‘No evidence of irregularity’ in Hasan Nawaz’s business
No evidence to suggest money for Quint Paddington property or Capital FZ was provided by Nawaz: Investigating Officer
Hasan Nawaz. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Investigation Officer in the Flagship Investment reference, Muhammad Kamran, informed an accountability court in Islamabad that the anti-graft body could not find any irregularity in the business of Hasan Nawaz, son of deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
During a hearing on Monday, Sharif’s lawyer Khawaja Haris continued the cross-examination of the investigation officer for the fifth day. The cross-examination was expected to conclude in the day, but the lawyer told Judge Arshad Malik that he would try to conclude it on Tuesday.
Sharif was present in the court during the cross-examination. The investigation officer told the court that he had not found evidence against Hasan Nawaz of his involvement in any irregularity in Britain related to his business.
He said that except for the Quint Paddington property, the other properties of Hasan Nawaz had been sold out. He added that he could not find any evidence that suggested that the money for Quint Paddington property or the Capital FZ was provided by Nawaz Sharif.
He also informed the court that he had requested the Land Registry Department for the provision of details about the properties of Hasan Nawaz but the record provided to him was not in accordance with his request.
The investigation officer said that he had received land registry of plots in response to a mutual legal assistance (MLA) but added that the title numbers of both were different because those were the separate properties.
The defence could not conclude the cross-examining, while the court adjourned hearing till Tuesday. Haris told Judge Malik that he would try to conclude his cross-examining on the next hearing. He also prayed to the court to provide the questionnaire to accused to record his statement under section 342.
Haris raised the questions regarding the way of provision of a joint investigation team (JIT) report to the investigation officer. The judge asked the defense to only ask relevant questions. No matter from where the NAB had collected the report, the judge said.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Investigation Officer in the Flagship Investment reference, Muhammad Kamran, informed an accountability court in Islamabad that the anti-graft body could not find any irregularity in the business of Hasan Nawaz, son of deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
During a hearing on Monday, Sharif’s lawyer Khawaja Haris continued the cross-examination of the investigation officer for the fifth day. The cross-examination was expected to conclude in the day, but the lawyer told Judge Arshad Malik that he would try to conclude it on Tuesday.
Sharif was present in the court during the cross-examination. The investigation officer told the court that he had not found evidence against Hasan Nawaz of his involvement in any irregularity in Britain related to his business.
He said that except for the Quint Paddington property, the other properties of Hasan Nawaz had been sold out. He added that he could not find any evidence that suggested that the money for Quint Paddington property or the Capital FZ was provided by Nawaz Sharif.
He also informed the court that he had requested the Land Registry Department for the provision of details about the properties of Hasan Nawaz but the record provided to him was not in accordance with his request.
The investigation officer said that he had received land registry of plots in response to a mutual legal assistance (MLA) but added that the title numbers of both were different because those were the separate properties.
The defence could not conclude the cross-examining, while the court adjourned hearing till Tuesday. Haris told Judge Malik that he would try to conclude his cross-examining on the next hearing. He also prayed to the court to provide the questionnaire to accused to record his statement under section 342.
Haris raised the questions regarding the way of provision of a joint investigation team (JIT) report to the investigation officer. The judge asked the defense to only ask relevant questions. No matter from where the NAB had collected the report, the judge said.