Trial begins: Dar’s attorney stumps prosecution witness

Defence’s cross-questions knock prosecution witness off balance

ISLAMABAD: As an accountability court resumed hearing against Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in a graft reference on Wednesday, the first witness testified against him expressed complete ignorance about some key documents the anti-corruption watchdog was relying on.

The trial formally started with two witnesses appearing against the finance minister in the case pertaining to his owning “assets beyond his known sources of income”.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) filed the reference against Dar on September 8 following the July 28 verdict of the Supreme Court. Dar was present in the court of Judge Muhammad Bashir, where banker Ishtiaq Ali appeared as witness to record statements.



However, Ali, who is manager accounts in Bank Alfalah Lahore, seemed to be unprepared for the volley of questions unleashed by defence counsel Khawaja Haris and ended up accepting that neither were the documents prepared nor its contents filled in his presence and that he never took custody of the record.

Ali even admitted that he started working in the bank in 2005 while the record submitted before the court pertains to a period between 2001 and 2006.

In the statement, the prosecution witness said that NAB had written two letters on August 16 and 17, asking him certain documents, adding he submitted the documents to the bureau in Islamabad on Aug 28.

He said the bank documents pertain to two accounts – a personal account maintained by Dar and his wife’s company account, who was the CEO of HDS Securities (Pvt) Limited.

“On Aug 29,” he said, “I submitted two letters containing details of Dar and his wife’s bank accounts.”

During cross-examination, defence lawyer Khawaja Haris asked the witness if he has the letters through which NAB sought the accounts details. The witness answered in the affirmative and handed over the letters to the lawyer.



After reading the documents, Haris said NAB asked him to provide account details of Dar but he had provided details regarding the HDS Securities.

Subsequently, Haris submitted to the court that neither the details were sought nor they were complete. “This whole record is irrelevant.”

Moreover, when the defence lawyer asked the witness about his employment details, it emerged that the witness started working in the bank in 2005 while the record submitted before the court pertains to a period between 2001 and 2006.

Through cross-examination, the lawyer tried to establish that the witness was not even working in the bank at that time. “The witness was employed in 2005 while the record submitted before the court pertains to 2001 and 2006.

At one point, Haris asked the witness about a bank statement showing a date of the year 2011 on it. To this, the witness explained that the bank used two software – one gives data till December 31, 2011, while the other provides statements till date and “that is why the bank statement had 2011’s date on it”.

To the lawyer’s question if the software could provide data till 2012 as well, the witness said: “Yes, it can.”



Haris then asked why the data was obtained only up to 2011 to which the witness replied that the last transaction was done in 2011.

The counsel, while rectifying the witness, informed the court that the last transaction was done on July 25, 2005, and the said account was closed on February 2, 2006.

In his submission, Haris informed the court that the documents presented before the court do not meet the standard as prescribed under the law of evidence and were ‘inadmissible’.

He further pointed out that the original documents “are somewhat different than the certified copies the bank provided”, adding the photocopies did not reflect official stamp of the bank.

Initially, NAB produced two prosecution witnesses before the court but only one of them could testify due to shortage of time.

On next date of hearing, Judge Bashir summoned Tariq Javed, senior vice-president, Al-Baraka Bank, and Shahid Aziz of the National Investment Trust (NIT) for testimony.

Before starting the court proceedings, the judge took notice of news reports stating that he had barred ministers from attending court proceedings.

He clarified that the court did not issue such instructions and the order about preventing the ministers from witnessing the court proceedings was fake.

The court will now take up the case on October 12.