Sharif disputes with prosecution over money trail
NAB prosecutor argue that there are contradictions in responses of accused
PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was stopped from interrupting the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor during the prosecution’s final arguments in the Hill Metals Investments reference.
During a hearing, Prosecutor Wasiq Malik told Accountability Judge Arshad Malik that defence’s worksheet is prepared to fill the gap created by the absence of the money trail.
Sharif rose on the rostrum, when Prosecutor Malik argued that defence was responsible for producing documents about the establishment of the Al-Azizia Mills.
“Nobody asked for money trail in 1973, when the Gulf Steel Mill was established,” Sharif told the judge. “Before proceeding ahead, please see if this reference makes any sense.”
The accountability judge asked the prosecutor if the defence needed to clarify whether or not Nawaz Sharif had the right to ask his children how they made their assets.
“If an ordinary person does that it is another thing. But Nawaz Sharif was the prime minister of the country,” the judge enquired. He also asked if there was any documentary evidence linking Sharif’s accounts to Al-Azizia and if Sharif received amounts from Hill Metal.
Helicopter requested by NAB to transport Nawaz, Maryam
The prosecutor said that nothing is on record. “Nawaz Sharif got money from Hill Metal. But our case is how these assets were built,” he said. He added that the Qatari prince refused to come to Pakistan and testify in court.
Sharif interrupted Malik, saying that the fact of the matter was not the way the prosecutor was portraying. “I want to give clarification,” Sharif told the accountability judge.
Addressing Sharif, Judge Malik continued that defence lawyer will present his arguments after the prosecution’s final arguments. “If the need be, the court will also listen to you.”
The judge said that question about the money trail will be raised. Sharif said that it was time when the Gulf Steel Mill was established and nobody asked for any money trail at that time. “It is an honour for the child to send money to his father. But does it prove that the father is the owner?”
Sharif asked the judge to seek proof from the prosecution that he [Sharif] was the owner. “Had they any evidence in this regard, they would have presented in the court,” Sharif told the judge.
Court restricts Nawaz, Maryam from visiting ailing Kulsoom
The NAB prosecutor argued that there were contradictions in the responses of the accused. He pointed out the contradiction between the interview of Sharif’s son Hussain Nawaz, and the defence’s stance in the Supreme Court.
At one point, the judge asked about Asma Nawaz. The court was informed that she is a daughter of Nawaz Sharif and daughter-in-law of former finance minister Ishaq Dar. The prosecutor informed the court that nothing has come to the fore about Asma Ali Dar.
He said that Sharif gifted Rs800 million to Maryam Nawaz. The judge said there is no crime if father gives money to his daughter. The court adjourned the hearing till December 3. The prosecution will continue his final arguments.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was stopped from interrupting the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor during the prosecution’s final arguments in the Hill Metals Investments reference.
During a hearing, Prosecutor Wasiq Malik told Accountability Judge Arshad Malik that defence’s worksheet is prepared to fill the gap created by the absence of the money trail.
Sharif rose on the rostrum, when Prosecutor Malik argued that defence was responsible for producing documents about the establishment of the Al-Azizia Mills.
“Nobody asked for money trail in 1973, when the Gulf Steel Mill was established,” Sharif told the judge. “Before proceeding ahead, please see if this reference makes any sense.”
The accountability judge asked the prosecutor if the defence needed to clarify whether or not Nawaz Sharif had the right to ask his children how they made their assets.
“If an ordinary person does that it is another thing. But Nawaz Sharif was the prime minister of the country,” the judge enquired. He also asked if there was any documentary evidence linking Sharif’s accounts to Al-Azizia and if Sharif received amounts from Hill Metal.
Helicopter requested by NAB to transport Nawaz, Maryam
The prosecutor said that nothing is on record. “Nawaz Sharif got money from Hill Metal. But our case is how these assets were built,” he said. He added that the Qatari prince refused to come to Pakistan and testify in court.
Sharif interrupted Malik, saying that the fact of the matter was not the way the prosecutor was portraying. “I want to give clarification,” Sharif told the accountability judge.
Addressing Sharif, Judge Malik continued that defence lawyer will present his arguments after the prosecution’s final arguments. “If the need be, the court will also listen to you.”
The judge said that question about the money trail will be raised. Sharif said that it was time when the Gulf Steel Mill was established and nobody asked for any money trail at that time. “It is an honour for the child to send money to his father. But does it prove that the father is the owner?”
Sharif asked the judge to seek proof from the prosecution that he [Sharif] was the owner. “Had they any evidence in this regard, they would have presented in the court,” Sharif told the judge.
Court restricts Nawaz, Maryam from visiting ailing Kulsoom
The NAB prosecutor argued that there were contradictions in the responses of the accused. He pointed out the contradiction between the interview of Sharif’s son Hussain Nawaz, and the defence’s stance in the Supreme Court.
At one point, the judge asked about Asma Nawaz. The court was informed that she is a daughter of Nawaz Sharif and daughter-in-law of former finance minister Ishaq Dar. The prosecutor informed the court that nothing has come to the fore about Asma Ali Dar.
He said that Sharif gifted Rs800 million to Maryam Nawaz. The judge said there is no crime if father gives money to his daughter. The court adjourned the hearing till December 3. The prosecution will continue his final arguments.