Daily Times

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), an organisation allegedly sleazed with incompetence and inefficiency, is mishandling the case of Hussain Nawaz, who admitted to be the owner of apartments 16, 16-A, 17 and 17-A, Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, United Kingdom (Mayfair properties) in his concise statement submitted in the Supreme Court. It is strange that after filing a reference in the Accountability Court, NAB is purportedly seeking assistance of the authorities in the United Kingdom about Hussain Nawaz’s links with the Mayfair properties. If true, it is simply irrational. After admitting ownership, Hussain Nawaz was supposed to show the sources of acquiring the properties vis-à-vis his reliance on the Qatari connection in the Supreme Court. It is obvious that any new stance before the Accountability Court will render him liable to punishment for perjury, giving false statements and documents under oath in the Supreme Court. So, he is absconding.

NAB has failed to freeze the Mayfair properties as well, which is a very disturbing inaction on its part. Under section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 [“the NAB Ordinance”]. The ownership of properties is not a contentious issue. The only point in trial is establishing crime under section 9(a)(iv) of the NAB Ordinance, which says: “A holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices if he by corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means, obtains or seeks to obtain for himself, or for his spouse or dependents or any other person, any property, valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage”. Hussain Nawaz is covered in the ambit of expression “any other person” in this provision, and the onus is on him under section 14(c) of the Ordinance to prove the legitimacy of the funds used for purchase of the Mayfair properties. He is a citizen of Pakistan and a declared proclaimed offender by the Accountability Court for avoiding trial. The logical consequence should have been forfeiture of the Mayfair properties.

It is an established fact, confirmed by the BBC, that “the Sharifs have remained the only owners of the London flats since the ‘90s”. Tim Sebastian, interviewing Hassan Sharif, younger son of Nawaz Sharif, in November 1999 also established this

NAB has no obligation under the law to trace the sources. In this regard, section 14(c) of the NAB Ordinance is explicit:

In any trial of an offence punishable under “clause (v) of sub-section (a) of section 9 of” this Ordinance, the fact that the accused person or any other person on his behalf, is in possession, for which the accused person cannot satisfactorily account, of assets or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income, or that such person has, at or about the time of the commission of the, offence with which he is charged, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the accused person is guilty of the offence of corruption and  corrupt practices and his conviction therefore shall not be invalid by reason only that it is based solely on such a presumption.

In an interview with a popular TV anchor, Hussain Nawaz said, “Please do not ask unethical questions about my business secrets. I will present all the documentations related to my lawful businesses, ownership of offshore companies and London apartments whenever called by any Court”. The Supreme Court gave full opportunity to him, but he submitted documents of a dubious nature and the matter was sent to NAB for proper trial. Now, he is deliberately avoiding the trial. It proves that he was not speaking the truth in an arranged interview to preempt the disclosures coming through the Panama Leaks. It is an established fact, confirmed by the BBC, that “the Sharifs have remained the only owners of the London flats since the ‘90s”. Tim Sebastian, interviewing Hassan Sharif, younger son of Nawaz Sharif, in November 1999 also established this.

It is worth mentioning that Hussain Nawaz was also a director in the Hudabiya Paper Mills and was mentioned in the reference filed in 2000 by NAB. The judgement in Hudabiya Paper Mills Ltd and Others v Federation of Pakistan & Others 2016 PLD Lahore 667 narrates the following facts:

“From the above discussed facts, it is established that the Management of M/S Hudaibya Paper Mills Ltd. comprising of Mian Muhammad Sharif, Mrs. Shamim Akhter, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif; Mian Shahbaz Sharif; Mian Abbas Sharif, Mrs. Mariam Safdar, Mrs. Sabiha Abbas, Mian Hussain Nawaz and Mian Hamza Shahbaz Sharif was in possession of a huge illicit proceeds and it was difficult for them to explain the source of the acquisition of the same.

Hussain Nawaz failed to explain the sources of the assets acquired during the Panama Case, and is clearly avoiding trial before the Accountability Court, knowing that conviction under section 10(a) of the Ordinance will be inevitable. This section says:

“A holder of public office, or any other person who commits the offence of corruption and corrupt practices shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years and with fine and such of the assets and pecuniary resources of such holder of public office or person, as are found to be disproportionate to the known sources of his income or which are acquired by money obtained through corruption and corrupt practices whether in his name or in the name of any of his dependents, or benamidars shall be forfeited to the appropriate Government , or the concerned bank or financial institution as the case may be”.

Strangely, till today NAB has not requested the Accountability Court to invoke section 31A(a) of the NAB Ordinance for prosecution of Hussain Nawaz for avoiding the trial. This provision provides imprisonment up to three years if any person “absconds in order to avoid being served with any process issued by any Court or any other authority or officer under the NAB Ordinance or in any manner prevents, avoids or evades the service on himself of such process or conceals himself to screen himself from the proceedings or punishment…”

The filing of weak references and NAB’s other failures vis-à-vis the Mayfair properties case are shocking. It confirms that strictures passed against NAB by Supreme Court in various cases were not person-specific that is when ex-Chairman, Qamar-uz-Zaman Chaudhry was heading it. The problem is deep-rooted—it is apparently related to quality of personnel recruited or acquired from other departments—they have shown lack of skills/commitment/competence to investigate and prosecute the cases as noted by Supreme Court in its order in C.P. No. 3258 of 2017 rejecting application for condonation of delay in filing appeal in Hudabiya case, in Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & 9 Others PLD 2017 SC 265 and many other cases.

The writer, Advocate Supreme Court, is Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Email: ikram@huzaimaikram.com; Twitter: @drikramulhaq.

Published in Daily Times, January 21^st 2018.