close
Thursday March 28, 2024

Dar’s counsel, NAB prosecutor exchange harsh words

By Faisal Kamal Pasha
October 17, 2017

ISLAMABAD: Khawaja Haris, counsel for Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, on Monday completed cross-examination of a prosecution witness and pointed out discrepancies in his statement and documents he produced before NAB and the accountability court.

He accused the witness – Al-Baraka Islamic Bank assistant vice-president Tariq Javed – of misstatement at which the prosecution protested. Haris said there were discrepancies in the bank statement of accounts and its details, besides some documents were also missing. The court questioned the importance of discrepancies to which Haris referred to [Section] 265-K. Under Section 265-K, an accused could be exonerated of the charges due to insufficient evidence.

During cross-examination, Haris and NAB prosecutor Imran Shafique cross-talked on several occasions. The NAB prosecutor was objecting over cross-examination, claiming that Khawaja Haris was posing irrelevant questions. Imran argued that under the law of evidence, the contents of documents were only for the court to examine and could not come under discussion during cross-examination.

After continuous interruptions, Haris, at one point of time, addressing the NAB prosecutor, said “you have lost all respect in my eyes”. At this, Imran said, “You don’t even want us here inside the court. At the last hearing, we were also pushed out.”

Haris on Monday was assisted by two of his junior counsels Ayesha Hamid and Qusain Faisal Mufti. Ayesha kept pointing out discrepancies in the documents and kept telling her senior counsel. The court duly noted it and remarked that “all questions are coming from your junior counsel”.

At the start of proceedings, Dar sought exemption from appearing in person as he had to attend a joint meeting of the Cabinet and Revenue Division, but the court turned down his

 

 request. The NAB prosecutor vehemently opposed exemption, saying that under the law, presence of the accused was mandatory during recording of evidence. “Such applications will be filed on every date of hearing. Nothing is important than appearing before the court and exemption could only be granted either on medical grounds or any unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of human beings,” he added.

Standing behind Haris, Federal Minister for Privatisation Daniyal Aziz then mumbled ‘back pain’. Earlier, talking to the media he had said, “We could also get exemptions on the pretext of back pain but we are appearing before the court.”

During the last hearing, Tariq could not produce the email his organisation had received from NAB, seeking information regarding the bank accounts of Dar and his wife. On Monday, he produced that email which came from the bank’s head office in Karachi from Masroor Hussain to the branch manager Mohsin Amjad. The defence counsel asked the witness that “your bank received a letter from NAB on August 16, where is that letter?”

The prosecution pointed out that the letter was attached with the reference. The prosecution witness told the court that they on August 16 had received a letter from NAB to which they had replied on the same day. The Lahore branch had traced the bank account of Tabassum Ishaq Dar and it informed the head office that the account opening form of Tabassum and her CNIC had been found. Haris said there was no mention of the NAB letter in the correspondence. At which the witness said that it was mentioned in the subject. The defence counsel pointed out that “the time mentioned in email is 12:45pm, while the letter you received through fax shows 14:05pm.” The witness said he did not know about this. Haris said there are discrepancies in the NAB letter and the email produced before the court.

Just like the previous two prosecution witnesses, Tariq also admitted that the documents he submitted before the court were neither prepared by him nor he had filled up the contents and did not even sign those. He even said that he had not examined those documents in detail and only noted important contents.

Haris, addressing the witness, said, “You produced details of four accounts related to First Hajveri Modaraba Company (FHMC) Pvt Ltd whose management company that floated the shares was Hajveri Modaraba Company (HMC).” The witness said he produced the details before the NAB related to the FHMC.

The defence counsel also questioned under what capacity he produced the minutes of the HMC meeting to the NAB. He, however, replied that the minutes were provided to the bank to let them know as to who would be the two persons, to operate the bank accounts of the FHMC.

Pointing out at a document, Haris said the signature specimen card had no mention of Dar. From the documents, he told the court that the FHMC was first managed by HMC and then its management company changed to Fidelity Capital Management (FCM). The witness said he did not have the record of FCM. In April 2002, the bank accounts of FHMC were closed and the pecuniary assets were handed over to one Khurram Shehzad. The defence counsel told the court that the directors of FHMC and HMC were the same – Dar and his wife – “but as per your record the directors were different.” To this, the witness agreed.

The court then adjourned the hearing till Wednesday when the statements of two more prosecution witnesses Abdur Rehman Gondal and Masood-ul-Ghani would be recorded. They would be cross-examined by the defence counsel too.