Articles of the year 2021

A new scandal has emerged. This time a high court Judge of the UK has fined NAB 250 crores to be paid to a company Broadsheet for not finding any wrongdoing on the part of the Sharifs.
My Lord as a Pakistani I need to understand.
Nawaz Sharif stays in Avenfield Apartments in Park Lane - the most exclusive residential neighbourhood in England where he lives with security police courtesy of her Her Majesty’s Government (HMG).
Broadsheet has asserted that they found no wrongdoing by the Sharifs. My question to the judge is - The present occupant of the flat is Nawaz Sharif a fugitive from the Pakistan High Court, yet they found no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of the Sharifs.

The Judge issued an order against the Pakistani government ordering payment to Broadsheet for proving no evidence of wrongdoing.
This is a cruel joke on the people of Pakistan. The British company declared they found no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of the Sharifs or illicit funds.
Did the company examine the ownership of the flat in Avenfield House whose occupant is a convicted felon already serving a sentence of seven years, has obtained bail on false pretences, and is now a proclaimed absconder having broken terms of that bail ?
How has the judge ignored the lavish residence of the felon or the company’s inability to bring this apartment to the notice of the judge ?
Was the judge aware of such a high profile felon ?
However, the Judge is not blind, and if the company refuses to divulge the details of the apartment on Park Lane, and the Pakistan lawyers did not point this out. Is the judge blind, can he not see the police guard posted to protect Nawaz, security provided by name to protect Nawaz Sharif by HMG.
Could the judge be unaware of these illegal actions in England.
Justice is suppose to be blind. Judges are not blind for they are required to seek the truth though it be hidden behind stone walls.

This judge ostensibly betrayed his noble profession casting serious doubts at the entire judicial system of the UK. which till now has parented judicial systems all over the world.
One judgement could dismantle centuries of legal precedents which are the cornerstone of the judicial process. If Broadsheet could not produce the link, then the company is guilty of deliberate incompetence against the people of Pakistan.

It is also obvious that the judge did not apply his mind to connect the dots and let the company escape.
A notorious absconder living the high profile life in Park Lane was not identified.
To the high court in England. This company has shown serious contempt for the British courts by not showing this evidence. We would question the judges inability to apply his mind. He may live in an ivory tower but could not ignore the widespread media attention generated by and around Nawaz Sharif.
For this the people of Pakistan need an explanation. Also the company must explain how they manage to expend two years on the Pakistan government payroll without producing any evidence of wrong doing on behalf of Nawaz Sharif.
Did they not see the police guard outside Avenfield house?
Did they submit this finding in the high court ? How was the judge unaware of these facts ?
It will appear that the British judiciary and white collar detectives have been seriously incompetent.
if this is the case then the British system needs to be over hauled and a new system put in place.
The reason that the Pakistani government applied to the British high court was the high expectancy of speedy justice.
Instead it seems that the British high court has chosen to give Nawaz Sharif a clean bill of health in spite of the evidence against him.
The judge should explainin his judgement and how the English Law,and legal system can allow a convicted felon be provided sanctuary in England the mother of the prevailing system.
How can the judge ignore the residency of the felon, who was travelling on a visa granted to him by HMG.
Was MI6 of 007 fame unaware that a high profile felon was crossing international borders, violating the delicate linkage that should exist between two brother commonwealth countries.
Pakistanis cannot understand how English lawyers can defend an English company claiming it found no obvious of the wrongdoing by Sharifs in London.
Surely when this company offered to hunt for and identify the illicit funds, they must have professed their expertise in this field.

If they failed to do so then not only were they in breach of their original claim of being successful sleuths in such white collar crimes, which are notoriously difficult to unearth but whose successful discovery and recovery must have been backed by slick presentations to an audience taken in by blonde hair and Oxford accents and the correctness thus signified.
These poor simple Pakistanis may have been duped by the presentation and are perplexed by the inability of this company for obtaining the contract from the Pakistani government the presentation must have been very slick and complete with examples of recovered wealth to successful cases.
Did the judge not query the references to Broadsheet on the reasons for award of this contract.
If indeed a rosy picture with a high success rate was painted to the Pakistani government then the company has failed in its contractual obligation which was the unearthing and return of illicit funds.
Surely this was the sole intent of the exercise. Has the Pakistani Government been duped by a company claiming a high success in unearthing illicit funds.
The people of Pakistan are at a loss to understand how the judge did not enquire how the company was given the contract.
They must have produced glowing references of their successes before they could have been entertained. Did the judge ask for these references?

The Pakistani government had in fact appointed this company without an extensive background check.
The Judge should have enquired into the manner in which the contract to trace the funds was given.
This is a question that is at the heart of the problem. Why and on what grounds was the contract given.
The judge should have examined the grounds on which the contract was given. If no promises of recovery were made then jail sentences are in order.
If promises of recovery were made, the Judge should have enquired into non performance of this clause.
After all the aim was the recovery of the illicit funds. Otherwise in English it is called a wild goose chase.
We Pakistanis are not given to chasing wild geese blonde hair and Oxford accents not with standing.