History tells us elected leaders removed through shenanigans cannot be written off completely. PHOTO: FILE
The JIT head admitted that in the body of a mutual legal assistance (MLA) request dated June 23, 2017, it was mentioned by the JIT that the MLA request dated May 31, 2017 was declined by the Attorney General Office of the British Virgin Island (BVI) in its response received by the JIT through an email on June 16, 2017.
“The witness volunteers that this apparently is a mistake” as already explained in response to the BVI letter dated June 16, 2017, reads Zia’s statement. It adds that the body of the response “is clearly related to the letter sent on May 20, 2017 as no request for seeking confirmation, verification and certification of the documents was made in the letter dated May 5, 2017”.
The admission came after Amjad Pervaiz, the defence counsel for Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retd) Safdar, first asked Zia if it was correct that the MLA request made on May 31, 2017 was declined by the AG Office of the BVI. To this, Wajid replied that it was incorrect to say that the MLA request dated May 31, 2017 was declined by the BVI’s AG Office.
The witness explained that the first MLA sent on May 20, 2017 and the second one sent on May 31, 2017 had the same reference number – JIT/PC/MOFA/17. He added that the BVI authorities while giving their response on June 16, 2017 referred to the letter of the JIT with reference number only without referring to any specific date.
He emphasised that the contents of the letter were, however, clearly related to the request made on May 20, 2017 as it stated that reference was made to the MLA request which sought confirmation, verification and certification of certain documents.
During the cross-examination, Pervaiz reminded Zia twice, “You are under oath”.
Later, answering a question, Zia said that in the body of the MLA of June 23, 2017 it was mentioned by the JIT itself that the MLA request of May 31, 2017 was declined by the AG Office of the BVI in its response received by the JIT through an email on June 16, 2017.
When Pervaiz asked Zia if it was correct to suggest that he had “concocted the story of mistake in his volunteered explanation today to cover up the false statement” made earlier during cross-examination, Zia replied, “It is incorrect.”
Moreover, the second error emerged when Zia conceded that “it is admitted by the JIT in the MLA dated May 31, 2017 that the MLA dated May 20, 2017 was inadvertently addressed to the director FIA of BVI.”
He also admitted that the JIT had not made the response of June 16, 2017 part of its report, adding that it was an email on an email account of the JIT to which he had access. “It is correct that there is no mention of the said email in the entire JIT report,” he said.
After asking a few more questions and giving formulations, Pervaiz adopted defence counsel Khawaja Haris’ cross-examination and concluded his own on Zia.
Following the questioning, NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi filed an application requesting the court to allow the anti-graft watchdog to file some additional documents related to the Avenfield reference.
Subsequently, Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir fixed the application for hearing on Friday with directions to the prosecution and defence to present argument on it.
Separately, the court summoned Zia on April 23 to record his statement in the Al-Azizia and Hill Metal Establishment references against the Sharif family.
1722586547-0/Untitled-design-(73)1722586547-0-165x106.webp "article")
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ