00:00 Why Mr. Imran Shafiq? Who is the owner of Nielsen Escol's companies?
00:04 Look, there is a very basic thing in this.
00:06 One is its legal question and the other is a very important moral question on political grounds.
00:11 The moral aspect.
00:12 You are a politician.
00:13 Now look, this moral aspect has legal implications as well.
00:18 Now, the four flats you are telling us about,
00:23 in these flats, the entire politics of the Muslim League has been going on for the last 4-5 years.
00:28 In these flats, people have been gaining legitimacy for themselves.
00:35 In those flats, it was decided that Shabaz Sharif will be the next Prime Minister of Pakistan.
00:39 In those flats, it was decided that we will accept the act of giving extension to the Army Chief.
00:45 These were the same flats where all these decisions were being made.
00:49 And today, Mr. Mian has returned from those flats.
00:52 Now, the question that where did you get these four flats from and what were their sources,
00:59 he justified that the money trail was from Qatari.
01:06 A Dada Sahib's personality was important.
01:08 A Qatari role was very important.
01:10 But there is another aspect as well.
01:12 When institutions in our country are collecting money,
01:15 and that is basically for political engineering,
01:19 when the collection was being done, Qatari himself said that you should come to me
01:24 and I will record your statement.
01:28 He insisted that if you come to the High Commission of Pakistan and give a statement,
01:32 then we will take your statement from JIT.
01:34 JIT, along with Qatari, the investigators all over the world,
01:38 Mr. Wajid Zia, he was not the Prime Minister of Pakistan,
01:41 that you have a protocol in which you cannot go to Qatari.
01:45 One is that you have a dignitary who is calling you, you have to investigate.
01:49 You have to question him.
01:50 You come to me.
01:52 This is also a technical, legal problem, from where you can see that the case is weak.
01:57 Today, it is said that Mr. Jadoon's investigation and trial,
02:00 during both, there were no such evidences, no such testimonies,
02:04 that can connect these apartments with Mr. Mian.
02:07 So, again, these two aspects, as Mr. Imran Shafiq said,
02:11 there is a legal aspect and a moral aspect.
02:13 In the moral aspect, the question is still there.
02:15 They live in these apartments.
02:17 From there, the business of the state is conducted.
02:20 From there, the Prime Minister is made.
02:22 From there, the Cabinet goes and takes rounds and holds meetings.
02:26 Look, this is a factual thing.
02:28 You can see it in front of you, I can see it too.
02:31 You cannot deny them that we are not living in the flats,
02:34 these are not ours, they have said.
02:36 But the prosecution said, now look, the prosecution is proving that,
02:39 I am coming to the initial point, that you have made these flats,
02:42 you have made them with some corruption money,
02:44 or you have, when you bought them, you did not have that much money,
02:48 so where did you get them from?
02:50 This question, like you are saying, is a question of flats.
02:53 So, the legal question, the prosecution could not discharge it.
02:56 If, let's say, you put an allegation on someone,
02:59 that you have taken these things, these are your behind means,
03:03 your salary is 2 lakhs, and you are living in a standard of 10 lakhs,
03:08 so they were proving that you have taken this piece,
03:11 otherwise you have a salary of 2 lakhs,
03:13 so if you are living in a standard of 10 lakhs, then you can answer this.
03:16 If the initial things, the prosecution had proved that,
03:19 at that time, they had this much income,
03:21 then maybe their punishment there would have been suspended from 4 to 6.
03:24 So, this question of Neilsen Nescaul's beneficial ownership
03:27 will never be raised again,
03:29 or the question of apartments in Park Lane will never be raised again in our politics?
03:33 It is possible that if someone again puts a martial law,
03:36 then the question will be raised again.
03:38 May God bless you, sir.
03:39 Now, no one in this country knows.
03:41 See, now, everything has been settled.
03:44 Now, you saw, in front of you, this, this is the climate.
03:47 In the Flagship Bariyat, NAB was in the appeal,
03:49 they have withdrawn that appeal too.
03:51 So, NAB has raised their hands, right?
03:53 It can be done, I will tell you.
03:54 It can be done?
03:55 There was a monetary judge in this case.
03:57 Yes, absolutely, Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan.
03:59 Ejaz-ul-Ahsan, sir, he will also become the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
04:01 So, a question will be raised again at that time,
04:03 that on what grounds did NAB withdraw this case?
04:05 And at that time, the engineering will start being reversed.
04:07 So, this is not time-bound?
04:08 Because those apartments exist, it can never be withdrawn.
04:11 You remember, there was another case on Mian sir.
04:14 The Hodebia one.
04:15 Yes, Hodebia, that too Justice Faiz-ul-Ishaq sir,
04:18 he wrapped it up by time-bounding it.
04:20 Asif Sheikh Khosla sir had opened it.
04:21 He said that how did NAB investigate him,
04:24 why did they not do it again, they did not do it.
04:26 That came to Qazi Faiz-ul-Ishaq sir.
04:29 And he did a post-mortem of Hodebia paper mill and finished it.
04:32 But now this question, this question did not end on merit.
04:35 NAB said that we will not prosecute this case now.
04:38 So, it did not end on merit,
04:39 because NAB had claimed that the apartments of Nawaz Sharif,
04:41 their children's property were bought illegally.
04:46 And because the lack of money trail is still a fact,
04:49 so Mr. Jadoon, you cannot say that this is done and dusted and move on.
04:53 It can be withdrawn at any time.
04:54 No, the case of Evanfield, when the judgment will come,
04:57 we will get to know the details of the High Court.
04:58 But they decided on merit.
05:00 NAB does not have an answer to the question.
05:02 They said in court that they will put a half an hour.
05:06 They decided on merit that they have no connection with Nawaz Sharif,
05:10 which has been proven.
05:11 No, see this judgment,
05:12 the thing to be withdrawn,
05:14 it will not be withdrawn at any time.
05:15 Can this decision be challenged in the Supreme Court?
05:17 No, they have their own,
05:19 now I will tell you.
05:20 Like the Hodebia one, he said, he was up.
05:22 No, there can be no challenge.
05:24 But Supreme Court, you know,
05:26 the way the Supreme Court decisions are made in our country,
05:29 so I told you that a scenario can develop in the future
05:32 that when it is said in the case that how it was done
05:35 and then again the NAB people are asked
05:37 that why did you withdraw that prosecution at that time.
05:39 Or you say that the Supreme Court itself should withdraw.
05:41 Yes, withdraw.
05:42 So that chance can be made at any time.
05:45 Sir, because these things on record,
05:47 that when NAB said that in 1993,
05:50 Nawaz Sharif's children had no source of income on record,
05:53 after the decision of Islamabad High Court,
05:55 we saw many things in relation to the Bureau,
05:57 we saw that the father's natural upbringing of his children
06:00 is agreed upon, understood.
06:02 Therefore, the position of the accused Nawaz Sharif cannot be proven
06:05 that the children were under the care of their grandfather.
06:08 These are a lot of technical issues which will remain where they are.
06:12 No, now, listen to me, when this judgment came, the Evanfield one,
06:17 so first of all, the flaws of the trial court in this,
06:20 they said that the case of corruption is not made against them.
06:23 So tomorrow…
06:25 But then what did the judge say?
06:27 Sir, if these assumptions are there and you do not have any money trail,
06:30 then how will you say that it was made?
06:33 The judge said this, Judge Mia Gulhasan and Mubaib.
06:36 No, no, if you say that it was made…
06:38 This was a very important observation.
06:39 It was an important observation that how can you say that
06:41 it was not made by practices if there is no income.
06:43 The case of corruption is basically that there is no separate proof of corruption.
06:48 He himself raises a question while making the assertion
06:51 that where did you get this money from on the basis of which you have made this assert.
06:56 That is, there is no need to give bribe for corruption separately and take it.
07:00 There is a basic proof of it.
07:02 The basic is that where did you get it from.
07:04 If you justify it, then your case is over.
07:07 But you are saying that today this case is over,
07:10 but the question is that it is also necessary to see this,
07:14 the people of Pakistan should see this.
07:16 Now, this is in the public court, basically,
07:18 that the institutions that have been involved in this whole game,
07:22 and certainly everyone needs to calculate their own.
07:25 Today, this question should be asked to Justice Khosla sir,
07:28 and this question should also be asked to the entire bench of the Supreme Court,
07:32 that if NAB was an institution, it was not making this case,
07:36 then on what basis did you get the report of JIT,
07:39 you read that entire report.
07:41 I understand this because the five-member bench of the Supreme Court,
07:45 its basis is also clear from here,
07:48 that they did not punish Mr. Mian in this case on the basis of PANAMA.
07:52 They did not punish him on the basis of AKAMA.
07:54 That decision was so weak that you gave a complete political statement,
07:58 why did you take it out.
07:59 So, the things of PANAMA,
08:01 if JIT had taken out anything about corruption in it,
08:05 that is, they had to see that thing,
08:07 so this is a complete, but its implications are very dangerous,
08:12 But now what, Mr. Mian? Now what?
Comments