ISLAMABAD - The British Virgin Islands attorney general refused to assist the joint investigation team regarding establishing the beneficial ownership of Neilsen and Nescoll.

The Supreme Court on Thursday received two letters from the office of the attorney general of BVI and Qatari Prince Hamad bin Jasim bin Jaber Al-Thani, which were addressed to the head of the JIT.

As the JIT has wrapped up the setup, Wajid Zia sent the letters to the SC registrar. The letters were opened in the court.

The JIT had written a letter to the BVI attorney general under mutual legal assistance.

Sarah Potter-Washington, crown counsel for the attorney general, wrote in response: “It is our considered view that the request as set out is not in conformity with the laws of the Virgin Islands for the reasons that the summary of the facts does not provide any background information which shows the nexus between the companies – Nescoll Limited and Nielsen Enterprises – and any alleged offence.”

“Moreover, the request does not show how the named companies may have been involved in the inferred offence of corruption or corrupt practices,” it adds.

“The information provided in the MLA request must prima facie show how the offence is committed and must also provide a copy of the extract of law relative to the offence committed and not a quote. The request does not clearly indicate whether criminal investigations are ongoing or proceedings have commenced with respect to the company and the beneficial ownership of the companies, M/s Nielsen and Nescoll Limited,” it says.

The letter further states, “In the circumstances, we are unable to render any assistance in the execution of your request. You may upon rectification of the mentioned anomalies, that is, rectification of the reasons why the request is not compliant with the law of the Virgin Islands, submit another request for a further consideration.”

Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al-Thani again refused to recognise the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts. His letter states, “Reference to your letter dated 04-07-2017, I reiterate that I do not recognise and am not subject to jurisdiction of Pakistan laws and Pakistani courts in any manner whatsoever. Your statement with reference to my earlier letters that I have accepted and submitted to the jurisdiction of Pakistani laws and courts is inappropriate and factually incorrect. My earlier two letters which were submitted in your Supreme Court provided certain factual information and do not in any manner depict that I have accepted any such jurisdiction as indicated by you,” it adds.

The letter adds, “The issue of jurisdiction as stated in your letter is taking discussion to an irrelevant direction. Therefore, it is not appropriate to enter into any further discourse or argument on the question of jurisdiction since my stance on the matter is very clear. I also stand by the statement made by me in the earlier letters and have already confirmed the same. I have also expressed my willingness to do so subject to my above-stated position as to jurisdiction in person in a meeting with your team in Doha.”

“In view of the above, you may provide a date for the meeting along with the names of your team members who will be travelling to Doha for the meeting,” it states.

TERENCE J SIGAMONY