JIT ‘exceeded mandate’: Sharif family challenges report in SC

ISLAMABAD: Sharif family on Monday challenged the final report of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) terming it biased and going beyond mandate and pleaded the Supreme Court to reject it.

The petition raised various objections over the JIT report for its findings without using testified documents and the sources. It also alleged biased attitude of the JIT members towards Sharif family.

The six-member JIT constituted by the apex court under April 20th verdict submitted its report on July 10 after probing the financial dealings of the Sharifs for 60 days. The report accused the family of being untruthful and having assets beyond means.

The tenth volume, dealing with the Mutual Legal Assistance correspondence, has been kept under wraps as replies are still awaited from some foreign countries to the letters written by the JIT.

The four-member legal team lead by Khwaja Haris represented Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his family. Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s counsel also challenged the JIT conclusions.

Following are some of the objections raised by the prime minister:

• JIT misused authority
• JIT Chief Wajid Zia hired services of a legal firm owned by his cousin
• Akhtar Raja, owner of legal firm, is a PTI worker in UK
• Documents sent by UK firm does not fulfill legal requirements under Section 21-G of NAB Ordinance
• ISI representative in the JIT is not an employee of the secret agency and even do not draw salary from it
• Volume 10 of JIT report should be made public, keeping it secret is dishonesty
• Facts regarding Prime Minister's personality and employment are imaginary
• Including so called evidences against PM in report is akin to assuming court's powers
• Remarks about Prime Minister shows biasness towards him
• The whole probe is biased, unfair and partial
• The investigation process is against the rules
• Proper legal formalities were not followed for acquiring documentary evidences against the accused
• The JIT report is incomplete and full of discrepancies
• Order cannot be issued on the basis of an incomplete report
• Documents acquired from abroad through illegal means
• No document notarized nor original