LONDON: Former Punjab chief minister Shahbaz Sharif has complained that “defamatory article” in the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online caused “serious harm” to his “personal and professional reputation” and he was left with no option but to seek justice from the court, according to the claim form submitted at the London High Court. According to court papers obtained by The News and Geo, Shahbaz Sharif has paid £10,528 in court fees but he has not specified how much he is seeking in legal damages and legal fees from the defendant Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Sharif’s claim against the ANL at the High Court of Justice now awaits listing for a trial and The News and Geo have obtained a copy of the particulars of claim, issued on 29 January, which shows that Sharif is claiming damages, including aggravated damages, for libel in various parts of the article published on July 14, 2019.
Sharif’s lawyer has stated in the court papers that the article by David Rose “conveyed the defamatory imputation that the Claimant is guilty, or that there are very strong grounds to suspect that the Claimant is guilty, of the embezzlement of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money while Chief Minister of the Punjab, all or most of the stolen money being British public money in the form of DFID aid to the province, and using Britain to launder the stolen money, thereby cruelly depriving vulnerable victims of poverty and natural disasters, including in particular the victims of the devastating 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, of the vital aid and healthcare that the DFID money was intended to provide”.
Sharif’s claim makes a tweet by Shahid Mursaleen, Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri’s London-based aide, as well as PM Imran Khan’s aide Zulfi Bukhari’s tweet part of his claim. Sharif has told the court that despite extremely serious allegations he was not approached for comments prior to the publication. “Neither the Claimant himself, his office, his personal secretary Murad Khan, or his officially designated Director, Muhib Ali Phulpoto, were approached at all.
“Instead the Defendant’s efforts consisted of its journalist David Rose sending a text message on Friday 12 July 2019, just 2 days before publication, not to the Claimant, but to his son Suleman Sharif, indicating that he wished to speak with him about the proposed article. Mr Suleman Sharif told him that he was not in London and wished to meet in person to discuss the proposed article. Despite there being nothing urgent about the story whatsoever, Mr Rose said that there was no time and that the story would be published on Sunday in any event.”
Sharif says the newspaper did not give him any chance or he could have made clear that the allegations were “completely untrue, and demonstrated various significant matters indicating their falsity, such as that the 2005 earthquake did not affect Punjab; that at the time it took place the Claimant was not Chief Minister of Punjab but was living in England; and that the funds paid by DFID in respect of the earthquake were under the control of the Federal Government (via the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority) and not the provincial government of Punjab in any event; and that on first learning of the suspected theft by Ikram Naveed from ERRA, he instigated an investigation and, following the investigation being taken over by the Federal Government of Pakistan, ensured their prosecution of Naveed; and oversaw the recovery of stolen money, which included money lost in a commercial transaction in which his son in-law, Ali Imran, was innocently involved”.
The claim submitted by Carter Ruck says that the ANL publications did not accommodate the version given by Suleman Sharif that “the allegations were the product of the political witch hunt being carried out by Imran Khan and his government against his opponents”.
Sharif has asked the court to issue an injunction restraining the ANL from further publishing; award damages, including aggravated damages, for libel; and an order that the Defendant publish a summary of the Court’s judgment.
Daily Mail journalist David Rose has previously maintained that he stands by all allegations made in the article. When contacted on Monday, Mr Rose said he will not comment on the issue as the matter is in the court.