London properties: Counsel makes pitch for Sharif’s acquittal
Concluding arguments, Haris says prosecution failed to establish case
Nawaz Sharif with his daughter Maryam. PHOTO COURTESY: BBC
ISLAMABAD:
After a marathon hearing on Wednesday, the counsel for deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif concluded his arguments in the Avenfield Apartments reference, saying the prosecution has failed to establish its case and it is a fit case for acquittal of the accused.
With three small breaks Khawaja Haris argued for over eight hours on Wednesday and took a total seven days to complete his arguments in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)’s London properties reference against members of the Sharif family.
Haris presented arguments on every aspect of the case as well as on almost all the witnesses’ statement and cross examination, while citing and submitting dozens of judgments in support of his arguments. Haris’ punch line for Wednesday’s arguments was: “people can lie, documents don’t.”
Prosecution clueless on date of property purchase, argues Sharif's counsel
“It is a misunderstanding that we don’t have any defence just because we didn’t produce in court,” Haris said.
“First, we must see what evidence the prosecution has produced. Here, it has failed to discharge its function and it is a fit case for acquittal,” he said.
In his arguments, Haris, while referring to a 2007 judgment of the Sindh High Court, elaborated that in cases under Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, the prosecution is required to prove four ingredients a) the accused was holder of public office, b) nature and extent of pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, c) what were his known sources of income, i.e., known to prosecution after thorough investigation and d) such resources or property found in possession of accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income – to prove its case.
“There is no burden of proof on the accused when the prosecution doesn’t prove these four ingredients. The prosecution has to prove its case by any means necessary but here not a single condition is met,” Haris said.
In Sharif’s case, however, defence has already accepted the condition of holding public office.
Sharif’s counsel continued to say that it was the prosecution’s job to establish that Sharif’s children were dependent on him and if Sharif had purchased or provided money for the real estates in London.
However, Haris said, head of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) which probed the Panama Papers, Wajid Zia, admitted that Sharif’s children were not dependent on him instead they were dependent on their grandfather, Mian Muhammad Sharif, even for their pocket money.
The counsel said the JIT tried to find anyone who could provide anything against the accused and avoided all others, including the Qatari royal, Jeremy Freeman, who were in a position to reveal something that could go in favour of the accused.
Interestingly, Haris said the Military Intelligence (MI) and members of the JIT who had obtained screen shots of two documents -- payment certificate and personal details -- from Dubai, on the basis of which the Supreme Court had disqualified Sharif, have not even been made witnesses in the references.
Haris informed the court that the star witness in the case first said that all documents obtained from the Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (JAFZA) were stamped and related to Sharif but during cross examination, Zia admitted that JIT did not collect any document to establish if Sharif received salary from the Capital FZE Company.
Haris explained that the documents apparently pertain to former prime minister’s employment contract, payment certificate, personal details, him being the chairman of the board at Capital FZE, but they do not state that Sharif actually received salary from the company.
While reading from Zia’s statement and cross examination, Haris said that NAB’s key witness initially said that the JIT had decided not to send a questionnaire to any witness but later sent the questionnaire to Freeman, in whose presence trust deeds were signed in February 2006, but not to the Qatari royal despite his request.
“JIT manoeuvred and managed to avoid recording Qatari’s statement at any cost but claimed that they tried their best to do so. It is totally wrong, totally false, it is the other way around,” Haris told Judge Muhammad Bashir of the accountability court. “JIT’s mala fide is evident at every stage,” he said.
He said the Qatari royal never refused to cooperate with the JIT, adding all he said was that he can’t come to Pakistan and if the JIT decides to visit him in Doha, he may be informed about the date and given a questionnaire in advance.
Haris argued that foreign documents, including letters that came from the Financial Investigation Agency (FIA) of the British Virgin Island (BVI) and Dubai authorities, do not fulfill the criteria set in the Qanun-e-Shahadat.
“They are trying to re-write the law of evidence,” Haris said while explaining how JIT failed to meet legal requirements for producing any document obtained from abroad.
Forensic expert Radley lied at every step, Haris claims
“There may be 101 stamps on a foreign document but we have to see if it fulfils the criteria laid down in Qanun-e-Shahadat,” Haris said.
He requested the court to note that Capital FZE’s documents were not public documents and did not come in response to any Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request.
Also, Haris, addressing NAB’s Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, said that the Supreme Court took definition of receivable assets from the internet but mentioned Black’s Law Dictionary in the Panamagate case judgment, adding the definition in the judgment is not present in dictionary.
“You can check it as well,” Haris said to Abbasi.
Following Haris’ arguments, counsel for Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retd) Safdar, Amjad Pervaiz, would present final arguments in the Avenfield reference on June 28 (today).
After a marathon hearing on Wednesday, the counsel for deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif concluded his arguments in the Avenfield Apartments reference, saying the prosecution has failed to establish its case and it is a fit case for acquittal of the accused.
With three small breaks Khawaja Haris argued for over eight hours on Wednesday and took a total seven days to complete his arguments in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)’s London properties reference against members of the Sharif family.
Haris presented arguments on every aspect of the case as well as on almost all the witnesses’ statement and cross examination, while citing and submitting dozens of judgments in support of his arguments. Haris’ punch line for Wednesday’s arguments was: “people can lie, documents don’t.”
Prosecution clueless on date of property purchase, argues Sharif's counsel
“It is a misunderstanding that we don’t have any defence just because we didn’t produce in court,” Haris said.
“First, we must see what evidence the prosecution has produced. Here, it has failed to discharge its function and it is a fit case for acquittal,” he said.
In his arguments, Haris, while referring to a 2007 judgment of the Sindh High Court, elaborated that in cases under Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, the prosecution is required to prove four ingredients a) the accused was holder of public office, b) nature and extent of pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, c) what were his known sources of income, i.e., known to prosecution after thorough investigation and d) such resources or property found in possession of accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income – to prove its case.
“There is no burden of proof on the accused when the prosecution doesn’t prove these four ingredients. The prosecution has to prove its case by any means necessary but here not a single condition is met,” Haris said.
In Sharif’s case, however, defence has already accepted the condition of holding public office.
Sharif’s counsel continued to say that it was the prosecution’s job to establish that Sharif’s children were dependent on him and if Sharif had purchased or provided money for the real estates in London.
However, Haris said, head of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) which probed the Panama Papers, Wajid Zia, admitted that Sharif’s children were not dependent on him instead they were dependent on their grandfather, Mian Muhammad Sharif, even for their pocket money.
The counsel said the JIT tried to find anyone who could provide anything against the accused and avoided all others, including the Qatari royal, Jeremy Freeman, who were in a position to reveal something that could go in favour of the accused.
Interestingly, Haris said the Military Intelligence (MI) and members of the JIT who had obtained screen shots of two documents -- payment certificate and personal details -- from Dubai, on the basis of which the Supreme Court had disqualified Sharif, have not even been made witnesses in the references.
Haris informed the court that the star witness in the case first said that all documents obtained from the Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority (JAFZA) were stamped and related to Sharif but during cross examination, Zia admitted that JIT did not collect any document to establish if Sharif received salary from the Capital FZE Company.
Haris explained that the documents apparently pertain to former prime minister’s employment contract, payment certificate, personal details, him being the chairman of the board at Capital FZE, but they do not state that Sharif actually received salary from the company.
While reading from Zia’s statement and cross examination, Haris said that NAB’s key witness initially said that the JIT had decided not to send a questionnaire to any witness but later sent the questionnaire to Freeman, in whose presence trust deeds were signed in February 2006, but not to the Qatari royal despite his request.
“JIT manoeuvred and managed to avoid recording Qatari’s statement at any cost but claimed that they tried their best to do so. It is totally wrong, totally false, it is the other way around,” Haris told Judge Muhammad Bashir of the accountability court. “JIT’s mala fide is evident at every stage,” he said.
He said the Qatari royal never refused to cooperate with the JIT, adding all he said was that he can’t come to Pakistan and if the JIT decides to visit him in Doha, he may be informed about the date and given a questionnaire in advance.
Haris argued that foreign documents, including letters that came from the Financial Investigation Agency (FIA) of the British Virgin Island (BVI) and Dubai authorities, do not fulfill the criteria set in the Qanun-e-Shahadat.
“They are trying to re-write the law of evidence,” Haris said while explaining how JIT failed to meet legal requirements for producing any document obtained from abroad.
Forensic expert Radley lied at every step, Haris claims
“There may be 101 stamps on a foreign document but we have to see if it fulfils the criteria laid down in Qanun-e-Shahadat,” Haris said.
He requested the court to note that Capital FZE’s documents were not public documents and did not come in response to any Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request.
Also, Haris, addressing NAB’s Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, said that the Supreme Court took definition of receivable assets from the internet but mentioned Black’s Law Dictionary in the Panamagate case judgment, adding the definition in the judgment is not present in dictionary.
“You can check it as well,” Haris said to Abbasi.
Following Haris’ arguments, counsel for Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retd) Safdar, Amjad Pervaiz, would present final arguments in the Avenfield reference on June 28 (today).