JIT conveyed through phone to make its own decision over Qatari letter: Zia

JIT had reached out to the top court seeking guidance over the letter confirming Sharif family's money trail

ISLAMABAD: Joint Investigation Team (JIT) head Wajid Zia revealed before an accountability court on Thursday that the Supreme Court’s implementation bench had conveyed a telephonic message through its deputy registrar when the JIT sought guidance from the bench after failing to reach a consensus over a Qatari royal’s letter.

Zia revealed that the JIT members couldn’t develop a consensus over Qatari Prince Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al-Thani’s letter that confirmed the contents of his earlier letters submitted before the Supreme Court in the Panamagate case about the Sharif family’s money trail and asked the JIT to send a questionnaire in advance if they wish to visit him in Doha for further investigation.

Zia made the statement as deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris continued cross-examination of the star witness in the Avenfield reference against the Sharif family.

Answering Haris’ questions on the correspondence between the apex court’s implementation bench and the JIT, Zia recalled that he received a phone call from Deputy Registrar Mazhar Abbas after they sent the letter, seeking guidance/advice.

“I recollect that Deputy Registrar Mazhar Abbas spoke to me on the phone and conveyed the bench’s decision that it was an investigation matter and the JIT may decide by itself,” he said.

Zia said the JIT had sent three separate but same letters to the bench – one for each member; however, none of the judges replied.

He added that it was the ‘first and last’ correspondence between the JIT and the implementation bench.

During the proceedings, Zia admitted that the JIT had written to the Supreme Court’s implementation bench before responding to the Qatari prince’s letter.

Interestingly, during cross-examination, Zia revealed it had already been decided that the JIT would not travel to Doha nor would it send a questionnaire.

However, the understanding had neither been clarified to the Qatari royal nor the implementation bench was informed about it in the letter, he added.

The defence counsel grilled Zia whether the correspondence was mentioned anywhere in the JIT report, to which Zia replied in the negative.

Haris then explored the witness’ experience to which Zia reminisced his career spanning over 30 years.

“I have 29 years of service in police,” he said.



“I have conducted numerous local and international investigations. I remained investigator with the International War Crimes Tribunal for five years in Yugoslavia.”

“Most recently,” Zia carried on, “I was part of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) team in the Benazir Bhutto murder case and the high treason case against former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf.”

“But have you ever investigated any NAB case before?” pried Haris.

“No, I have never investigated a NAB case,” he replied.

Zia voluntarily offered information that he headed the FIA’s Economic Crime Wing for two years.

“We know you are [an] experienced [officer] and have a vast career in investigations, but is it correct to suggest that you were never asked by NAB to conduct investigation while you were leading FIA’s economic crime wing?” inquired Haris.

Zia affirmed to the statement.

Addressing the issue of the Qatari royal’s letter again, Sharif’s counsel asked if there was any law prohibiting the JIT to send a questionnaire.

At first Zia tried to deflect the question as NAB Prosecutor Sardar Muzzafar Abbasi raised objection over the question.

Eventually, Zia responded to the query by saying that in his career he has “never sent a questionnaire in advance to any witness”.

Seeing an opportunity, Haris asked Zia to cite any law but the prosecution team again raised objection.

“I will not comment on the law as I have already informed you of my practice,” Zia told Haris.

Replying to Haris’ question if the JIT head had read the Police Rules 1934 in his 29 years of police service and if there were any rules prohibiting sending questionnaire to a witness, Zia stressed that while he had not come across with any rule prohibiting it, he had also not found any rule directing him to send the questionnaire to a witness.

Haris’ sequence of questioning forayed into a cross-discussion between defense and prosecution that ended after the court adjourned the hearing for half-an-hour.

When the court resumed the hearing, Haris enquired if it was correct that strict conditions -- video recording, medium of investigation would be English language, statement would be recorded at the Pakistan High Commission in Doha instead of his home, office or palace and may take several hours -- were set to humiliate the Qatari royal.



Zia replied in the negative.

To the question if his statement recorded at home, office or palace would not be valid, Zia quipped, “Who would have ensured our security then?”

Haris said this is not the answer to his question. Zia said it was a legal aspect and he can’t answer it.

Zia confirmed that Hussain Nawaz’s photo was leaked from the JIT premises and it went viral, adding that he “can’t reveal the name of the person who had leaked the photo”.

Nonetheless, he added that the man was associated with the JIT and worked for it.

In his letter, Hamad said it would not be possible for him to travel to Pakistan for the JIT investigation but gave them an option to visit him in Doha.

In addition, he also sought a questionnaire, outlining the details pertaining to the investigation prior to the JIT’s visit to Doha.

When Haris inquired whether there was any doubt over the veracity of Jassim’s letters, Zia replied that there was no doubt that the letters were written by the royal.

In their correspondence with Jassim, the JIT had sought additional documents supporting the money trail.

According to Zia, the Qatari prince had thrice reconfirmed the content of the letters submitted by the Sharif family before the Supreme Court.

Hence, he did not feel the need to travel to Pakistan to attend the JIT proceedings.

Also, Zia admitted that the Qatari royal expressed his willingness to meet the JIT in Doha and verify the contents of his earlier letters.

Zia, however, added that the JIT had not relied on the content of the Qatari prince’s letters because it was not sufficient, adding there were contradictions and supporting documents were required to confirm veracity of documents.

Zia agreed that the JIT solicited confirmation and certification of three letters, including two letters of the Mossack Fonseca, and there were no supporting documents along with Mossack Fonseca’s reply.

He conceded that the JIT didn’t ask for supporting documents from BVI FIA and Mossack Fonseca as well as the JIT never wrote to the reporting officer of Mossack Fonseca.

The court adjourned the case till Friday.