Zia says Panamagate JIT only had to collect records

Says verifying documents was not part of its mandate

ISLAMABAD: Joint Investigation Team (JIT) head Wajid Zia informed an accountability court on Monday that the purpose of the investigation was not to verify any particular document but to collect records for Capital FZE and ascertain whether ex-prime minister Nawaz Sharif held any interest in it.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB)’s star witness admitted that their team went to Dubai on July 3 and 4 and had taken the sourced documents of Capital FZE with them to Dubai, but they did not take the “trading license” placed in volume 9 of JIT report.

Zia, however, added that JIT had with them another copy of the trading license provided by the law firm Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers. He added that the trading license was for a different year.

In the previous hearing, it emerged that JIT had hired the law firm which had provided the JIT with most of its source documents, including the ones linking former PM Sharif with Capital FZE. The documents are in volume 6 of the JIT report.



The details surfaced during the cross-examination of Zia by Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris in the accountability court, which is conducting hearings on the NAB’s references against Sharif family.

The Supreme Court had disqualified Sharif last year while hearing the Panama Papers case after the JIT produced some documents pertaining to Capital FZE. The apex court had concluded that Nawaz Sharif had not declared a receivable salary in his nomination papers for the 2013 election.

During cross-examination, it emerged that one trading license placed in volume 6 of JIT report shows that it was issued on 10.01.2001 and was valid up till 30.09.2013, while the other trading license – placed in volume 9 of the report – was issued on 1.10.2001 and was valid till 30.09.2010.

“Neither of the two trading licenses was verified by Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (JAFZA),” Zia admitted while answering a question. He voluntarily explained that JAFZA said that they would only provide their own certified record.

Next, he admitted, “JAFZA did not provide a certified copy of the trading license from their own records.” At the end of the hearing, while answering a question, Zia said that it came to his notice during the investigation that all three licenses had the same issuance date – 01.10.2001 – but their expiry dates were different.

The witness admitted that the JIT had not gone to JAFZA for verifying the identity of the person who had attested the copy of the trading license and who had affixed the stamp.

“Witness volunteers that the purpose of the investigation was not to verify any particular document but to get the record of Capital FZE and to ascertain whether Sharif held any interest in it,” he stated.

During cross-examination, Zia reiterated that during its investigation, the JIT was successful in collecting evidence from JAFZA.

Later, he admitted that he has not mentioned any document relating to Capital FZE as sourced documents in volume 9, although on page 8 of volume 9, a reference is made to the payment of $1 million from the accounts of Hill Metal Establishment to Capital FZE, and those documents were sourced documents.

At one point, Haris explained that he has to ask about sourced documents to identify which document is a source document and cannot be used against the accused. Zia also admitted some discrepancies in the JIT’s report after Haris pointed them out during the course of cross-examination.

Zia admitted that the audit report of the company which Hassan Nawaz provided to the JIT was mistakenly listed as a source document while clarifying that it was not one.



Meanwhile, NAB’s prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi raised an objection that cross-examination must be relevant to the facts and if source documents are to be discussed, they must be brought on record as admissible evidence.

To this, Nawaz Sharif’s counsel said that he is not admitting to the authenticity of the documents, but since the prosecution witness has taken a particular stance regarding the connection of these documents with Capital FZE and the Avenfield apartments, questions have to be asked about the documents.

Abbasi raised an objection that the defence counsel is repeating his questions. Haris said that he has to dig out the truth. Frequent objections raised by the prosecution during the eighth day of cross-examination resulted in an exchange of harsh words between the prosecution and defence lawyers and it has now entered its ninth day.

Abbasi said that Haris was asking useless and irrelevant questions and he should either stop asking them or explain his objective. To this, Haris asked if he “should disclose my defence to you”, adding if that was the case, why didn’t the [JIT] send the questionnaire to the Qatari prince in advance when he had asked for it.

The court will continue hearing the case on April 10 (today).