Hiring of JIT head’s cousin ‘classic case of nepotism’: Maryam’s counsel

Accountability court allows one-day exemption to Sharif, daughter

ISLAMABAD: The counsel for Maryam Nawaz and her husband informed an accountability court on Friday that engagement of a UK based solicitor in the Panama Papers case is the classic example of nepotism by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) at the expense of public exchequer.

The couple’s counsel, Amjad Pervaiz, while presenting final arguments in the Avenfield Apartments reference said that “Akhtar Riaz Raja’s engagement is a traditional example of favouritism by JIT at the expense of public wealth.” JIT had hired Quist Solicitor’s Raja while probing Panama papers case.

Pervaiz said that Raja, a cousin of the JIT head Wajid Zia, is not an impartial witness rather he is an interested witness in the case and it is evident from his selection of words and phrases, including “Frankenstein forgeries”, “looked at documents carefully” and “numerous irregularities” were found in trust deeds” while recording his statement.

The counsel informed the court that Raja made dishonest improvements in his statement as when he was asked during cross examination, he admitted before the court that he did not use the words like Frankenstein etc while recording statement before the investigation officer.

Moreover, Pervaiz said that Raja took legal privilege when asked to disclose his fee but in his own communication on behalf of JIT, he asked a fellow solicitor in UK how much fee he charged from Hussain Nawaz. Maryam and Captain (retd) Safdar’s counsel further informed the court that Raja did only three things for JIT – sent an email to a solicitor Jeremy Freeman, engaged forensic expert Robert Radley and authored a commentary for JIT. He argued that there is nothing on record why a solicitor’s services were required to send an email and there is no plausible explanation why Radley couldn’t be engaged directly or through foreign office.

As far as his commentary is concerned, Pervaiz said, he admitted during the cross examination that it was based on a photocopy of a news article and Raja never came across order of the Justice Queen’s Bench Division, London, in the Al Towfeek Company case 1999. The counsel said Raja doesn’t have any personal knowledge of the events and his commentary is mere opinion. In addition, he said, it is an admitted fact that Raja ‘congratulated’ Zia on becoming the head of JIT. Pervaiz also highlighted that Raja’s CV is not on record to show what kind of expert he is and how many times he was engaged in any high-profile or important case before being hired in Panama case.

In his final arguments, Pervaiz said that Radley was not a truthful witness as his testimony is uncorroborated by any evidence on record before the court. Referring to a judgment, he said, “An expert’s evidence is weak evidence” when uncorroborated.

Referring to two statements of a witness Shezi Nackvi in the Al Towfeek Company case against the Sharif family in 1999, Pervaiz said that neither his statements nor he himself are present before the court. In addition, Pervaiz said, he had submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court during a hearing stating therein that he did not have any personal knowledge of the events. Nackvi had stated in his affidavit that he based his opinion about the attachment of Avenfield Apartments on the basis of former interior minister Rehman Malik’s report.

In 2000 when General (retd) Pervez Musharraf was in power, Pervaiz said, the correspondence between the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and the Prosecutor General NAB shows that FIA didn’t own Malik’s report. “Malik wrote the report when he was in self-exile”, Pervaiz said, adding that JIT also did not believe him.

In the report, he said, JIT stated that Malik is “clever, speculative, self-projectionist and politically motivated” and gave “misleading answers generally based on heresy.”

On the face of the documents, he argued, the London properties could be of Sharif family but deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif has no nexus with the estates. He added that prosecution has not placed anything on record which establishes any connection of Sharif, Maryam, Safdar or Hussain in line with the order of the Justice Queen’s Bench Division, London, in 1999.

Also, he said, it is not prosecution’s case that late Mian Sharif, Shehbaz Sharif and Abbas Sharif ever remained Benamidars of Nawaz Sharif. In addition, he said, a witness who had served the Queen’s Bench’s order, Mazhar Raza Bangash, admitted before the court that Maryam and Safdar had no connection with the Queen’s court order. Pervaiz would continue presenting arguments on Monday. The court has summoned Wajid Zia in the Al-Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment reference on Tuesday.