FAZAL SHER

ISLAMABAD: A key prosecution witness on Monday testified before the Accountability Court that as per the response of mutual legal assistance (MLA) request received from the UAE authority, the sale agreement of 25 percent shares of Ahli Steel Mills does not exist and a fabricated document had been produced before the apex court by the Sharif family.

Wajid Zia, key prosecution witness and head of joint investigation team (JIT) that probed the Panama Papers case, while recording his statement in the Al-Azizia Steel and Hill Metals Establishment reference before the Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir said that as per the MLA response received from the UAE, the sale agreement of 25 percent shares of Ahli Steel Mills, erstwhile Gulf Steel Mills, dated April 14, 1980 does not exist; b) no transaction of AED12 million as sale proceeds of 25 percent shares of Ahli Steel Mill ever took place in the name of Tariq Shafi and; c) no record could be found to indicate that notarization of this document was ever done by the notary public on May 30, 2016.

The witness said that on the basis of this evidence, the JIT concluded that false and fabricated document had been produced by accused Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz before the Supreme Court.

He said the only document produced by the accused Hassan and Hussain Nawaz to answer how the Avenfield properties were acquired and how the business was set up turned out to be fake. The witness said that the MLA response also stated that after checking the Dubai customs record, it was found that no transportation of scarp machinery of Ahli Steel Mills from Dubai to Jeddah in the years 2001 to 2002 had taken place. The document produced by the accused showed that transportation was done on two trucks, he said. However, Hussain Nawaz in his statement before the JIT stated that this machinery was transported through 50 to 60 trucks approximately for establishment of Al-Azizia Steel Mills in Saudi Arabia, he said.

Zia said that the JIT concluded that the accused misstated about the transportation of the machinery. It was also stated in the MLA response that no bank record of payment of AED12 million from Ahli to Tariq Shafi, as sale proceeds of 25 percent shares, could be found despite search in the central bank of the UAE, he said.

He said that another question related to settlement of liabilities was also investigated. The sale share agreement of 1978 of 75 shares of Gulf Steel Mills showed liabilities to the tune of AED14 million which was the responsibility of Tariq Shafi to settle and this included an amount of about AED7 million which was owed to the defunct BCCI.

He said that Tariq Shafi and all accused of the case could not provide any explanation as to how these liabilities were cleared.

The witness said that Tariq Shafi, however, obtained a further loan on a new bank account from 1986 to 1987. The response of MLA from the UAE also provided a sentencing order against Shafi for defaulting on this loan, he said, adding that opening of a new account with the said BCCI in 1986 clearly showed that these liabilities were settled between 1980 and 1986. The JIT concluded that the sale proceeds of Gulf Steel Mills never reached Jeddah, Qatar or the United Kingdom, he said.

He said that Maryam Safdar, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz submitted along with their application two letters of Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani before the Supreme Court. They also submitted another document - work sheet – stating that four payments to Hussain Nawaz were made between 2001 and 2004 for establishment of a company in the UK, he said.

The witness said that neither was any documentary evidence provided to support the transaction made between 2001 and 2004 nor was produced any banking record to the JIT. Maryam Safdar and accused Hussain and Hassan stated before the JIT that they had never received amount from Qatari royal prince at all. The work sheet also showed an expense of $8 million paid for Al-Tawfiq settlement in 2000, he said. “No documentary evidence of the said transaction by the Qatari prince was provided,” he added.

The witness said that another set of transactions was shown in the worksheet for the transaction of $5.4 million provided for the Al-Azizia Steel Mills to Hussain Nawaz from 2001 to 2003. He said that again no document of banking transaction to support this contention was provided to the JIT. The JIT has also answered the question raised by the Supreme Court whether the appearance of the letter was a reality or a myth.

He said that the JIT contended that the spreadsheet had been crafted to artificially connect the dots in the money trail and that the letter was a myth.

Zia further said that the JIT made efforts to record the statement of Hamad Bin Jasim. He, however, used delaying tactics by first refusing to record the statement and then agreeing and asking for date, and later raising legal issues and refusing to accept the jurisdiction of Pakistani court and asking assurance from the JIT that he would not be required to appear in a court.

“In the light of evidence collected by the JIT through MLA request received from the UAE, the question of significance of the statement of Prince Hamad was assessed to be inconsequential,” he said. He said that according to the application submitted by the accused Hussain, Mian Muhammad Sharif, the father of Nawaz Sharif, arranged a sum of $ 5.4 million for accused Hassan Nawaz to set up Al-Azizia Steel Mills in Saudi Arabia. This payment was made by the Qatari royal family on the request of Mian Sharif, he said.

The witness said that it was contended that borrowing from financial institutions was used as equity for setting up of Al-Azizia Steel Mills which was sold in March 28, 2005 for a consideration of Saudi Riyal 63 million. The accused Hussain in his statement before the JIT, however, conceded that there were three shareholders – himself, Rabia, the daughter of Shahbaz Sharif and Abbas Sharif, he said. The witness said that accused Nawaz Sharif during his statement spoke about three share holders, adding that the desire of his father for equitable distribution of business interests in the family can be seen through his distribution. The sale proceeds were distributed among the share holders, he said.

Zia said that accused Hussain Nawaz, however, could not provide any documentary evidence like a memorandum to show share holding and final investment loan despite repeated requests. Similarly, no bank transaction for any other record for receiving the amount of $5.4 million from the Qatari family was produced. The witness said it was claimed that Saudi Riyal 63 million provided equity for subsequently establishment of Hill Metals Establishment.

The witness said that Hussain Nawaz could not explain if there had been three share holders of the company then how he became the sole beneficiary of Hill Metals Establishment. Hussain adopted the stance that he got the power of attorney from other share holders but when he was asked to produce that document, he could not produce it before the JIT.

“Hussain was also unable to provide any document to substantiate that he also got loans from friends for investment,” he said. The JIT concluded that Hussain’s share from the sale was reduced to only Saudi Riyal 14 million, being one-third of the sale proceeds of Riyal 42 million.