JIT’s MLA to be treated as evidence
Proceedings halted for 10 minutes over brawl between defence, prosecutor counsels
Joint Investigation Team (JIT) head, Wajid Zia PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
An accountability court on Wednesday ordered to make the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request placed in the sealed Volume 10 of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report part of the court record as evidence.
Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik ordered JIT head Wajid Zia to produce the MLA request made on May 31, 2017 to Saudi Arabia, seeking information about the Hill Metal Establishment (HME) during the hearing of the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) Al-Azizia & HME reference against deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his two sons.
Interestingly, NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi requested the court that the copy of the MLA may not be given to anyone after making it a part of the court record as “it is being obtained from Volume 10 of the JIT which has not yet been made public”.
SC hints at forming Panamagate-style JIT in money laundering case
Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Hairs, however, said that not providing a copy of the MLA to the accused – Sharif – would be a negation of his fundamental rights and right to fair trial guaranteed by the constitution.
“How can an accused be denied to have a copy of the document coming on court’s record,” he questioned.
During the hearing, Abbasi and Haris exchanged harsh statements which led to a 10 minutes’ break. When the court resumed proceedings, Judge Malik, while addressing Haris, said it was decided that he would conclude cross-examine JIT head Wajid Zia in the Azizia reference on September 19.
Haris replied that he could have concluded cross-examination if he had the whole day but since suspension petitions were fixed before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and he needed to be before the IHC; therefore, "I can’t conclude”.
He said NAB’s prosecutors did not conclude their arguments before the IHC on Sept 18 and that was why he had to go to the IHC.
When Abbasi said that defence counsel had been cross-examining Zia for a long time, Haris said the delay was because of NAB as they raised several objections during the cross-examination and when the cases were fixed in the IHC, they challenged the order(s) before the apex court.
JIT probe limited to documents obtained from SC, says Wajid Zia
“It is not a joke that cross-examination is going on for the last three months,” Abbasi said.
“We are serious but you are saying it’s a joke,” Haris replied, adding the prosecutor should file an application, the judge should pass an order and he would end cross-examination.
“How long will you take,” Abbasi asked.
Haris said law has given him the right to cross-examine and the prosecutor could not have asked about time frame.
Upon seeing the two exchanging harsh sentences, the judge angrily offered to leave the court, saying the prosecutor and defence counsels should decide the matter by themselves.
Haris said that the judge should state his stance in the order that the “defence counsel can’t continue his work because of the NAB prosecutor’s attitude”.
“Now he is blackmailing,” Abbasi incorporated.
As the parties went quite, the court while ordering to make a copy of the MLA as part of the court record adjourned the case till September 24.
An accountability court on Wednesday ordered to make the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request placed in the sealed Volume 10 of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report part of the court record as evidence.
Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik ordered JIT head Wajid Zia to produce the MLA request made on May 31, 2017 to Saudi Arabia, seeking information about the Hill Metal Establishment (HME) during the hearing of the National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) Al-Azizia & HME reference against deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his two sons.
Interestingly, NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi requested the court that the copy of the MLA may not be given to anyone after making it a part of the court record as “it is being obtained from Volume 10 of the JIT which has not yet been made public”.
SC hints at forming Panamagate-style JIT in money laundering case
Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Hairs, however, said that not providing a copy of the MLA to the accused – Sharif – would be a negation of his fundamental rights and right to fair trial guaranteed by the constitution.
“How can an accused be denied to have a copy of the document coming on court’s record,” he questioned.
During the hearing, Abbasi and Haris exchanged harsh statements which led to a 10 minutes’ break. When the court resumed proceedings, Judge Malik, while addressing Haris, said it was decided that he would conclude cross-examine JIT head Wajid Zia in the Azizia reference on September 19.
Haris replied that he could have concluded cross-examination if he had the whole day but since suspension petitions were fixed before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and he needed to be before the IHC; therefore, "I can’t conclude”.
He said NAB’s prosecutors did not conclude their arguments before the IHC on Sept 18 and that was why he had to go to the IHC.
When Abbasi said that defence counsel had been cross-examining Zia for a long time, Haris said the delay was because of NAB as they raised several objections during the cross-examination and when the cases were fixed in the IHC, they challenged the order(s) before the apex court.
JIT probe limited to documents obtained from SC, says Wajid Zia
“It is not a joke that cross-examination is going on for the last three months,” Abbasi said.
“We are serious but you are saying it’s a joke,” Haris replied, adding the prosecutor should file an application, the judge should pass an order and he would end cross-examination.
“How long will you take,” Abbasi asked.
Haris said law has given him the right to cross-examine and the prosecutor could not have asked about time frame.
Upon seeing the two exchanging harsh sentences, the judge angrily offered to leave the court, saying the prosecutor and defence counsels should decide the matter by themselves.
Haris said that the judge should state his stance in the order that the “defence counsel can’t continue his work because of the NAB prosecutor’s attitude”.
“Now he is blackmailing,” Abbasi incorporated.
As the parties went quite, the court while ordering to make a copy of the MLA as part of the court record adjourned the case till September 24.