Mr. Speaker, the famous 1993 contract through which the Prime Minister claimed he had got rid of his shares has finally been released. There is no clause indicating that, even in the event of non-payment, the Prime Minister could not resume ownership of his shares, unless he had endorsed the share certificates.
Why has the ethics counsellor stated that the Prime Minister absolutely could not take back his shares in the event of non-payment, while it appears obvious that he did not endorse his certificates, thus completing the transfer?