London law firm ‘belongs to JIT chief’s cousin’
Nawaz Sharif’s application also raises legal objections to ISI representative
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
Instead of responding to the Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) findings with regard to his and his family’s alleged corruption, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has raised legal objections to the JIT’s report and its members, particularly Brig Nauman Saeed, a nominee of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Senior lawyer Khawaja Haris submitted an application on behalf of the premier before the Supreme Court, whose three-judge bench took up the JIT’s damning report for review on Monday. Haris will argue the case today (Tuesday).
The application also raised objections to JIT’s act of hiring private firm to obtain documents from abroad. It said the London-based firm it hired belongs to JIT chief Wajid Zia’s cousin.
The PM said one of ‘the more aggressive’ members of the JIT whose description was given in one of the earlier applications (CMA No. 3688 of 2017), had been identified as the nominee of the ISI.
43 mistakes spotted in JIT report, claims minister
“The said nominee of [the] ISI was not an officer of [the] ISI at the time of his nomination, rather he was a ‘source employee’ under a contract which is not recognised as legal, and reportedly neither his association with the ISI nor his pay is reflected in any official record. It is, therefore, humbly submitted that the JIT report may be considered in the light of the facts,” it said.
The application also claimed that the JIT members exceeded their jurisdiction and authority conferred on them by the law in obtaining documents from abroad, inter alia, by hiring private firms.
It said the JIT members sought to ‘mislead’ the SC in trying to conceal their illegalities in hiring private firms for collecting evidence and documents by including this illegal act under the heading Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request.
The application said the MLA requests are to be addressed to a foreign state and not to private firms or entities, and such evidence and documents alone are inadmissible in evidence under Section 21 (g) of the NAO, 1999 as are transferred to Pakistan by a foreign government.
Discrepancies in JIT report shall be contested in SC, says Dar
“..Thereby [they] have not only wasted public time but also public money in rendering an incomplete, inconclusive and legally untenable and inherently defective report,” the PM’s application said.
The application said not only the bulk of the documents relied upon by the JIT were ‘illegally procured’ but they were neither original nor bore attestation in accordance with law.
“And most of them did not bear the signatures of any executant or scribe, while no statement of any witness who scribed, executed or witnessed any of these documents has been recorded by the JIT.
“It is evident that none of these documents can be relied upon, nor can their contents be considered to form the basis of any adverse finding against any of the respondents,” the application said.
Govt to challenge JIT report in SC tomorrow: Khawaja Asif
The PM said hiring of a UK based litigation firm, Quist London, was illegal and unsupported by law, and did not qualify as permissible in terms of Mutual Legal Assistance under Section 21 (g) of the NAO, 1999.
He said Quist London, admittedly belongs to one Akhtar Raja – a cousin of the JIT chief Wajid Zia. According to the Sharif, Raja is also reportedly a worker of the PTI in London.
The PM said the very purpose of associating a person against whom an investigation is being carried out is to confront him with all incriminating evidence which the investigation officer or the agency may have collected so as to enable him to not only explain his position vis-à-vis such evidence but also to rebut the same, and any investigation that falls short of this basic standard cannot be termed to be fair.
“In the instant case, it is evident from the record that not a single piece of oral or documentary evidence considered incriminating by the JIT was ever shown to any of the respondents so as to enable them to explain their position vis-à-vis such evidence or to rebut the same.
Panama ‘drama’ engineered from abroad: Saad Rafique
“As such, the entire evidence so collected cannot be used against any of the respondents for any purpose whatsoever; rather, it has to be kept out of consideration having been procured and made part of the JIT report surreptitiously and behind the back of the respondents (Sharif family),” it said.
The application contended that the JIT was given 60 days to complete its probe and it availed an extra 6 days on this account. The JIT represented before the court on July 10 that it was submitting a complete report so now it could not be allowed to place any further document on the record.
It also called into question the JIT’s request for withholding of Volume X of its report. “[This] is itself a mala fide act and a breach of the Respondent No1’s [PM’s] fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 4, 9, 14, 25 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,” it added.
It requested the court that before proceeding further in the case, a copy of Volume X of the JIT’s report be provided to the PM. He also requested it to reject the “so-called evidence collected and findings given in the JIT report submitted on 10.07.2017, and to dismiss the PTI chief Imran Khan’s petition.”
Instead of responding to the Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) findings with regard to his and his family’s alleged corruption, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has raised legal objections to the JIT’s report and its members, particularly Brig Nauman Saeed, a nominee of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Senior lawyer Khawaja Haris submitted an application on behalf of the premier before the Supreme Court, whose three-judge bench took up the JIT’s damning report for review on Monday. Haris will argue the case today (Tuesday).
The application also raised objections to JIT’s act of hiring private firm to obtain documents from abroad. It said the London-based firm it hired belongs to JIT chief Wajid Zia’s cousin.
The PM said one of ‘the more aggressive’ members of the JIT whose description was given in one of the earlier applications (CMA No. 3688 of 2017), had been identified as the nominee of the ISI.
43 mistakes spotted in JIT report, claims minister
“The said nominee of [the] ISI was not an officer of [the] ISI at the time of his nomination, rather he was a ‘source employee’ under a contract which is not recognised as legal, and reportedly neither his association with the ISI nor his pay is reflected in any official record. It is, therefore, humbly submitted that the JIT report may be considered in the light of the facts,” it said.
The application also claimed that the JIT members exceeded their jurisdiction and authority conferred on them by the law in obtaining documents from abroad, inter alia, by hiring private firms.
It said the JIT members sought to ‘mislead’ the SC in trying to conceal their illegalities in hiring private firms for collecting evidence and documents by including this illegal act under the heading Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request.
The application said the MLA requests are to be addressed to a foreign state and not to private firms or entities, and such evidence and documents alone are inadmissible in evidence under Section 21 (g) of the NAO, 1999 as are transferred to Pakistan by a foreign government.
Discrepancies in JIT report shall be contested in SC, says Dar
“..Thereby [they] have not only wasted public time but also public money in rendering an incomplete, inconclusive and legally untenable and inherently defective report,” the PM’s application said.
The application said not only the bulk of the documents relied upon by the JIT were ‘illegally procured’ but they were neither original nor bore attestation in accordance with law.
“And most of them did not bear the signatures of any executant or scribe, while no statement of any witness who scribed, executed or witnessed any of these documents has been recorded by the JIT.
“It is evident that none of these documents can be relied upon, nor can their contents be considered to form the basis of any adverse finding against any of the respondents,” the application said.
Govt to challenge JIT report in SC tomorrow: Khawaja Asif
The PM said hiring of a UK based litigation firm, Quist London, was illegal and unsupported by law, and did not qualify as permissible in terms of Mutual Legal Assistance under Section 21 (g) of the NAO, 1999.
He said Quist London, admittedly belongs to one Akhtar Raja – a cousin of the JIT chief Wajid Zia. According to the Sharif, Raja is also reportedly a worker of the PTI in London.
The PM said the very purpose of associating a person against whom an investigation is being carried out is to confront him with all incriminating evidence which the investigation officer or the agency may have collected so as to enable him to not only explain his position vis-à-vis such evidence but also to rebut the same, and any investigation that falls short of this basic standard cannot be termed to be fair.
“In the instant case, it is evident from the record that not a single piece of oral or documentary evidence considered incriminating by the JIT was ever shown to any of the respondents so as to enable them to explain their position vis-à-vis such evidence or to rebut the same.
Panama ‘drama’ engineered from abroad: Saad Rafique
“As such, the entire evidence so collected cannot be used against any of the respondents for any purpose whatsoever; rather, it has to be kept out of consideration having been procured and made part of the JIT report surreptitiously and behind the back of the respondents (Sharif family),” it said.
The application contended that the JIT was given 60 days to complete its probe and it availed an extra 6 days on this account. The JIT represented before the court on July 10 that it was submitting a complete report so now it could not be allowed to place any further document on the record.
It also called into question the JIT’s request for withholding of Volume X of its report. “[This] is itself a mala fide act and a breach of the Respondent No1’s [PM’s] fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 4, 9, 14, 25 and 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973,” it added.
It requested the court that before proceeding further in the case, a copy of Volume X of the JIT’s report be provided to the PM. He also requested it to reject the “so-called evidence collected and findings given in the JIT report submitted on 10.07.2017, and to dismiss the PTI chief Imran Khan’s petition.”