Money trail relates to Hussain, Hassan not me: Maryam

ISLAMABAD: Maryam Nawaz said in the Accountability Court (AC) on Thursday that the question of money trail related to Hussain Nawaz and Hassan not to her.

“Be that as it may, as far as I am concerned, I had never claimed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan that I was ever the real or beneficial owner of the Avenfield properties and that has been my stance throughout, as much as in the instant case,” she said.

“Before the JIT, I had also given my defence in categorical terms that I was never the real or beneficial owner of the Avenfield apartments, she said.

As far as the questionnaire is concerned, out of 128 questions, 46 had been responded.

Maryam said that a formal application for supply of Vol-X containing the record of MLA’s was moved on her behalf before commencement of the trial which was opposed by the prosecution and this court dismissed it. Therefore any reference to or use of record of said MLA’s would be violative of her fundamental right to fair trial.

She said that she heard and understood the prosecution evidence recorded in this reference, however, the prosecution had miserably failed to produce an iota of admissible evidence against her.

To a question that Supreme Court had constituted Joint Investigation Team (JIT) with direction to probe whether her father had any assets disproportionate to known sources of income or benami properties; Maryam said that the JIT was only formed for the assistance of Supreme Court in disposing of petitions and it could not be construed as circumstance against her in the instant case, rather any reference to, or use of the said order in the instant case was inappropriate and irrelevant, and such reference or use impinged upon her right to fair trial.

Maryam said that she and her husband Captain (R) Muhammad Safdar were not among the respondents who were directed to associate themselves with the investigation of JIT.

Just like her father, Maryam also raised serious objections to the composition of JIT and bias of its members. She raised similar objections like her father and said that the JIT member, SECP’s Bilal Rasool was maternal nephew of Muhammad Azhar and his family an ardent supporter of PTI. Bilal Rasool himself had also been a vocal critic of the PML-N government while his wife had been an active supporter of the PTI. Similarly, Amer Aziz was the one who investigated Hudaibya Paper Mills corruption reference after he was brought into NAB during the dictatorial regime of General Musharraf. Another JIT member Ifran Naeem Mangi, the fact is that at the time of his selection, there already stood an order passed by an SC three members bench pertaining to his appointment/induction in NAB having been brought under challenge. Maryam also repeated her father’s version about the appointments of Brigadier (R) Numan Saeed from ISI and Brigadier Kamran Khursheed from MI. She said that their appointment was inappropriate, with obvious fallouts on the JIT proceedings, given the civil-military tension that have plagued the country throughout its 70 plus years of history. About Wajid Zia, she said that his bias even otherwise stands established on the record and is further evident from the fact that he maneuvered to have his cousin engaged as a solicitor in the case for manufacturing false evidence in the case.

About JIT report Maryam said that it would remain a report of an investigating agency, and as such, the report per se is not admissible in evidence. Furthermore, none of the volumes of the JIT report as such stand exhibited as evidence rather only certain documents and that too subject to admissibility as such. About mutual legal assistance (MLA) application that JIT had written to foreign jurisdictions, Maryam said that none of the MLAs purportedly sent by JIT to United Kingdom, British Virgin Island, Saudi Arabia and UAE have been produced before this court and, as such, neither any such MLAs nor any act of omission or commission in response thereto can be taken into consideration.

A question was put to her that Hussain and Hassan Nawaz had tried to establish money trail; in reply Maryma said that this question pertained to her co-accused, Hussain and Hassan Nawaz, both of whom were not before this court, or under trial.