Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: In the Panamagate verdict, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has also tasked the joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the Hill Metals Establishment (HME), through which more than Rs 840 million were transferred to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from 2011 to 2015.

Through this company, Hussain Nawaz had sent gifts totaling Rs 840 million to his father.

In his additional note in the Panamagate judgement, Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that if any beneficial interest of PM Nawaz Sharif was proved in the HME, his failure to declare the same in nomination papers and tax returns would render him disqualified.

The HME had been the lesser-known company in the Panama Leaks case. The spotlight had been mostly on Nielson and Nescol Companies, Gulf Steel Mills (GSM) and other businesses of Sharif family.

In his note, Justice Ijazul Ahsan stated that the entity was allegedly owned and operated by Hussain Nawaz. “It appears to be a highly profitable business, enabling Hussain to send tens of millions of rupees to PM as gifts on a regular basis. Since this information has come before us during the course of these proceedings and appears to have some significance, we cannot simply skim over it,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed. Justice Ahsan stated that direct evidence was seldom found in the world of offshore companies as had been seen in instant case.

“However, there are telltale signs that may point towards the possibility of legal, beneficial or equitable interests in financial resources or assets. Receipt and use of financial benefits is one such sign,” Justice Ahsan said.

“Therefore, owing to admitted receipt of sums in excess of Rs 840 million between 2011 to 2015 by PM from his son, the possibility of a beneficial interest of PM in assets ostensibly held in the name of Hussain Nawaz cannot be ruled out,” Justice Ahsan held.

“As a corollary, if it is found that there is any such interest of respondent no 1 (PM Nawaz Sharif) in Hill Metals Establishment, his failure to declare the same in the nomination papers and tax returns could attract the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution for disqualification of respondent no 1,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed.