New reference contradicts last one, says Nawaz’s counsel

Original reference identified whole family as beneficiary owners

ISLAMABAD: Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s counsel informed an accountability court that a supplementary reference against the Sharif family was in contradiction with the Supreme Court’s judgment of July 28 and the top anti-graft body’s interim reference in connection with the Avenfield properties.

The deposed PM’s counsel Khawaja Haris said that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) alleged in the interim reference that the whole family, especially Maryam Nawaz, is the beneficial owner of the London properties whereas the supplementary reference states that Nawaz Sharif is the owner and his son Hussain Nawaz is his 'benamidar'.

“In the interim reference, NAB said Maryam was the beneficial owner but there is no such thing in the supplementary reference,” another defence counsel Amjad Pervaiz said.



Haris told the court conducting Sharif family’s trial in connection with three NAB references that the supplementary reference was different than the earlier reference as it is not in line with the SC’s judgment.

As per the SC’s judgment, Haris said that the supplementary reference can only be filed when investigators discover new assets and evidence but neither any new asset nor new evidence in response to mutual legal assistance (MLA) from foreign jurisdictions has been brought before the court through the reference.

He added that the supplementary reference is filed on the basis of the report of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which probed Panama case on the SC’s directions.

In addition, he said that NAB has repeated earlier allegations and filed the instant reference on the statements of a forensic expert and a nephew of JIT head Wajid Zia. He said NAB has yet to receive a response to MLAs and the bureau filed supplementary reference just to target Nawaz Sharif.



NAB Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi opposed the arguments, saying NAB can file supplementary references as and when it is required in line with the SC’s judgment.

Following the arguments, the court reserved the verdict for a little while. Later, while admitting the supplementary reference for hearing, it announced that charges against the Sharifs would remain the same and the court would decide about the objections raised over supplementary reference at the time of the final judgment.

A NAB prosecutor later explained that the accountability court would determine charges regarding false documents presented by the accused persons during the investigation at the time of final judgment and after considering the evidence produced before the court.



Meanwhile, Abbasi submitted an application requesting the court to allow NAB to produce, examine and recording of statement of prosecution two witnesses – Robert W Radley and Akhtar Raja – via video link as they are in the United Kingdom and can’t come to Pakistan due to security reasons.

He also requested the court to grant permission for summoning five other witnesses on the next date of hearing. Pervaiz raised objection saying the court has to first decide if the witnesses can be summoned or not after hearing arguments on the application.

The court directed defence counsels to present arguments on the next date – February 2.

In the media talk following the hearing, Sharif asked Pervaiz to explain things about the supplementary reference. Pervaiz reiterated what the counsels have earlier said in the court.



While replying to a question about Supreme Court’s case regarding the interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, Sharif quipped that it seems only his cases were being heard in the accountability court, high court and the Supreme Court.

To the question why a supplementary reference has been filed in London Apartments reference, Sharif said he was also trying to understand why it has been filed against Sharif family.

NAB has filed an interim reference against Sharif, Maryam, Hussain, Hassan, and Captain Muhammad Safdar relating to the Avenfield Properties comprising flat No 16 and 16-A, 17 and 17-A Avenfield House at Park Lane area of London.

The supplementary reference is also against the same accused. NAB has alleged that Sharif being a public office holder owned Avenfield properties in the name of his dependents or benamidars which are disproportionate and beyond his known sources of income.



It added that Sharif could not reasonably account for and does not commensurate with his sources of income and shown to be acquired the same in the name of Hussain Nawaz of which Maryam Nawaz was made as the trustee, which has been proved to be fake and fabricated from the records and forensic report.

In the reference, NAB stated that “investigation to the extent of the criminal roles of Musa Ghani, Saeed Ahmed, Javaid Kayani and Tariq Shafi” in aiding and abetting the accused is under progress as for Mutual Legal Assistance to foreign countries is still awaited.

Saeed Ahmed is the president and CEO of the National Bank of Pakistan and Shafi is a cousin of Nawaz Sharif. The reference read that the bureau would file a second supplementary reference as and when required by making MLA a part of that reference.

The court would resume hearing on February 2.



NAB reference against Dar

Meanwhile, a prosecution witness recorded her statement in a NAB reference against the former Finance Minister Ishaq Dar accusing him of amassing assets beyond known sources of income. A NAB prosecutor said that the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP)’s joint registrar, Sidra Mansoor, recorded her statement and submitted records of six companies. During the hearing, he said the court has asked NAB to produce JIT head Wajid Zia, on January 31 but NAB sought more time. He, however, said Zia might appear on Jan 31 (today).

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s counsel informed an accountability court that a supplementary reference against the Sharif family was in contradiction with the Supreme Court’s judgment of July 28 and the top anti-graft body’s interim reference in connection with the Avenfield properties.



The deposed PM’s counsel Khawaja Haris said that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) alleged in the interim reference that the whole family, especially Maryam Nawaz, is the beneficial owner of the London properties whereas the supplementary reference states that Nawaz Sharif is the owner and his son Hussain Nawaz is his 'benamidar'.

“In the interim reference, NAB said Maryam was the beneficial owner but there is no such thing in the supplementary reference,” another defence counsel Amjad Pervaiz said.

Haris told the court conducting Sharif family’s trial in connection with three NAB references that the supplementary reference was different than the earlier reference as it is not in line with the SC’s judgment.

As per the SC’s judgment, Haris said that the supplementary reference can only be filed when investigators discover new assets and evidence but neither any new asset nor new evidence in response to mutual legal assistance (MLA) from foreign jurisdictions has been brought before the court through the reference.



He added that the supplementary reference is filed on the basis of the report of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which probed Panama case on the SC’s directions.

In addition, he said that NAB has repeated earlier allegations and filed the instant reference on the statements of a forensic expert and a nephew of JIT head Wajid Zia. He said NAB has yet to receive a response to MLAs and the bureau filed supplementary reference just to target Nawaz Sharif.

NAB Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi opposed the arguments, saying NAB can file supplementary references as and when it is required in line with the SC’s judgment.

Following the arguments, the court reserved the verdict for a little while. Later, while admitting the supplementary reference for hearing, it announced that charges against the Sharifs would remain the same and the court would decide about the objections raised over supplementary reference at the time of the final judgment.



A NAB prosecutor later explained that the accountability court would determine charges regarding false documents presented by the accused persons during the investigation at the time of final judgment and after considering the evidence produced before the court.

Meanwhile, Abbasi submitted an application requesting the court to allow NAB to produce, examine and recording of statement of prosecution two witnesses – Robert W Radley and Akhtar Raja – via video link as they are in the United Kingdom and can’t come to Pakistan due to security reasons.

He also requested the court to grant permission for summoning five other witnesses on the next date of hearing. Pervaiz raised objection saying the court has to first decide if the witnesses can be summoned or not after hearing arguments on the application.

The court directed defence counsels to present arguments on the next date – February 2.



In the media talk following the hearing, Sharif asked Pervaiz to explain things about the supplementary reference. Pervaiz reiterated what the counsels have earlier said in the court.

While replying to a question about Supreme Court’s case regarding the interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, Sharif quipped that it seems only his cases were being heard in the accountability court, high court and the Supreme Court.

To the question why a supplementary reference has been filed in London Apartments reference, Sharif said he was also trying to understand why it has been filed against Sharif family.

NAB has filed an interim reference against Sharif, Maryam, Hussain, Hassan, and Captain Muhammad Safdar relating to the Avenfield Properties comprising flat No 16 and 16-A, 17 and 17-A Avenfield House at Park Lane area of London.

The supplementary reference is also against the same accused. NAB has alleged that Sharif being a public office holder owned Avenfield properties in the name of his dependents or benamidars which are disproportionate and beyond his known sources of income.

It added that Sharif could not reasonably account for and does not commensurate with his sources of income and shown to be acquired the same in the name of Hussain Nawaz of which Maryam Nawaz was made as the trustee, which has been proved to be fake and fabricated from the records and forensic report.

In the reference, NAB stated that “investigation to the extent of the criminal roles of Musa Ghani, Saeed Ahmed, Javaid Kayani and Tariq Shafi” in aiding and abetting the accused is under progress as for Mutual Legal Assistance to foreign countries is still awaited.

Saeed Ahmed is the president and CEO of the National Bank of Pakistan and Shafi is a cousin of Nawaz Sharif. The reference read that the bureau would file a second supplementary reference as and when required by making MLA a part of that reference.

The court would resume hearing on February 2.



NAB reference against Dar

Meanwhile, a prosecution witness recorded her statement in a NAB reference against the former Finance Minister Ishaq Dar accusing him of amassing assets beyond known sources of income. A NAB prosecutor said that the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP)’s joint registrar, Sidra Mansoor, recorded her statement and submitted records of six companies. During the hearing, he said the court has asked NAB to produce JIT head Wajid Zia, on January 31 but NAB sought more time. He, however, said Zia might appear on Jan 31 (today).