Nawaz Sharif says not allowed to come out of barrack in jail
LAHORE (92 News) – Former premier Nawaz Sharif, who has been sentenced to seven years in the Al-Azizia reference, has said that he is not allowed to come out of the barrack.
During a meeting with the PML-N leaders in Kot Lakhpat Jail on Thursday, he said: “Put the country on the way to progress and constructed the Motorway. Is this reward for my service? Where he had left the country? The economy is in a shambles.”
However, police officials sympathized with him and said they provide him security as he had been the prime minister.
PML-N leaders, including Sindh former governor Muhammad Zubair, Zahid Hamid, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, Rana Tanveer Hussain, Saira Afzal Tarar, Khurram Dastagir, Qamar-ul-Zaman Khan, Mian Marghoob, Rohail Asghar and others met the former prime minister on Thursday.
Nawaz Sharif is undergoing imprisonment after being convicted in Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference on December 24.
Al-Azizia reference details
Hussain Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister’s elder son, claims that he received a sum of $5.4 million from his grandfather to establish the steel conglomerate in Saudi Arabia. The payment was made by a Qatari royal on the request of the elder Sharif. Thereafter, scrap machinery was transported from their Ahli Steel Mills in Dubai to Jeddah to establish Al-Azizia in 2001.
The JIT constituted to investigate the graft allegations insisted that the real owner of the mills was Nawaz Sharif, and it was being operated by his son on his behalf. Hussain was 29-years-old at the time. The JIT also held that Nawaz Sharif received 97 per cent profit as ‘gifts’ from Hill Metals Establishment, another company established by Hussain Nawaz Sharif in 2005, in Saudi Arabia.
Of the amount, Nawaz Sharif transferred 77 percent to his daughter, Maryam Nawaz Sharif. (Maryam is not accused in this reference). Here as well, the NAB claims that since Sharif received a large profit from Hussain’s companies, he is the real owner and not his son. However, during the proceedings the NAB could not substantiate its claim through documentary evidences and instead placed the burden of proof on the accused.