JIT report analysis: What JIT dug out on SC’s 13 questions in Panama case

The JIT’s final report on investments of Sharif family abroad revolves around 13 questions and their ancillary matters that April 20 judgment of Justice Khosa-led 5 member bench laid out. In its report, the JIT has declared that it has employed its best efforts and use of minimal resources to conduct the investigation both in Pakistan and abroad.

The final consolidated report comprises of 12 volumes i.e. Volume 1- summary of investigation, Volume II – statements of witnesses and analysis, Volume III – Gulf Steel Mills, Volume IV, ownership of Avenfield apartments, Volume V – Qatari letters. Volume VI – Hill Metals Establishment/gifts, Volume VIII – Flagship Investments Limited & companies, Volume VIII – NAB/FIA cases, Volume VIII – (A) Hudaibiya Mills case, Volume IX – assets beyond means – Nawaz Sharif, Volume IX – (A) assets beyond means – other respondents and lastly Volume X -mutual legal assistance requests-ongoing (confidential)

JIT has sought Mutual Legal Assistance requests from 6 countries including British Virgin Islands, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Switzerland and Luxembourg. From above six, only BVI and UAE have responded to the JIT requests.

In a one page summary of the investigation the JIT reported to the SC that in the course of investigation it has been confirmed that Maryam Nawaz is the beneficial owner of British Virgin Island companies namely; Nielsen Enterprises Limited and Nescoll Limited by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). PM Nawaz Sharif is chairman of an offshore company namely; FZE, Capital, UAE by Jabel Ali Free Zone Authority (JAFZA), confirmation of fictitious sale/purchase agreements submitted to Honorable Court by all the respondents by the Ministry of Justice, UAE and submission of falsified/tampered declarations of Trusts by the respondents in the SC and before the JIT, as per reports of forensic experts.

Answering the specific questions raised by SC, the JIT said that Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz did not have any independent source of income/businesses till 2000 and were dependent on their families and conclusively establishes that respondents Hassan and Hussain did not have any means to individually or collectively, maintain, manage or purchase Avenfield properties. Also, the report found the respondent’s claim of bearer shares to be totally false.

On Qatari investment, the commission reported that it was incomprehensible that if it was the true source of purchase of the Avenfied Apartments and foreign investments, despite relentless media questioning for at least the next 6 months. Also, Hassan Nawaz’s statement contradicted his stance taken in his submissions before the Supreme Court and seemed an effort to substantiate the stance taken by Hussain Nawaz Sharif and other respondents at this belated stage. Instead of lending any credence to the evidence (Qatari letters) his shifting of stance further weakened it.

Also, it noted that the reluctance of key witnesses to discuss the details of this evidence seems to be a conscious effort to steer away from it to avoid further contradictions. This lack of knowledge about the investment with the Qatari family, by a witness so closely involved in the affairs of the family and the company. It also notes that the omission in the affidavit of Tariq Shafi to refer to the Qatari investment despite the fact that the first Qatari letter had already been submitted in SC, therefore, is perplexing.

The final report also documents the assets of Late Mian Sharif and observes that his source of income was not consummate with the increase in his assets and observes that prima facie his assets were disproportionate and beyond known sources of means.

About Maryam Nawaz, who is respondent no 6, the report concluded that the accumulation of assets shows a drastic hike in early 90’s with no declared source of income. And that no not only the assets are observed to be accumulated without any declared source of income, but she loaned millions of rupees without any substantial evidence on source of income.

About Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, the JIT observes that Dar did not file income tax returns from 1981/82 to 2001/02. Being an expert in economics and part of ruling elite is, prima facie, tantamount to tax evasion among other counts and concludes that Dar possesses assets disproportionate and beyond known sources of means.

JIT recommended that in light of evidences, Saeed Ahmad should be added to the list of accused in the case. It did not consider the Rehman Malik and his source as any help to the case.