LONDON: Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif has won a historic defamation case against Associated Newspapers Limited (publishers of Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online) after the paper made false allegations of corruption through a defamatory article by the reporter David Rose.
Daily Mail was advised by its lawyers in February 2021 to settle the case with Shehbaz Sharif and his son-in-law Imran Ali Yousaf with an apology and retraction of the false allegations or lose the case at the trial, it can be disclosed.
The lawyers of Associated Newspapers Limited advised the paper that there was little chance of success for the paper at the final trial after Shehbaz Sharif won the meaning hearing trial on 5th February 2021 at the London High Court’s Queens Bench Division – where Justice Mr Matthew Nicklin ruled clearly in favour of Shehbaz Sharif by giving him two chase level 1’s.
Daily Mail decided to continue delaying an apology on the assurances provided by then PTI government that it will help the paper to firm up its case, sources told this reporter.
Credible sources said Shahzad Akbar, who ran the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU), did everything in his power to run NAB and FIA cases against Shehbaz Sharif to help the case of Daily Mail but Justice Mr Nicklin senses what was going on in Pakistan and made a categorical ruling in February 2021 that the outcome of cases against Shehbaz Sharif in Pakistan – including a NAB court conviction – will have no bearings on the UK trial where the judgment will made bases on its own merit in line with what the Mail article had alleged.
It is pertinent to mention that Daily Mail, when publishing the article on 14 July 2019, had claimed that it was publishing the article based on solid evidence in its possession but later on the paper struggled to find any credible evidence in support of its allegations which have been now withdrawn and the defamatory article deleted.
At the meaning hearing trial in February 2021, the court had heard arguments from lawyers of three sides about David Rose’s defamatory article – ‘Did the family of Pakistani politician who has become the poster boy for British overseas aid STEAL funds meant for earthquake victims, asks David Rose’. The Associated Newspapers Limited had disputed the defamatory meaning and told Justice Nicklin that the meaning in the article were not defamatory. Then the courtroom was stunned when Daily Mail’s lawyer Andrew Caldecott QC accepted that the paper didn’t accuse Shehbaz Sharif of corruption.
Andrew Caldecott QC told the court that Daily Mail “concedes” that there were no money-laundering allegations against Shehbaz but his family members. The Daily Mail lawyer told the court that “actual detailed evidence against Shehbaz Sharif is pretty limited”. Admission by the Mail’s lead lawyer had come as a shock to many and indicated which direction the case would go and how Daily Mail was standing on weak grounds.
Justice Matthew Nicklin had ruled at the meaning trial that Shehbaz Sharif and his son-in-law Imran Ali Yousaf were seriously defamed by Daily Mail in the July 2019 news story by David Rose alleging that Shehbaz Sharif and Yousuf were involved in money-laundering and corruption, including misappropriating UK taxpayers’ money, in particular government aid intended for the victims of the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan.
Justice Nicklin found that Chase Level 1 applied in the case of Shehbaz Sharif which meant that Daily Mail will have to prove as a fact that Shehbaz Sharif was involved in money-laundering and theft of the aid money. The senior UK judge had said that the natural ordinary meaning taken by readers from the article is that Shehbaz Sharif was party to, and principal beneficiary of, money laundering of tens of millions of pounds which represented proceeds of embezzlement. The Daily Mail had contested before the court that the words complained of by Shehbaz Sharif were not defamatory but the judge ruled that the level of defamation to Shehbaz Sharif was Chase level 1 – the highest form of defamation in English law.
The judge went on to rule that every allegation made against Shehbaz Sharif was Chase Level 1. The judge had ruled that Ali Imran Yousaf’s defamation by Daily Mail was Chase Level 1 in one instance and Chase Level 2 in another. The judge ruled, in ordinary meaning, that the paper declared both of them guilty of corruption (Level 1 - The perception from the article would be that he is guilty. Highest level of defamation; Level 2- He may be guilty of it and there are reasonable grounds; Level 3 - He may be guilty and it requires investigation).
Justice Matthew Nicklin said the article effectively declared Shehbaz Sharif guilty in the following words: “Shehbaz Sharif was party to and the principal beneficiary of the money laundering of tens of millions of Pounds which represented the proceeds of his embezzlement whilst he was the chief minister of Punjab, of substantial sums of British public money that had been paid to the province in Department for International Development (DFID) grant aid and other corrupt payments received in the form of kickbacks or commission from government run projects.” Rejecting arguments of Daily Mail’s lawyer, Justice Nicklin ruled that an ordinary reader in Britain would have understood the meaning to be establishing that Shehbaz Sharif was involved in corruption, embezzlement in the Earthquake Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) and DFID funds as well as money-laundering.
There were sufficient reasons why Daily Mail’s lawyer became convinced that their client cannot prove a case of corruption against Shehbaz Sharif and was likely to lose. Daily Mail’s lawyer informed the judge about Sharif’s money-laundering cases and proceedings in Pakistan, in order to suggest that Shehbaz Sharif may be convicted in Pakistan but Justice Nicklin made it clear that he had read the case bundle of both sides and was aware that there were proceedings in Pakistan involving Shehbaz Sharif but he had “deliberately read nothing about proceedings in Pakistan because that’s not for me to read or know. I would rather not know what’s happening in Pakistan”.
This meant the judge told Daily Mail’s lawyer that regardless of what happens in Pakistan, Daily Mail has to prove its case in the UK as per the UK defamation laws.
Adrienne Page QC, appearing for Shehbaz Sharif, had told the judge that the Daily Mail article implicated the former chief minister Punjab Shehbaz Sharif as involved in suspected theft of UK taxpayers money. The QC said: “That was hugely damaging and shamed Sharif in the eyes of the British readers and to readers in Pakistan, a country which benefits hugely from the UK’s aid to its country. The suggestion that his administration was involved in stealing the UK’s money was a grave allegation.” Adrienne Page QC told the court that the Daily Mail article declared that Shehbaz Sharif was “guilty of corruption” and “beneficiary of the laundered money from Britain.
She asked: “Whose money has been stolen? Money laundering is a criminal misconduct but who was victimized and where is the proof? Where is the stolen money? Where is the evidence? Where’s the evidence of kickbacks and misappropriation?” Barrister Victoria Simon-Shore had appeared for Imran Ali Yousaf. She told the court that her client rejected all allegations of corruption, misuse of funds and money laundering.
The lawyer had rejected allegations by Daily Mail that Ikram Naveed was the frontman of Imran Yousaf. Justice Nicklin held that a connection with UK aid was emphasised throughout the article in all aspects and it would be very difficult for the reader to conclude how much UK money was embezzled.
The Daily Mail article had criticised the Department for International Development (DFID) praise for Shehbaz Sharif and then made the most damning allegation in categorical terms. David Rose wrote in the defamatory article: “All the time that DFID was heaping him and his government with praise and taxpayers’ cash, Shehbaz and his family were embezzling tens of millions of pounds of public money and laundering it in Britain.”
It’s this part of the article that formed the core of Justice Nicklin’s ruling that now the paper must show - nothing else, no hearsay, no allegations, no assumptions - but concrete and undeniable proofs that Shehbaz Sharif and family had embezzled “tens of millions of pounds of public money and laundering it in Britain”. The judge had said that the paper published Shahbaz’s son Suleman Sharif’s denial in a vague way which wouldn’t convince a reader that the Sharif family spokesman effectively rejected allegations of corruption, money laundering and kickbacks. Justice Matthew Nicklin had ruled that the entire article meant that Shehbaz Sharif was guilty of very specific crimes of money laundering, corruption, commission and kickbacks. Before the article was published, David Rose was provided the VIP government protocol in Pakistan. NAB and FIA under instructions of Shahzad Akbar who ran Assets Recovery Unit and was all powerful – facilitated Mr Rose by giving him access to papers, files and under-custody persons who made statements to the reporter to suit the narrative of corruption and money-laundering in the article.
For David Rose, the task was to convince Daily Mail lawyers that the so-called evidence he was shown and given by Shahzad Akbar and officials in Pakistan proved money laundering and corruption by Shehbaz Sharif. For the crucial defamation meaning trial, Mail’s lawyers not once but thrice said they didn’t have “actual” and “substantial” evidence of money laundering by Shehbaz Sharif and Ali Imran Yousaf.
Immediately after Mr Nicklin’s ruling, Shehbaz Sharif’s lawyer at Carter Ruck issued a short statement saying: “Sharif said this is the first step towards clearing my name from the Mail on Sunday’s false allegations which should never have been published.”
