JIT Head Wajid Zia. PHOTO: FILE
It was on the basis of these documents that the Supreme Court had disqualified Sharif as prime minister last year while hearing the Panama Papers case.
The documents – obtained from the UAE by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) members belonging to the Military Intelligence (MI) and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) – bears the stamp of Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (Jafza), confirming that Sharif not only served as chairman of the board of the company, but also drew a salary of 10,000 dirhams.
Sharif, however, maintained that he never drew any salary from his son’s company.
During cross-examination, JIT head Wajid Zia admitted that the JIT did not send any Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request to any authority for obtaining the documents, including employment contract of the former prime minister from Jafza, and they did not come through official channel.
While Zia answered questions from Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris on Wednesday, it emerged that Jafza’s letter did not state that it was issued to the JIT or any other authority in Pakistan; on whose request it was issued; whether it was issued by the person who was custodian of the record; and whether he was legally competent or authorised to do so.
In addition, it emerged that no date was mentioned on Jafza’s letter titled “To whom it may concern” by Shehab Sultan Mesmar and it does not say that it was a certified copy of the original document.
Zia conceded that the JIT did not record Mesmar’s statement and the FZE’s documents were not notarised, and attested by the consulate general.
Avenfield reference: Focus shifts to volume 10 of JIT report during Zia's cross-examination
He explained that the JIT members – MI’s Brig Kamran Khurshid and NAB’s Irfan Naeem Mangi – went to Dubai for a day to collect the documents because of time constraint and the FZE’s issue surfaced during the last few days of the JIT probe into the Panama Papers.
“Defence is wasting time by asking such small details,” NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said.
In response, Haris said, “The prime minister was disqualified on it and you are saying ‘do not delve into such details’.”
While answering the question about the documents, Zia said each document, certified by Jafza, bears a number that relates to a specific individual who is responsible for certifying the record.
He added that the number is used to identify the person and his designation. “The world has changed a lot,” he said, smilingly.
When the case was taken up, Zia revealed that he has brought only seven MLA requests along with him in response to the accountability court’s direction on Tuesday to either obtain the relevant documents to freshen his memory or produce the confidential Volume 10 of the JIT report while answering the defence counsels’ questions.
In a revelation, Zia admitted that the Shares Sale Agreement of the 1980s regarding 25 per cent shares of Tariq Shafi in the Ahli Steel Mill (erstwhile Gulf Steel Mills), which was declared fake by the JIT, was not annexed with five MLA requests sent to the Ministry of Justice, Dubai.
He also admitted that it was also not annexed with two other MLA pleas sent to other authorities, adding one copy of the agreement was sent to the notary public department.
In response to the question if the department had sought the copy, Zia replied: “Not directly.”
He conceded that the MLA requests do not state that the reply of the Ministry of Justice, Dubai is based on the documents sent to the notary public department. The JIT sent one MLA request on June 12, 2017, four on June 15, 2017, and two on June 19, 2017 to the UAE authorities.
During the hearing, Zia confirmed to Haris that the JIT had observed in its report that prima facie, former interior minister Rehman Malik had ‘lied’ to the JIT that he had handed the tax records of Sharifs’ Avenfield Apartments over to former NAB chairman Lt Gen (retd) Syed Muhammad Amjad.
In the report, the JIT stated that Malik is “clever, speculative, self-projectionists and politically motivated” and gave “misleading answers generally based on hearsay”.
Zia proudly told Haris, “We [JIT] placed the whole material before the court”.
To this, Haris said, “You did well.”
The former NAB chairman had told the JIT that Malik did not give any documents to him. Zia said Mangi had checked the NAB office but could not find it either.
Also, it emerged that one, Shezi Nackvi, a witness in the Al Towfeek Company case against the Sharif family, stated in his affidavit that he based his opinion about the attachment of the Avenfield Apartments on the basis of Malik’s report.
To the question that Malik’s answer to all JIT questions regarding all the documents annexed with his report was that the “information was based on source document”, Zia said, “Except for one document, he said so.”
Haris commented that the information based on source documents is ‘hearsay’ under the law.
Meanwhile, during cross-examination, it emerged that Quist Solicitor which was hired by the JIT had sent its analysis regarding Towfeek case through Whatsapp to the JIT.
Quist Solicitor, being run by Zia’s first cousin, Akhtar Raja, later sent the same through email to the JIT.
Zia, however, did not reveal on whose number he sent the WhatsApp message, calling it privileged communication.
He admitted that the JIT provided material and analysis regarding Towfeek case to Quist Solicitor.
To the question if the JIT shared witnesses’ statements with Quist on which it gave its analysis in the report, Zia confirmed the same but did not reveal whose statements were shared with the company, again saying it was privileged communication.
Arguments by the NAB and defence counsels would continue in the court today (Thursday) on whether it is privileged communication or it can be disclosed.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ