Will_Bite
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Im less than halfway through the report....and the report literally massacres Sharif's so called defense. Just a sample of the judges words...
Is this what patwaris are calling 'surkhurooi'? Perhaps they need to go back to school and learn what 'surkhuroo' means.
82. On account of the facts mentioned above I have entertainedserious doubts about the claim of respondent No. 1 and his familythat the relevant properties in London had legitimately andlawfully been acquired by them through the resources and fundsstated by them and such doubts have been compounded by someinterviews given by them to the local and international print andelectronic media. The authenticity of the reports regarding suchinterviews has never been denied by the persons giving theinterviews nor the learned counsel for the respondents havecontested the same when specifically asked by the Court.
83. A chart reproduced below highlights the seriouscontradictions in the stands taken by respondent No. 1 and his Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016,Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &Constitution Petition No. 03 of 201788immediate family from time to time in the matter of acquisition ofthe relevant four properties in London which contradictions mayreflect upon their lack of honesty on the issue:
The facts mentioned above are neither disputed nor intricate. Thematerial referred to above is not controverted by respondent No. 1or his children and the same material is in fact also relied upon bythe petitioners. None of the parties has asked us to record anyevidence or to call for any evidence. No detailed assessment ofsuch material is required because the material speaks for itself.Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Even a layman canappreciate, and one does not have to be a lawman to conclude,that what had been told to the nation, the National Assembly oreven this Court about how the relevant properties in London hadbeen acquired was not the truth. A pedestrian in Pakistan Chowk,Dera Ghazi Khan (a counterpart of Lord Dennings man on theClapham omnibus) may not have any difficulty in reaching thatconclusion. However, that is not all as much more is still to follow.
86. The above mentioned statement from Qatar has multipleother problems with it as well. It is obvious from that statementitself that the maker of the statement did not have personalknowledge of most of the critical things stated therein and even forthe remaining things stated he was evasive at best. He had failedto disclose how the requisite funds were transferred by respondentNo. 1s father from Dubai to Qatar. He had not referred to any dateor place of the transactions mentioned. He had failed to stateabout any document executed in furtherance of such transactionsand he had also omitted to mention as to how the relevant fundswere dealt with.
The history of his independent business brought on the record ofthis case starts in the year 2001 and it appears that he might haveconcealed his business and income between the years 1994 and2001. Respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif hadstated in his interview referred to above that his brother Mr.Hassan Nawaz Sharif was doing business in England since theyear 1995. Their father namely Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,respondent No. 1, had stated in his first address to the nation onApril 05, 2016 that the proceeds of sale of the factory in Jeddah inJune 2005 had been utilized for setting up of his sons business.Was respondent No. 1 being honest when he said that his sons setup their business in the year 2005?
90. It is of significance to mention here that in his speechesmade before the nation and in the National Assembly respondentNo. 1 had never stated in black and white that he had nothing to do with ownership of the two offshore companies or the relevantproperties in London. However, in his concise statementssubmitted by respondent No. 1 before this Court it had been soasserted and his learned counsel argued before us with vehemencethat the said respondent was neither a Director, share holder or abeneficial owner of the relevant offshore companies nor had he anyconnection with ownership of the relevant properties. I note thatthe varying assertions of the children of respondent No. 1regarding the said companies and properties have remainedwithout any support from any record of those companies andproperties. No record has been produced by them to establish thatMr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif had become the owner of thosecompanies and properties in the year 2006.
91. It has already been observed by me above that in hisspeeches made before the nation and in the National Assemblyrespondent No. 1 had never stated in black and white that he hadnothing to do with ownership of the two offshore companies or therelevant properties in London. In his speeches and the concisestatements respondent No. 1 had also failed to take a specific andcategorical stand that his children, or one of them, had acquiredthose properties through their/his own funds. Nothing has beenproduced before this Court to show or establish that respondentNo. 1s children, or any of them, were/was in a position topurchase the said expensive properties in the year 2006 as noproof whatsoever has been produced about their businesses orfinancial conditions at that stage.
Is this what patwaris are calling 'surkhurooi'? Perhaps they need to go back to school and learn what 'surkhuroo' means.
82. On account of the facts mentioned above I have entertainedserious doubts about the claim of respondent No. 1 and his familythat the relevant properties in London had legitimately andlawfully been acquired by them through the resources and fundsstated by them and such doubts have been compounded by someinterviews given by them to the local and international print andelectronic media. The authenticity of the reports regarding suchinterviews has never been denied by the persons giving theinterviews nor the learned counsel for the respondents havecontested the same when specifically asked by the Court.
83. A chart reproduced below highlights the seriouscontradictions in the stands taken by respondent No. 1 and his Constitution Petition No. 29 of 2016,Constitution Petition No. 30 of 2016 &Constitution Petition No. 03 of 201788immediate family from time to time in the matter of acquisition ofthe relevant four properties in London which contradictions mayreflect upon their lack of honesty on the issue:
The facts mentioned above are neither disputed nor intricate. Thematerial referred to above is not controverted by respondent No. 1or his children and the same material is in fact also relied upon bythe petitioners. None of the parties has asked us to record anyevidence or to call for any evidence. No detailed assessment ofsuch material is required because the material speaks for itself.Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Even a layman canappreciate, and one does not have to be a lawman to conclude,that what had been told to the nation, the National Assembly oreven this Court about how the relevant properties in London hadbeen acquired was not the truth. A pedestrian in Pakistan Chowk,Dera Ghazi Khan (a counterpart of Lord Dennings man on theClapham omnibus) may not have any difficulty in reaching thatconclusion. However, that is not all as much more is still to follow.
86. The above mentioned statement from Qatar has multipleother problems with it as well. It is obvious from that statementitself that the maker of the statement did not have personalknowledge of most of the critical things stated therein and even forthe remaining things stated he was evasive at best. He had failedto disclose how the requisite funds were transferred by respondentNo. 1s father from Dubai to Qatar. He had not referred to any dateor place of the transactions mentioned. He had failed to stateabout any document executed in furtherance of such transactionsand he had also omitted to mention as to how the relevant fundswere dealt with.
The history of his independent business brought on the record ofthis case starts in the year 2001 and it appears that he might haveconcealed his business and income between the years 1994 and2001. Respondent No. 7 namely Mr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif hadstated in his interview referred to above that his brother Mr.Hassan Nawaz Sharif was doing business in England since theyear 1995. Their father namely Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif,respondent No. 1, had stated in his first address to the nation onApril 05, 2016 that the proceeds of sale of the factory in Jeddah inJune 2005 had been utilized for setting up of his sons business.Was respondent No. 1 being honest when he said that his sons setup their business in the year 2005?
90. It is of significance to mention here that in his speechesmade before the nation and in the National Assembly respondentNo. 1 had never stated in black and white that he had nothing to do with ownership of the two offshore companies or the relevantproperties in London. However, in his concise statementssubmitted by respondent No. 1 before this Court it had been soasserted and his learned counsel argued before us with vehemencethat the said respondent was neither a Director, share holder or abeneficial owner of the relevant offshore companies nor had he anyconnection with ownership of the relevant properties. I note thatthe varying assertions of the children of respondent No. 1regarding the said companies and properties have remainedwithout any support from any record of those companies andproperties. No record has been produced by them to establish thatMr. Hussain Nawaz Sharif had become the owner of thosecompanies and properties in the year 2006.
91. It has already been observed by me above that in hisspeeches made before the nation and in the National Assemblyrespondent No. 1 had never stated in black and white that he hadnothing to do with ownership of the two offshore companies or therelevant properties in London. In his speeches and the concisestatements respondent No. 1 had also failed to take a specific andcategorical stand that his children, or one of them, had acquiredthose properties through their/his own funds. Nothing has beenproduced before this Court to show or establish that respondentNo. 1s children, or any of them, were/was in a position topurchase the said expensive properties in the year 2006 as noproof whatsoever has been produced about their businesses orfinancial conditions at that stage.
Last edited by a moderator:
