Court asks Nawaz if he could defend his position

Deposed PM is to answer 128 questions over London flats, JIT finding and statements of witnesses

ISLAMABAD: An accountability court has wondered why Avenfield Apartments reference had been filed against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and why prosecution witnesses deposed against him and if he could produce evidence in his defence.

The court on Saturday asked Sharif to answer 128 questions in connection with the National Accountability Court (NAB) reference about the London apartments, finding of the Panamagate Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and statements of witnesses.

The court is hearing the case in connection with the Avenfield Apartments against the former PM, his daughter Maryam Nawaz, son in-law Captain (retd) Safdar and sons Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz.

The former PM, Maryam and Safdar are expected to record their statements before the accountability court tomorrow (Monday).

The questionnaire urges Sharif to share his stance on Wajid Zia’s appointment as head of the JIT and submission of the final JIT report in the Supreme Court in response to a number of Mutual Legal Assistance requests from the United Kingdom, British Virgin Islands and the United Arab Emirates.



The court inquired the former PM to explain Maryam’s source of income – how could she acquire and possess the London properties in the light of her income tax, wealth tax and wealth statements. Hussain and Hassan are also required to answer the same question.

His stance was also sought on certain documents submitted by accused Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz on January 26, 2017 in the Supreme Court. He was also asked to elaborate the money trail to the London properties.

Sharif was also asked about evidence submitted by Zia, according to which Maryam was the beneficial owner of Nielson and Nescoll, the two offshore companies that own the Avenfield Apartments.



The court asked Sharif to formulate a response to a request for legal assistance from the government of British Virgin Islands, certificates provided by the office of the Virgin Islands attorney general, forensic report submitted by Robert Radley, the UAE government’s response to mutual legal assistance request and evidence collected from Jafza, UAE.

It also sought Sharif’s response on the allegation that he, being a public office holder, owned and possessed Avenfield properties through offshore companies that remained in the name of his benamidars. He failed to account how these properties were acquired, which remained in his and other accused’s possession since 1993.

The court also asked Sharif to clarify how his son Hussain Nawaz, who was a student between 1993 and 1996, could possess those properties?

He was also asked to explain a loan from Coomber provided to Que Holding Ltd, which was owned by Hassan Nawaz, which funded Quint Paddington in 2008. Subsequently, Quint Paddington was also provided loan of ‎£614,000 by Capital FZE in which Sharif was also an employee.



Sharif was also asked to clarify anomalies and contradictions in affidavits submitted by his cousin Tariq Shafi, who used to run Gulf Steel Mills. The court also asked to clarify an affidavit submitted by Sharif himself according to which Gulf Steel Mills was set up with zero equity and 100 per cent loan. Muhammad Hussain was its other partner.

Sharif was asked by the court to clarify why Hussain Nawaz did not provide any corroborative documents regarding Gulf Steel Mills to the JIT.

Commenting on the agreement of April 14, 1980, the court stated that Shafi and Shehbaz Sharif had denied before the JIT that they had signed the document.

Sharif was also asked to respond on a long-term loan amounting to Rs494.96 million owed by Hudaybia Paper Mills and the loan’s status remained the same between June 30, 2000 and June 30, 2005 denoted by the Joint Registrar of Companies.

The court asked Sharif to respond on the evidence according to which Maryam, Capt (retd) Safdar and his son Hussain were directors while Hassan Nawaz was a shareholder in Hudaybia Paper Mills.

The court asked Sharif to respond on the Queen’s Bench order on the leasehold of the Avenfield properties, and why he gave National Assembly as his address. He was also asked to respond in connection with interviews his family members gave to Express News, Geo News and BBC.

The court asked Sharif to clarify his position on the use of Calibri font which was not commercially available before January 31, 2007 in Windows Vista, denoting that the documents were prepared after January 31, 2008.

The authenticity of the letter submitted in the name of the Qatari prince was also questioned: the court said that the prince repeatedly avoided joining the JIT’s proceedings.

The court also doubted evidence submitted in connection with the Hudaybia Paper Mills and Al-Taufeeq Company.

Sharif was asked to give his response to the letter submitted by Zia on Nielson and Nescoll addressed to the Financial Investigation Agency from Mossack Fonseca, Shazi Naqvi’s affidavit, financial statements for the period between 2007 and 2012 about Que Holding, financial statement for the period between 2008 and 2012 in connection with Flagship Securities and Quint Paddington Ltd, original certificate regarding Capital FZE, employment record from Jafza, UAE, and evidence and agreements of 1978 and 1980 in connection with Gulf and Ahli steel mills.

The court also asked Sharif if he and his family had gone abroad when a NAB witness Umar Daraz went in connection with a call-up notice on August 16, 2017.

Sharif was asked to respond why his sons were absconding in the case. He was also asked if he wanted to appear as a witness for filing a sworn statement under Section 342(2) of CrPC.