ECP issues notices to PM Nawaz Sharif, family MPs

 

ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Wednesday issued notices to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, his (Nawaz) son-in-law captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar, his brother-in-law Finance Minister Ishaq Dar and MNA Hamza Shahbaz on disqualification petitions filed by the opposition parties.

The prime minister has been asked by the ECP and others to file a response in writing in the commission by September 6. The forum passed this order after day-long hearing in petitions clubbed together, which were filed by the PPP, PTI, PAT and AML, seeking disqualification of Nawaz Sharif for alleged money laundering, concealing offshore assets in nomination papers and hiding wealth and asset details in tax returns.

PTI?s Senator Liaquat Tarakai and sitting minister in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government Shehram Tarakai (Liaquat?s son) were also issued notices to explain why they did not mention their offshore companies in their nomination papers.

The PPP?s reference is unique as compared to the other three, as it has called for disqualification of not only the prime minister, but also his brother and other relatives for alleged tax evasion, money laundering and hiding his offshore companies, reflected in the Panama Papers. An individual, Waheed Kamal, has also filed a petition for the disqualification of Nawaz Sharif.

Through these petitions, four political parties have sought disqualification of PM Nawaz and offshore assets that have been revealed in Panama Papers.

Besides the prime minister, his son-in-law, Punjab Chief Minister and his son Hamza Shahbaz and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar are named as respondents in the petitions, who were also allegedly involved in corrupt practices one way or the other.

The leaked documents under the tag of Panama Papers revealed names of several world leaders as well as the premier?s three children: sons, Hassan and Hussain, and his daughter Maryam, owning at least three offshore holding companies registered in the British Virgin Islands.

PPP?s Latif Khosa, speaking in support of his petition, contended before the commission, headed by Chief Election Commissioner Justice (R) Sardar Muhammad Raza, that in fact the prime minister was the owner of the offshore companies as his children were too young when these were set up.

He disputed prime minister?s statement in the National Assembly that they had purchased London flats after selling their steel mills in Saudi Arabia, as these were bought in 1993 and 1995. He alleged that the prime minister had shown Maryam his dependent, whereas according to his own sons, she owned assets abroad. Likewise, his son-in-law Muhammad Safdar had also not mentioned these facts while filing his nomination papers before 2013 polls. He added these were also not reflected in their income tax and wealth tax returns, calling this a part of the camouflage and lie.

Khosa said that from 2009 to 2013, false declaration of assets was submitted to the Election Commission, which was not permissible under the law, the Constitution and representation of the people?s act and came under corrupt practices. He said hence the prime minister was not an honest and righteous person to represent people in Parliament, what to talk of being the chief executive of Pakistan. ?He should be disqualified,? Khosa said.

The PPP senior leader charged that the Sharif family had amassed wealth after coming to power since 1980s and the prime minister and his children were fabulously rich, having offshore companies, while the nation suffered. He referred to contradictory statements of his children to allege that Nawaz Sharif was the actual owner of the offshore assets and not his children. 

He alleged that Pakistan?s chief executive and chief minister of the largest province indulged in loot and plunder, money laundering and corrupt practices in defiance of the laws of the land. He went on to say that before 2013 elections, Sharif family was defaulter of Rs6 billion loan and that it was not at all difficult to get it written off after Nawaz became prime minister.

Likewise, he added, Shahbaz Sharif had also been declared absconder in a murder case in the past and was not honest and righteous person and be disqualified.

On a petition filed by PTI?s Dr Yasmin Rashid, who had lost to Nawaz in 2013 elections, her lawyer Anis Hashmi produced copies of two letters, showing Maryam as beneficiary of two offshore companies with address of Saroor Palace, Jeddah.

Then he referred to prime minister?s address to the nation in May this year in which he said after Ittefaq Foundry was nationalised in 1972, his father migrated to Dubai and established Gulf Steel Mills. The lawyer noted that the mill was sold for nine million dollars in 1980. 

On this, he cited a statement of Mubashir Hasan, who served as finance minister during Zulfikar Ali Bhutto?s government in 1970s, who said that at that time, money could not be transferred abroad without the permission of the State Bank of Pakistan and hence the prime minister had lied about his father taking along money abroad to set up a steel mills.

?The prime minister had stated that the steel mills was nationalised and they were not paid a penny then how his father managed money and transferred it abroad. It was done through money laundering. There has been no mention of source of funds ever. This reflects a chain of corruption,? he alleged.

While explaining alleged tax evasion and concealment of assets by the prime minister, he noted Nawaz had mentioned Rs120 million gift paid to him by his son, but this was not shown in his declarations of assets neither any tax was paid, and that his son was not an NTN holder. 

The lawyer said that the prime minister had paid income tax and agriculture tax with a delay of 30 months, 18 months and six months, but had paid no penalty, asking was not it an offence under Income Tax Laws? ?Under the Constitution, loyalty of the state and obedience to the law is imperative and it becomes vital in case of a member of Parliament and what image was made of a prime minister, who indulged in all sorts of corrupt practices,? he charged.

He said Maryam Nawaz, who was owner of offshore companies in 1993, was shown dependent on her father and alleged that the entire system was corrupt because of a corrupt prime minister. He alleged that the prime minister completely failed to explain what was the source of his wealth and how was it transferred abroad and nothing was traceable in his documents too.

The lawyer also said that neither there was any mention of nine million dollars nor taxes were paid thereon and added there was total contradiction in his documents from 1993 till date.

On the basis of these contradictions and documentary evidence, he urged the forum to disqualify Nawaz Sharif and noted there were also judgements already on disqualifications in the past.

AML lawyer Sardar Raziq also prayed to the commission to disqualify Nawaz Sharif for mis-declaration of his assets, tax evasion and showing his daughter dependent on him, whereas she was not.

AML President MNA Sheikh Rashid Ahmad later told media persons that if the commission did not disqualify Sharifs, as a last resort, all opposition parties should quit the legislature.

The ruling PML-N leaders, including Daniyal Aziz and Talal Chaudhry, in media talk later, alleged that the opposition?s references were a sign of desperation. They alleged that these initiatives were based on rhetoric, having no substance at all.

Khosa and Hashmi complained about congestion in the library of the ECP, where hearing was held, as the only air-conditioner was also not functioning. Khosa wished they would have been served with tea, as the canteen in the commission?s premises, was also shut. It was being renovated.

The PPP lawyer managed to seek permission for the media persons to be present during the hearing after he cautioned to stay away, if they were not allowed to be privy to the proceedings. ?Since the proceedings are not in-camera, journalists should be present to cover them,? he said and thanked the chief election commissioner for allowing them, who said it was he who allowed them.

 

--Originally published in The News