Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Accountability, Shahzad Akbar has claimed that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) president Shahbaz Sharif did not initiate a case against British publication the 'The Mail on Sunday' and online news site 'Mail Online' about a story published on July 14. "If former chief minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif does not appear before the court then I will personally take this issue to the court. The publication published only five percent of the case while 95 percent is left. I will present all documentary evidence in the court," Shahzad Akbar expressed these views while addressing a news conference, here on Sunday.
He said Shahbaz Sharif had issued a formal legal complaint against the publication and had deemed the 'gravely defamatory' news report to be part of a politically motivated campaign against him. Shahzad Akbar alleged that in money laundering worth billions of rupees the British land was used and the journalist, David Rose, who filed the story, is standing firm by it. He also shared his (Rose's) tweet dated July 26.
According to David Rose's tweet, "I'm only going to make one comment on Shahbaz Sharif's recent statements. He complains the earthquake was in 2005, before he became CM. But according to evidence already aired in a Pakistani court, the alleged thefts from the quake relief fund were in 2009 and 2011." The UK newspaper, the 'Mail on Sunday' had published an investigative story alleging that ex-chief minister of Punjab Shahbaz Sharif had stolen funds from the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) meant as aid for earthquake victims in Pakistan.
Special Assistant to the Prime Minister Shahzad Akbar claimed that the complaint issued via London-based legal firm Carter-Ruck Solicitors, neither did refute any specific allegation made against Sharif, nor did it say that a case has been filed against the publication. He said, "They complained to The Mail on Sunday saying, [...] 'we are thinking of filing a case against you.' This is not a lawsuit. Going to court is [initiating a lawsuit]." He said that although the complaint stated that the story did not include Sharif's version, it included his son's version and his office had also been contacted.
He said the complaint stated that reporting the story had not been in the public interest. "How was it not in public interest?" Akbar asked, adding that this statement requires clarification. Shahzad said nowhere in the four-page complaint were the allegations in the article denied. "Not one word in the story [was] refuted," he asserted.
"According to Sharif's own law firm, no case has been initiated [against the British publication] as yet," he said, Akbar asked "If Shahbaz Sharif is right, why does he not go to court?" Akbar asked. Shahzad Akbar also challenged Shahbaz Sharif to make his letter of complaint public despite its status as privileged communication. He said, "In a London court, I will produce evidence of every TT (telegraphic transfer) made by you; how kickbacks were sent from here; how money was transferred through hundi and hawala."
The special assistant said, "Shahbaz Sharif should send notice to me. I have packed my suitcase and I'm ready to appear in court in London, where you likely won't go, and I will stand there and speak the truth about what you've done." He said Sharif had vowed to take him to court after publication of the report. "Now, Sharif should not back away from his promise of filing a case against him," he added.