Avenfield case: Nawaz’ counsel challenges Panama case JIT report

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's counsel Khawaja Haris Thursday challenged the Panama case Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report while presenting concluding arguments in the Avenfield properties reference against the Sharif family.

Khawaja Haris told the Accountability Court (AC) said that the investigation team was bound to work within its defined jurisdiction, but it made comments, analyses, statements and results part of its report.

Haris said that from establishment of Gulf Steel Mills in Dubai to the investment with Qatari royal family till London flats, there is no mention of Nawaz Sharif at any stage and he is not connected in this case in any manner whatsoever.

Haris claimed that the JIT head Wajid Zia has admitted to these facts. He said the only thing where Nawaz Sharif is mentioned is Capital FZE, the offshore company, and the UAE Iqama, but again this company has no connection whatsoever with either purchase or financing of London flats, Haris also said.

The counsel said the financial statements that were produced before the court were related to the companies of Hassan Nawaz and Nawaz has no connection with those companies as well. “Neither Nawaz has any mention in the title documents of Avenfield properties, nor he has any connection with the trust deed and hence he has nothing to the do with the report of Robert William Radley, the forensic expert,” Khawaja Haris said.

He said Wajid Zia admitted that Nawaz had no role in handing over 12 million dirhams to the Qataris. He said the Qatari prince three times endorsed the contents of his letter.

Referring to the statement of Wajid Zia where he mentions Qatari prince, Haris said that he cannot rely on the statement of a person who is neither witness nor accused in this case.

It is to mention here that the Avenfield apartments corruption reference is at its conclusive stage and after Haris will finish his arguments, proceedings in this case will stand completed.

Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Captain (R) Muhammad Safdar have produced no witness or evidence to support their version, but they are contesting this case on the plea that the whole case is being formed at the wrong premise and the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove its case against them.

Now Khawaja Haris is forwarding arguments to prove that the whole evidence that the prosecution has produced is either fictitious or inadmissible and it cannot prove the charges levelled against his client.

Khawaja Haris said that neither the conclusions and inferences drawn by the JIT, nor the statements of different persons recorded by it under Section 161 are admissible. He said that to draw conclusion and infer something is exclusive domain of this court. Further, he said, an opinion is only admissible if that is of an expert and that also has pre-conditions attached to it.

Haris said statement under Section 161 is only admissible when a person appears before the court and it is used for confronting him to show the difference. He said affidavit of Tariq Shafi and statement of Shahbaz Sharif could not be used unless they appear before the court. He said Wajid Zia cannot be a proxy witness for those persons who did not appear before the court.

Haris also mentioned a March 20 application filed with the AC where Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Captain Safdar had submitted that Wajid Zia can only record his evidence that leads in the case with respect to material in the shape of documents collected by him during the course of investigation and he cannot be allowed to make any deposition pertaining to any opinion formulated on the basis of the material/document which impinges on the innocence or guilt of the accused.

The AC deciding that application on March 21 had said that the contention that the certain portion of the Wajid Zia’s statement is a hearsay or he has referred to a statement under Section 161 of either accused or prosecution witness; the matter can only be resolved after recording of evidence in view of the material on file and relevant law, all objections if so raised shall be disposed of after recording of evidence.

Khawaja Haris while referring to the March 21 order said that many unresolved issues need to be decided regarding admissibility of certain parts of the evidence. He said Wajid Zia during recording of his evidence cited statements of those persons who never appeared before the court. “If a person would say that he heard someone saying like this, it would be hearsay as per law of evidence,” he said.

He said the JIT report is like thesis where it is being said that someone lied and someone did not. He said the court has to decide this case on the basis of evidence. He said the statement of a co-accused is also not admissible as the accused in this case are not tried jointly. He said the statement of co-accused could only be utilised when it is confessional statement. About photocopy documents that the prosecution had produced, Haris said these documents could not be used as a substitute for the original documents.

Further hearing of the case will be held today (Friday).