Can't connect right now! retry
Sunday Jan 24 2021

Hussain Nawaz challenges govt to furnish proof of corruption committed by Sharif family

A file photo of Hussain Nawaz.

  • Hussain Nawaz says UK arbitration court's judgment give clean chit to the Sharif family
  • Former premier's son says Broadsheet LLC found nothing illegal in investigation

LONDON: Deposed premier Nawaz Sharif's son, Hussain Nawaz, has challenged the incumbent government to show proof of corruption or illegality committed by the Sharif family before the UK or any other government in the world. 

Hussain has said that the UK arbitration court's judgment, in the case Broadsheet LLC vs the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and National Accountability Bureau, has given a "clean chit" to the Sharif family.

Hussain said the judgment, authored by Sir Anthony Evan, stated that the London asset recovery firm hired Matrix Research Limited to investigate assets of Nawaz and eight members of the Sharif family for a year soon after NAB signed a contract with Broadsheet LLC but found nothing illegal.

The former premier's son said foreign governments don't believe in the "lies" told on Pakistani media about Nawaz and his family.

Related: NAB paid $1.5m to a fake firm

On the other hand, he claimed Prime Minister Imran Khan's ministers and friends are deep down in real corruption for which proof is available, adding that there was no accountability for them. Hussain gave the example of Faisal Vawda owning 19 undeclared properties in London.

He explained that Mark Bezant and Yasir Dajani of the FTI Consulting were appointed by the anti-graft watchdog to comment on the SF forensic report on the Sharif family and matters arising out of the report of the JIT, adding that Bezant's evidence was confined to the identification and valuation of relevant assets owned by the Sharif family.

Hussain said the report led to the identification of 76 items from the JIT report that were considered potentially recoverable assets and NAB representative contended that there were four items of double-counting totaling $41m had not taken into account, further contending that liabilities of property-owning companies including mortgages were not taken into account.