Na­tion mis­led ...

Pakistan Observer - - PAGE 07 -

All records of ap­provals/let­ters/ci­pher tele­grams are with the PHC or MoFA. Now I am not privy to or in pos­ses­sion any of them.

More­over, he stated that the case was filed much be­fore the elec­tions of 2013 and af­ter due process at the MoFA and Min­istry of Law. How­ever, soon af­ter the trans­fer of power to the new gov­ern­ment of Prime Min­is­ter Nawaz Sharif I was directed to with­draw the case as MoFA at that time claimed that it was a ‘bi­lat­eral is­sue’ be­tween In­dia and Pak­istan. It is another story how MoFA thought it was a bi­lat­eral is­sue when it was not. “Never be­fore all my five years as PHC, the MoFA in­formed ver­bally or in writ­ing that ‘it was a bi­lat­eral is­sue’ al­though truck­loads of cor­re­spon­dence on the mat­ter were ex­changed be­tween PHC and MoFA.

“It was only af­ter al­most three years—end May 2016, I re­ceived a no­tice from the MoFA that I had gone into lit­i­ga­tion with­out MoFA’s per­mis­sion. I have sent a de­tailed re­ply to the 15-day no­tice to the MoFA. Con­tents of my re­ply can be had from the MOFA” he added. He fur­ther stated, “Since the case was filed on ‘No Win No cost’ ba­sis I had in­formed MoFA that since PHC would be break­ing

From Back Page the con­tract it would be li­able to pay the cost to the lawyers com­pany that had ac­quired the ser­vices of Bar­ris­ter Cherie Blair as well a whole team of bar­ris­ters and so­lic­i­tors to do re­search in the an­tecedents of the case.”

He main­tained that the MoFA in­sisted on with­drawal through a ci­pher tele­gram as such the case was with­drawn. “I re­mained PHC for next 10 months (hav­ing re­signed on June 13, 2013 and asked to con­tinue un­til fur­ther or­ders) in the gov­ern­ment of PM Nawaz Sharif and re­lin­quished charge in April 2014.”

Sub­se­quently, Wa­jid Sham­sul Has­san stated that the MoFA went in ap­peal for restora­tion of Pak­istan as a party to the claim that it had it­self or­dered the PHC to with­draw af­ter June 2013. In­dia ob­jected/op­posed this plea as it was Pak­istan that had vol­un­tar­ily with­drawn from the case. How­ever, as the money was ly­ing in the PHC ac­count in NatWest Bank, the English court up­held Pak­istan’s plea to re­vive it as a party.

“The de­ci­sion was an­nounced on Tues­day (June 22, 2016) by the English Court. In his in­fi­nite wis­dom spokesman of the MoFA claimed it to be his­toric vic­tory when it was noth­ing but to get sta­tus quo re­stored as of June 2013. More­over, MoFA has ac­cused me of dam­ag­ing its case while the facts are con­trary. Fur­ther it has been given the im­pres­sion that the English Court has or­dered Pak­istan to get £35 mil­lion that In­dia op­posed,” he added.

“Had the MoFA not or­dered with­drawal of the case in 2013 by now de­ci­sion would have come re­gard­ing £35 mil­lion,” he ques­tioned say­ing, re­gret­fully me­dia is giv­ing the wrong im­pres­sion that the court has or­dered pay­ment of £35 mil­lion to Pak­istan. The fact is that now the real case re­gard­ing the claim over the money would pro­ceed for trial in the English court. It may take some time to de­cide what share all the par­ties will get— or the en­tire money is given to one party or the other.

“Fi­nally, I am in Lon­don and DO NOT have ac­cess to any records. All the se­cret doc­u­ments/ci­pher tele­grams com­mu­ni­cat­ing in­struc­tions are ei­ther in the PHC or the MoFA,” he added. “Any doc­u­ments re­gard­ing in­struc­tions to file the case or with­draw it are ly­ing ei­ther in the PHC or the MoFA.What­ever has been stated here is on the ba­sis of a mem­ory that one could have at the age of 75 years suf­fer­ing third-de­gree CKD, di­a­betes, high BP etc.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan

© PressReader. All rights reserved.