded.
He told the court that Shahid Hamid advocate - who is representing Maryam in the Panamagate case - will also reflect on the matter of her dependency.
“How can we listen to two different lawyers on one matter?” Justice Khosa asked him.
JI plea for PM disqualification accepted
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court yesterday accepted Jamaat-e-Islami’s petition seeking Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, and issued notices to all the respondents, directing them to submit their responses.
During the hearing of Panama Papers case, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa remarked that Jamaat-e-Islami’s lawyer will present his arguments after conclusion of arguments by PM’s counsel.
The party has alleged that the prime minister had intentionally concealed property owned by him outside Pakistan, particularly in London, as a result whereof he evaded taxes.
“Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan has lost his eligibility as Member of National Assembly under Article 62 (1) (f) because the information in Panama leaks in shape of four flats bearing numbers as 16, 16-A, 17, 17-A, Park Lane, Mayfair, London, was never mention by him in his nomination papers in Election 2013, Income Tax Statements and Wealth Tax Statements, which he admitted in his speech, therefore, he remained no more Sadiq or Ameen,” the petition stated.
Talking to media persons outside the Supreme Court, JI chief Sirajul Haq said they want accountability to begin from the prime minister and his family.
“We want everyone’s accountability beginning with Prime Minister and his family. All those whose names have appeared in Panama Papers must be made accountable,” he added. Siraj stressed that his party’s basic aim is to eliminate corruption from the country.