Deposition in Al-Azizia, Hill Metals reference concludes

Last witness gives testimony before the trial court

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) last witness against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his sons in the Al-Azizia and Hill Metals Establishment references concluded deposition before an accountability court on Friday.

Subsequently, Accountability Court’s Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik directed the witness – NAB’s investigation officer Mehboob Alam – to appear on October 2 for cross-examination.

Meanwhile, the court summoned the head of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) Wajid Zia on October 1 (Monday) for recording his statement in NAB’s reference in Flagship and other companies against the former PM and his sons.

Zia’s summoning and cross-examination of the investigation officer is linked with the court’s earlier decision to conclude the remaining two corruption references against the Sharifs.



The judge had ruled that he would hear the remaining references simultaneously.

Earlier, Judge Malik agreed with the defence counsel, Khawaja Haris, who argued that the court should hear both references and summoned Zia for cross-examination on August 27.

Previously, Haris had informed the court that another accountability court judge had stated twice in his orders that all three references should be concluded together, but later deviated from this stance and concluded the reference in connection with the Avenfield Apartments.

On July 6, Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir convicted and sentenced Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son in-law Captain (retd) Safdar in the reference.

On Friday, Alam insisted that Nawaz Sharif, in his address to the nation and the speech on the floor of the National Assembly had outlined sources used for acquiring assets after the Panama Papers were exposed.

He said a witness, Shahid Mehmood, joined the investigation and produced relevant record in this regard.

He said that the accused did not join the probe, which was conducted in light of the orders of the Supreme Court.



Haris, meanwhile, raised objections, saying that this portion of the statement was “speculative and conjectural” and constitutes his opinion and hence inadmissible as evidence.

Alam said that the accused had persistently offered divergent explanations regarding the money trail and sources of funds used for acquiring the assets in question.

These assertions were weighed during the investigation and it was found that the accused had nothing more to offer in their defence.

In response, Haris said that this was the personal opinion of the witness and inadmissible as evidence.

Alam, in turn, said that the accused persons’ assertions were found to be “untrue”.

He pointed out that the accused had at one time claimed that the funds originated from Dubai, then Qatar and subsequently Saudi Arabia and United Kingdom and they belonged to the Sharifs.

Haris again objected, saying that this statement too amounted to nothing more than personal inference drawn inadmissible as evidence.



When the witness said that when Al-Azizia Steel Company Ltd was set up, Hussain Nawaz had no independent known sources of income, Haris objected, saying it was also an opinion and not admissible as evidence.

Citing various precedents, Haris said that such evidence was strongly depreciated by the superior courts.

Before making a statement, Haris moved an application, seeking exemption for Nawaz Sharif from making a personal appearance on Friday. The court allowed the request.

The court would now resume hearing on Monday next week.