Rana Shamim is in
‘direct contact’ with
Nawaz Sharif; says son


ISLAMABAD: Former chief justice of Gilgit-Baltistan Justice (retd) Rana Shamim is in direct contact with PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif, claimed Shamim’s son, Ahmed Hassan Rana.

Ahmed Hassan Rana

Speaking on Geo News, Dawn and ARY TV channels Supreme Court’s Advocate Ahmed Hassan Rana said that his father has had long-standing relations with Nawaz Sharif and that he had been the vice president of PML-N Sindh’s lawyer wing. He said his father was Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer in the Memogate scandal case.

Replying to a question, Ahmed said that he was serving as the Punjab assistant advocate-general when Nawaz Sharif was taken into custody, adding that he himself met the PML-N supremo in jail. “My father had met Nawaz Sharif in London before [the] coronavirus pandemic,” he said.

The IHC did not pass orders in the case, Ahmed said, adding that the court just issued its observation. He maintained that his father will appear before court on November 26.

Replying to another query, Ahmed vowed to take legal action against Faisal Vawda for using derogatory language against his father.

According to Ahmed Hassan Rana, the son as well as lawyer of the former GB top judge, his father has remained “in direct touch” with Nawaz and even met the PML-N supremo in England before the pandemic.

Rana acknowledged that Justice Shamim had also served as the vice-president of PML-N Sindh in the past and was Nawaz’s lawyer in the Memogate scandal case.

During his appearance on Geo TV, Advocate Rana, while refusing to answer any questions on his father’s behalf, said he himself was serving as the Punjab assistant advocate general at the time of Nawaz’s arrest in 2018 and also met the PML-N leader in jail.

He said his father had last met Nawaz while visiting the UK before the coronavirus pandemic struck.

“[Shamim] has remained [Nawaz’s] lawyer so the two have relations. They have direct relations,” Rana said.

During the live programme, Rana appeared to take Justice Shamim live on a call to ask him about his meeting with Nawaz, but told Khanzada that his father had responded with “no comments”.

Rana Shamim-Nawaz Sharif

However, he read out a text from Shamim in which the former judge stated that he had not released the affidavit in question to any journalist, and that it may have been “leaked” from the office of the notary public in London who attested the document.

While answering a question, Rana said his father would appear before the IHC on November 26, when the next hearing of the matter will be held.

‘Have not seen the affidavit’

Appearing on ARY News  Advocate Rana told anchor Kashif Abbasi that he was not aware that his father would make the statement about Nisar while visiting London — where the affidavit in question was notarised — adding that he had not seen the actual affidavit, and only saw pictures of it.

“I was made aware of this for the first time by [journalist] Matiullah Jan yesterday,” he added. When asked why was it notarised in London, Rana said “no comments”.

Rana said a “special” Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should be constituted to resolve the matter because it involved the former chief justices of Pakistan as well as GB, but declined to answer why Justice Shamim did not submit his affidavit to the top legal body.

Regarding the timing of the affidavit, Rana said he was not aware of the details and had yet to discuss this with his father as his lawyer.

Reacting to Rana’s comments, PML-N leader Musaddik Malik on the ARY show said he found them to be “interesting and funny”. He declined to comment on the loopholes in the matter, saying Rana had to answer for himself in the IHC.

But when seen in the “larger context”, he said, ex-IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and former accountability judge Arshad Malik too had pointed to similar issues (regarding judicial interference).

Earlier in the day, during the IHC hearing, Justice Minallah had pointed out that if another judge spoke like this [as Justice Nisar in the affidavit] in front of him, he would have gotten in touch with the SJC.

“A person witnesses the CJP asking someone to commit a crime. The person stays silent for three years and an affidavit concerning the incident surfaces. How can a newspaper publish such a document?” he had asked.