Hassan Ayub raises important question regarding Nawaz Sharif's cases

ARY NEWS

Watch Hassan Ayub raises important question regarding Nawaz Sharif's cases - ARY NEWS on Dailymotion

Transcript

00:00 So, as of now, the money used for the foundations that were built, is there any evidence or

00:07 anything?

00:08 There were three or four things.

00:11 One thing was to prove that being a public office holder, it was a misconduct.

00:18 So, the NAB had to prove that he was a public office holder, he was the former Prime Minister

00:25 of the country, and when he had this misconduct.

00:28 So, Nawaz Sharif Sahib could not even tell us whether he was a public office holder when

00:35 the flats were acquired.

00:36 First of all, the NAB could not tell us this in its reference.

00:39 Now, listen to this.

00:40 Now, look at how weak the case was made by the NAB on merit.

00:43 It is not that the NAB did not defend its case today.

00:47 This is basically when this reference was made.

00:49 The second thing, they could not tell us that there was any nexus, that when at the time

00:54 of purchasing those properties, they did not even evaluate the properties, what was the

01:00 market value of those properties at that time.

01:01 Not today's market value, at the time of acquiring those properties, the NAB did not even tell

01:04 us this.

01:05 These are some basic parts of the reference that you make when you make a case against

01:09 the NAB.

01:10 Now, there are some parameters that you have to do on it.

01:13 After that, the bar will come on the accused that he has to prove his innocence.

01:18 Here, the NAB could not establish its case that this case is made against Nawaz Sharif

01:23 Sahib.

01:24 But despite this, you see that when NAB was asked why this case was made, he said that

01:29 we were ordered by the Supreme Court.

01:31 We have made this case.

01:32 And if this case was made on the request of the Supreme Court, then couldn't the NAB

01:36 go to the Supreme Court for a review?

01:38 The Supreme Court said that our reference is not made.

01:40 It is a very common question.

01:41 You are not looking at your decision, but the NAB did not do it at that time.

01:44 At that time, the trend was that a person had to be brought and Nawaz Sharif had to be

01:49 removed from office for him.

01:50 So, the same thing came up and how many references are made of an asset beyond means of a person?

01:54 Only one will be made.

01:55 Only one person has assets beyond means.

01:57 Supposedly.

01:58 So, they made three references.

01:59 Obviously.

02:00 Mr. Chaudhary, today Ravi is writing Chaini Chain against Hassan.

02:03 What was Ravi writing at that time?

02:05 I mean, this is a very wrong thing.

02:08 References were also made.

02:09 Then in the courts, you know, we have written.

02:11 He has spent 10 months and 26 days in jail.

02:13 Those 10 big books.

02:14 10 months and 26 days.

02:15 10 days, big books also went.

02:17 We saw that there was evidence in it.

02:20 Then I don't know, the decision of the Accounting Court also came.

02:23 Now the whole thing is happening that the decision that was made was also done in a wrong way.

02:28 Everything is this.

02:29 And the flats are still not known.

02:31 The flats are still missing.

02:32 I think you should close the NAB.

02:34 Whose flats are still missing?

02:35 They do not need.

02:36 Whose children?

02:37 Close the NAB as a resource.

02:38 If they have rights like this.

02:39 Because those properties are there, but Nawaz Sharif did not purchase those properties.

02:43 Dada gave it to his grandson.

02:44 But that means.

02:45 No, so Nawaz Sharif does not know about it.

02:47 If my grandfather gave it to my father, then it is a matter between Dada and my grandson.

02:54 There is no importance in it.

02:55 Yes, exactly.

02:56 Sir, a legal point.

02:57 If a grandson is transferred from Dada, if you give a property to your grandson, then your father.

03:02 Till date, you have not been able to prove in any court that how I bought these properties.

03:09 Why are you arguing on this?

03:10 His property will prove.

03:11 He does not have it.

03:12 First prove his property that it is Nawaz Sharif's property.

03:15 Nawaz Sharif's property is not proven.

03:16 Whose property is it?

03:17 Whose property is it?

03:18 Is it yours or mine?

03:19 Nawaz Sharif's property is not there.

03:20 That property is not in Nawaz Sharif's name.

03:23 And neither can it be proven.

03:25 I say that this NAB should be closed.

03:27 It is a burden on the treasure of the nation.

03:29 Mr. Chaudhary, if he had gone to the court with a lot of money, then what is your objection?

03:34 Because in the court, the evidence is there.

03:36 What is our objection?

03:37 Congratulations to you.

03:38 The court has to see the evidence.

03:40 When the court is not in front of the court, it is in front and behind.

03:43 Did you produce evidence that I bought this with this money?

03:48 You have to make a certain case first.

03:50 Then the evidence comes out.

03:52 When you have not made a case, then there is no bar.

03:57 The burden of proof was on NAB.

03:59 The burden of proof was not on Nawaz Sharif.

04:01 NAB was accusing you of being a thief.

04:03 They said prove the theft.

04:05 Then you proved the theft and gave a 10-year sentence.

04:07 What law is this?

04:08 Unless proven guilty, you are innocent.

04:11 And despite this, what law did you punish him for 10 years?

04:14 This is my question.

04:15 I think this is his financial...

04:18 No, no, you should have charged 5,000 rupees.

04:20 I think accountability should be done for the entire old NAB.

04:25 And if it was a case, then you were right to take it to the Supreme Court.

04:31 Sir, this was the trial that the Supreme Court was monitoring.

04:34 Have you been to Evan Fields?

04:35 No, I have not.

04:36 You have not seen it?

04:37 I have not been there. I have been to his son's office.

04:38 Have you seen Evan Fields?

04:39 No, I have not seen it.

04:40 Have you seen Hyde Park?

04:41 Yes, I have seen Hyde Park.

04:42 Have you seen the flats in front of it?

04:43 Yes, I have seen them.

04:44 They are very expensive.

04:45 Yes, they are expensive.

04:46 It is a very beautiful place.

04:47 It is a very beautiful place?

04:48 Yes, it is a very beautiful place.

04:49 Hyde Park?

04:50 Hyde Park is also a beautiful place.

04:51 There is KFC there.

04:52 I have also been to Mayfield.

04:53 I have been to all the places in London.

04:54 It has been 6 years.

04:55 I have seen Evan Fields' flat.

04:56 It is very beautiful.

04:57 I used to live in Kensington.

04:58 How much should be the price of that flat in today's date?

05:01 Sir, that case is made at the time of acquiring.

05:03 But I have not understood that.

05:04 That case has been decided.

05:05 It will be in millions.

05:06 It will be in millions of pounds.

05:07 It will be worth 2 million pounds, 1 million pounds, 3 million pounds.

05:10 I don't know.

05:11 I don't work in real estate.

05:12 But it will be very expensive.

05:13 One common question is that, I am not saying this, but the decision has been made.

05:18 There is a family, a political family.

05:21 Now, obviously, they have been a part of different governments from 70 to 80.

05:27 You don't think that this is morally appropriate.

05:32 I will talk morally.

05:33 I am not talking about legal and political.

05:36 Listen to the question, sir.

05:37 Why are you getting so emotional?

05:38 This is a court decision.

05:39 So, I have come to the moral.

05:40 No, no, not morally.

05:41 It is not that, now, the decision has been made on the side.

05:45 Our ruling family is expected to win the election.

05:53 Obviously, they have a popularity graph.

05:55 So, they should be told that, this money belongs to this family.

05:58 Whose property is this?

06:00 This property belongs to this family.

06:02 No, sir, this happened.

06:05 The same thing happened in front of people.

06:06 The people whose property is in the name, they are from the city of Britain.

06:10 And they also do their business in Britain.

06:12 Yes, they are the sons of Nawaz Sharif.

06:15 Now, if that beneficent owner was Maryam Nawaz Sharif,

06:18 then your question was valid that she is a politician in Pakistan.

06:22 You saw the full session of the National Assembly,

06:24 from which it was told that this will be passed.

06:26 Yes, I was sitting in Chaudhary Nisar's chamber that day.

06:29 You must have heard.

06:30 Yes, I was sitting with him.

06:31 Chaudhary Nisar was present in the chamber.

06:34 And there were only two people in his chamber, me and Chaudhary Nisar.

06:37 In fact, when his speech was over, I remember Chaudhary Nisar said some very historic words.

06:42 He said, "What was the need to give this speech?"

06:45 Chaudhary Nisar had a very different point of view and he was very right.

06:50 He said that you should not have sent this matter to the Supreme Court.

06:54 He said that the Prime Minister should have been presented in front of the JIT.

06:57 If the Prime Minister had not been presented,

06:59 there would have been a new debate in the JIT that the Prime Minister should be presented or not.

07:03 He was saying that this case should be dealt with in a different way

07:07 because these are being handled in an engineered way.

07:10 He had said such things.

07:12 Yes, he had made an argument.

07:14 So, he was basically an engineer.

07:16 Now, the Supreme Court says that we should not have made a reference.

07:19 The NAB says that we should not have made a reference.

07:21 It is a very important point.

07:23 The prosecution agency says that a reference was not made but we did it on the Supreme Court's order.

Category

Transcript

Recommended