AC on Avenfield reference Evidence, not JIT report, can be presented

ISLAMABAD: The Accountability Court (AC) of Islamabad Monday decided that the complete Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report would not be made part of the case record as the evidence in this regard could be presented.

The court testified the NAB’s Investigation Officer in the Avenfield property reference and adjourned the case till Wednesday (May 2). The Investigation Officer (IO) could present its relevant part before the court. AC Judge Muhammad Bashir heard the references against the Sharif family filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Former prime minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Captain (R) Muhammad Safdar appeared before the court.

During the course of proceedings, Nawaz counsel Khawaja Haris requested the court that their defence would be adversely affected if the statement of Investigation Officer Imran Dogar was recorded in the Avenfiled property case. He requested the court to first record statements of JIT head Wajid Zia in the Flagship and Al Azizia references also, who had already given his testimony in the Avenfiled reference. He cited an Islamabad High Court verdict, in which the court had directed to record the statements of common witnesses in all references at once. Khawaja Haris said the IO could not present the JIT report and only the JIT head Wajid Zia was authorised to do so, because it was prepared by the JIT. The IO could, however, present his own investigation findings, he added.

NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzafar Abbasi argued that they wanted to conclude the Avenfield case first and the defence counsel should have submitted the request prior to Wajid Zia's prolonged cross-examination regarding the above reference. The judge then allowed recording the statement of NAB Investigation Officer. Dogar, in his testimony, apprised the court about the course of investigation in the reference. He said he had received the JIT report from the Supreme Court, as its Volume-I to Volume IX were the case record. Later, the court directed to make only relevant part of the JIT report as case record and adjourned the hearing.