Defamation against Daily Mail: UK lawyer says Shehbaz Sharif won on his terms, condition

LONDON: A UK lawyer who has been removed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf from the senior party position for representing Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s son-in-law Imran Ali Yousaf in a defamation case against Daily Mail has said the result of the Shehbaz, son in law libel case is exactly what they wanted when they initiated proceedings against the paper for publishing a false and defamatory story by reporter David Rose.

Barrister Waheed Ur Rehman Mian said the successful out-of-court settlement – apology and removal of the defamatory article - is “exactly in line with what the clients (Shehbaz Sharif and Imran Ali Yousaf) wanted in their defamation claims. They had repeatedly stressed that the Daily Mail news is fake and baseless nad they had nothing to do with corruption.

They wanted the false news, of alleged corruption in the Department For International Development (DFID) aid grant to Pakistan, to be removed. Before going to the trial, Daily Mail started negotiation and settled the case as per the instructions of the clients”.

Rehman said he agreed to represent Imran Ali Yousaf after being fully satisfied with evidence that allegations made by David Rose that Ikram Naveed was the frontman of Imran Ali Yousaf were bogus and false.

The barrister said there is no doubt that Ikram Naveed, who was a senior executive of the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA), was involved in corruption but Imran Ali Yousaf had nothing to do with him and Yousaf only did genuine business transaction with him. He said: “there were over 40 developers who did business with Ikram Naveed, Imran Ali Yousaf was one of them. NAB investigated the case and returned the money of all investors but singled out only Imran Ali Yousaf for victimisation.

“We asked Imran Ali Yousaf for proof, full NAB record, banking trail, proof of purchase of assets and companies. He is satisfied us with everything and we filed a claim on his behalf. He said Daily Mail and David Rose had nothing to defend Imran’s claim and they made excuses when asked to present evidence of embezzlement.

At the time of publishing the defamatory article on July 14 2019, Daily Mail had said it had every evidence in support of its claim but Barrister Waheed said that Daily Mail asked for nine extensions. “Daily Mail said it needed time because it wanted to interview over 100 witnesses in Pakistan and then Covid started.

After travel restrictions were over, direction hearings started and a trial date for October was set. Negotiations for an apology were going on behind the scenes throughout,” said the lawyer. Barrister Waheed said he knew the risks of representing Imran Ali Yousaf as he was a senior PTI leader in the UK and had therefore set high standards of proof. He said: “I cannot comment on Shahbaz Sharif’s case as we didn’t represent him but we demanded from Daily Mail every evidence against Imran Ali Yousaf; we cross-examined them and we asked for facts but Daily Mail had nothing other than mere allegations.

”Barrister Waheed said that the PTI leadership was aware he was representing Imran Ali Yousaf and he personally informed Imran Khan when taking up the case and the former prime minister had no issue with it. It’s only after Shahbaz Shehbaz Sharif and Imran Ali Yousaf won against Daily Mail that the PTI leadership saw their narrative being damaged and the conflict of interest exposed. “I dealt with this case as a professional lawyer. But despite knowing his advocacy of the prime minister’s son-in-law, I was removed from the party position only after the Daily Mail apologised.”Barrister Waheed said that Imran Ali Yousaf’s case was so strong against Daily Mail that “we advised him not to settle out of court and not be in a rush because we knew he will win at the trial but in the large picture he decided to settle the case as the other party (Shehbaz Sharif) had decided to settle the case with an apology and removal of the article. We had advised Imran Yousaf that we shouldn’t negotiate and go for the trial”.

He said Daily Mail apologised after being advised by its lawyers that if the case goes to trial the paper will lose. “They started long negotiations acting on the advice of their lawyers which have been going on for quite some time.” During negotiations, they made an “offer to apologise within the first year (2020) after we filed the case. Daily Mail had started negotiations to apologise even before filing the defence (in February 2022).”Shehbaz Sharif’s lawyers at Carter Ruck have said that Daily Mail had stopped defending the defamatory article by David Rose and didn’t even seek to defend the allegation of corruption when filing the defence in February this year.Initially, Imran Ali Yousaf rejected the offers of apology from the Daily Mail around mid-2020. “There was then a second and third offer and our client accepted the fourth offer along with Shahbaz Sharif and a settlement was made”.

The lawyer confirmed that offers to apologise were made when PTI was in power in Pakistan.Barrister Waheed said that it had become clear to Daily Mail in February 2019 that it cannot defend the claim when Justice Nicklin ruled the trial in favour of Shehbaz Sharif and Imran Ali Yousaf and added that it wouldn’t matter what decisions NAB courts in Pakistan make and that the case in the UK will be decided as per merit and English law.Following his victory in the case, Barrister Waheed Ur Rehman Mian informed the party leadership that he was ready to step away from his role if required.

“I informed the party that if my professional role as a lawyer in the UK is seen as in conflict with the party policy and if it’s damaging the party’s narrative then the party should consider relieving me of my duties.