FAZAL SHER

ISLAMABAD: Accounta-bility Court Judge Muhammad Bashir Thursday adjourned hearing of the Avenfield reference without completion of statement of key witness and head of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) who investigated the Panama Papers case, Wajid Zia, after he was annoyed by both defense counsel and prosecutor.

The accountability judge while hearing the Avenfield reference against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Captain Muhammad Safdar (retd) was infuriated due to continuous unwarranted interference of both defense counsel and prosecutor in the proceedings.

Defense counsel Amjad Pervaiz was raising objections time and again when Zia was recording his statement while Deputy Prosecutor General National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi was requesting the court that defense should raise its objections only after the completion of witness's statement.

The judge was visibly irked by lawyers' conduct. "Bring the witness back and come on Thursday (March 15)," he said and went to his chamber.

Earlier, Nawaz Sharif, Maryam and Safdar appeared before the court amid tight security arrangements. At the start of the hearing, the NAB prosecutor informed the court that witness Zia has yet not reached as he is receiving original JIT report from Supreme Court. To this, the court adjourned hearing till 10:00am and exempted Sharif and his daughter from rest of the hearing following the request of their counsel.

Later, the star witness arrived in the court amid tight security along with three steel boxes, one briefcase and one box containing final JIT report and evidences.

When Zia, the main prosecution witness, began recording his statement and was about to produce statements of witnesses as well as former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Hassan Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz, Maryam Safdar, Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, Tariq Shafi and others, besides analysis of statements as evidence, defense counsel Amjad Pervaiz raised argued that under the law, parts of JIT report, which consist of analyses and statements of witnesses and accused, are not admissible as evidence in the trial.

Parvaiz said that under the law, the witness records statement regarding the persons he mentioned in his statement. "How can Zia produce analyses and statement of witnesses as evidence in court of trial? Opinion of the JIT cannot be exhibited as evidence here. He said that the only admissible evidence is what Zia himself collected. Under what law can this investigation report be produced as evidence?" he asked.

The NAB deputy prosecutor while objecting to the objection raised by the defense counsel said Zia appeared in the court as witness and he prepared the investigation report as per Supreme Court's order and it can be produced in the court as evidence. "The whole report of JIT is main material for us and it should made part of the court trial," he said, adding that section 173 cannot be applied here as Zia appeared before the court as witness and not as an investigation officer. "This is a special case. The witness has compiled the report and it can be exhibited," he argued.

Abbasi said if the NAB would have conducted the investigation and prepared the report, the defense counsel could have raised this objection.

Parvaiz further said that each volume of the report consists of a section called summary of investigation and it carries the JIT's opinion. To declare someone guilty or innocent is the prerogative of the court and not the JIT, he said.

The defense counsel also gave reference of some judgments and section of Qanoon-e-Shahdat (law of evidence). The JIT head sent Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) letter of help, and thus, he can only produce that in court, but what witness or accused said in front of the JIT during investigation cannot be produced, he said.

After hearing the arguments, the court took a 15-minute break to discuss whether or not the JIT report, witnesses' statements and its analyses will be admissible.

However, after the break, the court asked Zia to start recording his statement and the objection raised by the defense counsel will be decided later.

Recording his statement, Zia told the court that he is working as additional director general in Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). On April 20, 2017 Supreme Court of Pakistan had ordered to form a JIT to be led by an officer of FIA of additional director general's rank. The panel of officers forwarded by FIA to Supreme Court included his name.

The apex court in its order on May 5, 2017 ordered him to head the JIT along with other members - Brigadier (retd) Muhammad Nauman Saeed from Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Amer Aziz from State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), Brigadier Kamran Khurshid from Military Intelligence (MI), Bilal Rasul from Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and Irfan Naeem Mangi from NAB.

He said the court also enumerated some questions that were addressed by the JIT.

The JTI collected all the documents that were field by the petitioners and submitted by the respondents. The JIT also collected material from different institutions including Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), SECP, SBP and NAB. The JIT analyzed the material and record obtained from these institutions, he said, adding that many of the documents regarding the assets were located in foreign jurisdiction therefore the JIT requested for issuance of notification to get powers under section 21 of NAB ordinance.

He said the JIT initiated a number of mutual legal assistance and requested the UK, British virgin Island, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others for assistance. The JIT also recorded statements of witnesses and persons related to the case including Nawaz Sharif, Hassan Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz, Maryam Safdar, Shahbaz Sharif, Tariq Shafi and others and analyzed their statements as evidence.

Defense counsel Amjad Pervaiz raised objection that under the law parts of JIT report which consist of analyses and statements of witnesses are not admissible as evidence.

Zia said the JIT was told that Gulf Steel Mills was set up by Mian Muhammad Sharif, the father of Nawaz Sharif. Gulf Steel Mills was run by Tariq Shafi as its owner whereas its real owner was Muhammad Sharif. Seventy-five percent shares of Gulf Steel Mills were sold to Abdullah Ahali for AED 31 million which were directly deposited to the then Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

Tariq Shafi kept 25 shares of Gulf Steel Mills with him, he said.

After settlement of liability an agreement was signed with Abdullah Ahali to become partner of 75 percent shares. He said that after his agreement Gulf Steel Mills became Ahali Steel Mills.

Objecting to the statement of Zia, Amjad Pervaiz said that he was reading contents of the application. To this, Zia said that he is reading out reply of the Sharif family.

The witness said that in 1990 Tariq Shafi sold the 25 percent shares on behalf of Muhammad Sharif for another consideration of AED12 million which were invested with a Qatari royal family and subsequently in 2006 a settlement was made between Qatari prince and Hussain Nawaz.

He said that Qatari prince purchased London flats - the apartments in question through Nilson and Niscol companies - and both the sons of Nawaz Sharif were living in these apartments on rent.