Panama Papers- Issue of the Dead

In April 2016, Mossack Fonseca, a Panamama based law firm leak leaked more than 11 mil million documents sho showing links between tween many politicians politicians, b businessmen and celebrities around the world. The papers also included the names of the three children of Nawaz Shaif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. His three children owned properties abroad worth millions of dollars through the off shore companies. These assets were not reflected in any wealth statement of the family of Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif. In the presence of a vibrant electronic and social media in Pakistan, Panama Papers became the talk of the town. Most of the political parties and political analysts took a hard stance against Nawaz Sharif and grilled him and his family on the daily talk shows aired on different TV channels of Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif and his regime, were rated higher in corruption than the earlier corrupt government of the People’s Party headed by Asif Ali Zardari. People demanded to know the source of the income behind the purchase of these London properties. The opposition believed that the properties were purchased during the early nineties from money received in kick backs from foreign companies constructing the motor ways in Pakistan. In this regard they also referred to senior leaders of the PML (N), including Chaudhry Nisar and Siddique Ul-Farooq who had confirmed in their TV interviews that the London flats were purchased in the nineties and that the Nawaz family was still paying the mortgage on the properties. Nawaz Sharif broke silence by speaking to the nation on TV and by addressing the Parliament. In his two written speeches he clarified his position claiming that the business in Pakistan by his father was powerfully grabbed and his father was forced to leave the country during the reign of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the seventies. His father late Mian Muhammed Sharif moved to Dubai, with no money in his pocket and there he established a steel mill. The Prime Minister stated in his two written speeches that the properties in London were bought after the sale of the same steel mill established by his late father Mian Mohammed Sharif. He also said that all the papers and money trail in the purchase of these properties is available and will be provided in front of an appropriate investigating authority. His speech contributed in bringing the name of his dead father to the scandal. This was in addition to the already included names of his three children, Mariam Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz. As such, the three generations of Nawaz Sharif became characters of a corruption scandal that was exposed by the International Consortium of Journalists (ICJ) and had nothing to do with the political opponents in Pakistan. It was mainly due to the efforts of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf party (PTI) led by Imran Khan that finally the government of Nawaz Sharif was brought before the Supreme court of Pakistan. An earlier constituted bench of the Supreme Court could not arrive at a decision because of the scheduled retirement on December 10, 2016 of Chief Justice Zaheer Jamali. Later, a larger five-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Khosa was formed to commence afresh with hearings on daily basis starting from January 4, 2017. The bench included the names of Justice Ejaz Afzal, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan as its members. The lawyers of Nawaz Sharif presented a letter from a Qatari Prince Shaikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Hamad bin Abdullah bin Jassim bin Muhammed Al Thani in the court. According to the submitted letter the Prince stated, “My father had longstanding business relations with Mian Muhammed Sharif, which were coordinated through my eldest late brother. Our families enjoyed and continue to enjoy personal relations.” The letter added further that according to his (The Prince) understanding an amount of twelve million Dirhams was contributed by the late father of Nawaz Sharif to the late father of the Prince. The money provided by the late Mian Sharif was invested in the real estate business of the family of the Qatari Prince. The properties in London were purchased from the proceeds of the real estate business. The letter also stated that Mian Muhammed Sharif had desired that returns from his investment should be transferred to his grandson Hussain Nawaz. In 2006, the accounts in relation to the investment were settled, when the London properties were transferred to Hussain Nawaz by the Al-Thani family. That letter was the only proof Nawaz Sharif provided to the court in support of the purchase of London properties. His claims made during his two speeches about all the documents showing a money trail were proved bogus. When questioned by the court, the counsels of Nawaz Sharif termed those speeches as political speeches. After the last day of hearing, the court judgement was made public after fifty seven days of preserving the judgement. The verdict was split 3-2 in favour of Nawaz Sharif and his family. This meant that the Prime Minister is safe and will not be disqualified. The five-judge bench was not satisfied with regards to the money trail provided by the Sharif family and ordered the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to further investigate the abroad business dealings of the Sharif family. It would be interesting to mention some dissenting remarks by Justice Khosa here. He said, “In the above mentioned sorry and unfortunate state of affairs a conclusion has appeared to me to be unavoidable and inescapable that in the matter of explaining the wealth and assets respondent No. 1 [Nawaz Sharif] has not been honest to the nation, to the nation’s representatives in the National Assembly and even to this Court.” Khosa added, “I may, therefore, be justified in raising an adverse inference in the matter. The fortune amassed by respondent No. 1 [Nawaz Sharif] is indeed huge and no plausible or satisfactory explanation has been advanced in that regard. Honorp de Balzac may after all be right when he had said that behind every great fortune for which one is at a loss to account, there is a crime. “Justice Khosa added further, “There may be many definitions of the word ‘honest’ but deliberate withholding or suppression of truth is not one of them and the same is in fact an antithesis of honesty. I am, therefore, constrained to declare that respondent No. 1 [Nawaz Sharif] has not been honest to the nation, to the representatives of the nation in the National Assembly and to this Court in the matter of explaining possession and acquisition of the relevant four properties in London.” Justice Asif Khosa remaked, “Even a layman can appreciate, and one does not have to be a lawman to conclude, that what had been told to the nation, the National Assembly or even this Court about how the relevant properties in London had been acquired was not the truth. A pedestrian in Pakistan Chowk, Dera Ghazi Khan (a counterpart of Lord Denning’s man on the Clapham omnibus) may not have any difficulty in reaching that conclusion.” The father of Nawaz Sharif, the eldest brother and the father of the Prince both are dead now and cannot appear before any court of law in this world. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan was right when he remarked that court would give such a verdict that will be remembered for centuries. I am not sure if the honorable judge had pinned his hope for a century in the future. In his understanding probably he meant that one day, the dead would be able to return to life and appear before a court in this world. Afa-La-Ta-Tafakkaroon WHY DON’T YOU THINK