PM admits employment with UAE-based firm

Claims the fact was reflected in his nomination papers for 2013 polls


Hasnaat Mailk July 23, 2017
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif waves as his son, Hussain Nawaz looks on. PHOTO: REUTERS / FILE

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has admitted before the Supreme Court that he had not only taken up an employment with Capital FZE, a UAE-based company, but had also obtained a work permit, or ‘Iqama’, of the Gulf state.  However, he has claimed that this fact was reflected in his nomination papers for the 2013 general elections.

In a written reply submitted in the apex court through his counsels Khawaja Haris, Amjad Pervaiz and Saad Hashmi, Sharif rejected the allegation that he had concealed his employment as claimed by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that probed into his the ruling family’s offshore assets.

“The Iqama and Respondent No 1 [prime minister]’s employment with Capital FZE is reflected in the copies of his passport annexed with the nomination forms submitted for the general elections 2013,” reads the reply submitted on Saturday – just a day after the top court reserved its judgment in the Panamagate case.

“There being no separate column in the nomination forms for any such information to be provided by the candidate contesting the election,” the reply adds.

Evidence that ‘alone can send PM packing’

On Friday, Khawaja Haris requested a three-judge bench of the top court to allow them to submit a written response to the JIT findings.  A copy of 25-page reply is available with The Express Tribune.

Earlier, instead of responding to the JIT damning report with regard to his and his family’s alleged graft, Sharif had raised legal objections to the JIT report and its members. However, in his fresh reply, the premier told the apex court that his son, Hassan Nawaz, was “owner, director & secretary and the authorised signatory” of Capital FZE.

“Respondent No 1 was neither a shareholder in, nor a director or a secretary of Capital FZE. Nor was he ever an authorised signatory of Capital FZE. There is also not a shred of evidence on the record showing Respondent No 1 as the owner/shareholder/director/secretary or authorised signatory of Capital FZE at any time during the subsistence of this company,” it adds.

Giving an explanation regarding his designation as Capital FZE’s ‘Chairman of the Board’, the prime minister told the bench that this was only a ceremonial office acquired in 2007 when he was in exile, and had nothing to do with the running of the company or supervising its affairs.

“Similarly, Respondent No 1 did not withdraw the salary of AED 10,000. Thus, the salary shown in the Employment Contract in effect never constituted an ‘asset’ for Respondent No 1.

PM’s counsel ducks ‘key’ London flats trail query

“The contents of the payment certificate at Page 137 of Volume IX of the JIT report are not relatable to Respondent No 1. In fact, it is emphatically denied that Respondent No 1 received any salary as purported to be represented by the said certificate,” the reply claims.

The reply further says this ceremonial status of Sharif came to an end with the dissolution of Capital FZE – a process which began in July 2013 and ended in July 2014.

“However, before that, in January, 2013, when Hassan shared his decision to wind up the company, the prime minister categorically told him that he did not intend to nor would claim any salary from the company.”

Sharif said as for the Iqama was concern, it had been issued for a period of three years, and was last issued in 2012. However, the 2012 Iqama lapsed in 2014 on the dissolution of Capital FZE, for which Respondent No 8 had applied in 2013.

He said he was never confronted with the documents related to Capital FZE by the JIT, adding that if he had been confronted with such documents, he could have explained his position to the JIT.

The prime minister also contended that matters relating to Hudabiya Paper Mills Limited (HPML) constituted past and closed transaction insofar ‘as the allegations made against the directors/shareholders of the company pursuant to quashment of Reference No 5 of 2000’.

“The money involved in the matter relating to the HPML was exclusively utilised in Pakistan and as such has no nexus with purchasing any property or investment abroad. So far as Al-Towfeeq loan liability is concerned, Respondent No 1 has no personal knowledge of the details thereof.”

The premier also denied 750,000 Saudi riyals (SAR) had been transferred to the bank account of Hussain Nawaz on his instructions. “The JIT has based its finding on an unsigned document dated 20.09.2010 (Annex H of Volume IX) purportedly containing instructions from Respondent No 1 to Al Rajhi Bank for transfer of SAR 750,000 to the bank account of Respondent No 7.”

It said admittedly, the document was a ‘source document’ and had no legal or evidentiary value. In any case, no such transfer took place, as alleged.

Sharif also denied the JIT finding that he in his tax return in 2013 had claimed that he made a donation of Rs100 million to the PML-N and concealed the fact that he received back Rs45 million from the same party account before the close of the relevant financial year ‘that amounts to misdeclaration of wealth’.

“The fact of the matter is that the Respondent No 1 intended to donate Rs100 million to PML-N in tax year 2013. However, due to an error the Respondent No 1 ended up paying Rs145 million in donation through six cheques.

“The excess amount of Rs45 million was returned by PML-N to Respondent No 1 on 10.06.2013. It is for this reason that the amount of Rs100 million is declared as donation to PML-N in the wealth reconciliation statement of the Respondent No 1 for the tax year 2013. Rs.45 million having been returned through cheque is appended with the JIT Report,” he said.

Explaining reasons for increase in his wealth from Rs8.33m to Rs68.027m in 1992-93, he said in 1992 the Ittefaq Group was divided amongst 7 families, including that of Mian Sharif, the prime minister’s father.

After this division, Sharif claimed,  he not only received his shares in the companies, which was set up by his father but also shares of his daughter, Asma Dar, and son, Hassan, as both children were minors at the time.

The premier told the SC that the gap in the wealth tax paid and that what was assessed was due to litigation initiated by him in the Lahore High Court, whereby the wealth tax law was challenged which was imposed tax on assets which were non-operational.

Dubai-based law firm confirms documents showing PM's employment status as 'legal'

“The case was ultimately decided in favour of Respondent No 1. However, as a matter of abundant caution, the disputed tax liability was nevertheless paid by the assessee in the year 2013,” the reply said.

As regards submissions made by the PTI counsel in support of the plea for the prime minister’s disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, Sharif submitted that each of the grounds urged by him in support of his plea gives rise to a question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact.

“[Such questions] can only be resolved after recording of evidence in accordance with the recognised principle of due process, as mandated by Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution, and not in proceedings initiated under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.”

He cautioned the SC that any finding given or observation made by it on any question of fact, or mixed question of law and fact in the instant proceedings might have an adverse impact on the case, or any one of them, in case their matter is to be adjudicated upon by or before any other forum.

Sharif also denied that he had ever been the chief executive officer (CEO) of Chaudhry Sugar Mills Limited (CSML). However, Sharif admitted, he remained a shareholder in CSML till June 2016.

“It is for this reason that the ‘business name’ is stated to be CSML. This does not, in any way, infer that the Respondent No 1 was the CEO of CSML.

“Furthermore, the banker filling the account opening form for Standard Chartered Bank had mistakenly stated Respondent No 1 as the CEO of CSML.

“Even otherwise, nothing turns on it. The official record, ie, the SECP returns confirm that the Respondent No 1 has never remained the CEO of CSML,” it added.

The PM admitted that he was appointed as an adviser to the CSML Board of Directors with effect from 01.10.2009, adding that this appointment was made by a resolution of the Board of Directors dated 18.09.2009. Remuneration received as adviser was duly declared in the income tax returns of the Respondent No 1 from 2009 onwards. This fact is also confirmed by the JIT.

The PM also denied that there was any nexus between his ‘rise to the political forefront’ and the loan liabilities of Ittefaq Foundries (Private) Limited. This allegation is false and baseless. The JIT has not placed any evidence on record to substantiate this allegation, he added.

“The loan liabilities of Ittefaq Foundries were settled through the sale of its land and other assets. All liabilities of Ittefaq Foundries stand cleared. Nothing remains outstanding. This is so confirmed by the letters of clearance from respective banks,” the reply added.

Sharif also requested the SC to dismiss all the petitions seeking his disqualification.

COMMENTS (4)

Naveed Alam Khattak | 6 years ago | Reply Lies Lies Lies.....
Hatim | 6 years ago | Reply The only reason they submitted this reply AFTER the hearing is so that the petitioners could not present counter-arguments. However, in would not be fair to make a judgement in the respondents favour without a reply from the petitioners.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ