ISLAMABAD: The Accountability Court (AC) Thursday partly approved Maryam Nawaz’s appeal not to make analysis of the JIT part of court record.
Prosecution witness Wajid Zia in the three corruption references against Sharif family resumed with his recording of the evidence and initially there was a debate in the court that what is his status? Whether he is appearing before the court as an investigation officer or as a prosecution witness or as an expert witness?
It was also much debated that what parts of the JIT report Zia could refer to. He was recording evidence in Avenfield apartment’s corruption reference. AC, however, allowed Zia to only refer to the documents that either he authored or collected and don’t refer to the summaries, statements of the accused persons, opinion or conclusions as a part of the JIT report.
Counsel for Maryam Nawaz and Captain (R) Safdar, Amjad Pervez advocate argued before the court that JIT was recording statements of the accused persons and prosecution witnesses. Supreme Court in its order clearly said that these statements could not be used by the prosecution. In report, JIT has addressed every question that Supreme Court had framed for it and prepared summaries as well.
Under the law, the statement of persons, under section 161 to the investigation, cannot be utilised in the court. Referring to different volumes of the JIT report, advocate Amjad Pervez described their contents. He said that volume 1 and 2 are related to the statements of the witnesses, 8 to Hudabiya and only volume 3, 4 and 5 are related to this particular matter.
Referring to the Supreme Court July 28 judgment in Panama case, Amjad Pervez said that the apex court directed NAB to file references on the basis of the material collected by the JIT, with emphasis on the word material. “In our review petition, Supreme Court said that the approbatory value to material will be determined by the trial judge,” Pervez said, adding that volume 3, 4, 5 that are related to the material can become part of this case but volume 1 and 2 are not even admissible.
Defining ‘heresy’, advocate Pervez said that if a person tells something to an investigation officer (IO), the investigation officer cannot tell the court that someone told him so. As per law of evidence, an IO cannot even submit a document before the court to which he is not an author.
“We have no objection if the prosecution submits collected material and exhibit as evidence. Apart from that nothing else could be submitted before the court,” advocate Amjad also said. In rebuttal, NAB deputy prosecutor general (DPG) Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said that the defense has admitted that there is some relevant material that could be produced before the court as evidence.
Abbasi said that whatever precedents advocate Amjad quoted regarding the composition of a JIT, those are all related to the police JIT. It is also held by the superior courts that every criminal case has different circumstances and different facts.
This JIT report is very much important because the apex court of Pakistan has relied on this, he said. The defence has not at any forum challenged the legality of this report. The defence even demanded for this JIT and they participated in it as well, NAB DPG said.
He said that Wajid Zia is not appearing before the court as an IO but he is appearing as a prosecution witness. After Supreme Court judgment, NAB authorised that investigation and NAB investigation officer separately prepared a report in this regard.
“If we produce NAB IO’s report before the court, then the defence can raise objection over it. JIT is a report of a commission that has been relied upon by the Supreme Court and now it is a public document and a piece of evidence. This report should be part of the proceedings,” he said.
To this advocate Amjad Pervez said that under section 18-D of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), court proceedings are only for examination, cross-examination and re-examination of the witnesses.
After all these arguments, AC judge Muhammad Bashir said that he will announce the decision after 15 minutes break. After hearing was resumed, the judge said that the report will be exhibited subject to objections. Addressing to Wajid Zia, AC judge asked him to come to the material and not the narration of the events.
Wajid Zia then exhibited the sale agreement of Gulf Steel Mill dated April 14, 1980 between Tariq Shafi and Abdullah Ahli. AC however directed Zia to sit with the prosecution and arrange the sequence of the material evidence that is in the form of documents. AC disallowed to exhibit the statements under section 161 and asked the witness to only refer to the documents.
At this, Wajid Zia said that he has been a part of all this investigation since the beginning and the court may allow him to record evidence like he wishes to do. At this, AC judge said that the prosecution will lead him on how to record this evidence. Wajid Zia than referred to the CMAs submitted by Sharif family in the Supreme Court and the material he collected. Advocate Amjad Pervez and legal counsel for Nawaz Sharif Ayesha Hamid kept objecting over certain documents. Further hearing will be held today (Friday) when Wajid Zia will keep on with the recording of his evidence.
