NAB lawyers complete final arguments in Al Azizia reference
Telling lies before the court has become a culture, remarks judge
Nawaz Sharif - PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor on Monday completed his final arguments in the Al-Azizia reference filed in the accountability court in Islamabad against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his children.
During the hearing, the defense counsel requested the court to exempt Sharif from personal appearance. The lawyer said that Sharif suffered from knee problem therefore, he could not come to the court. Judge Arshad Malik accepted the application and allowed the exemption.
Continuing his arguments, Prosecutor Wasiq Malik informed the court that there were contradictions between two letters sent by Qatari Prince Hammad bin Jassim during the investigation. There was no signature of the prince on the worksheet presented along with his second letter, he said.
He said according to the letters, 12 million AEDs (United Arab Emirates Dirham) was never remitted to Qatar for purchasing the Avenfield property. At this, the judge observed that Khawaja Haris would answer the point in his turn.
The judge asked whether the letters held any worth if the witness (Qatari prince) did not come to Pakistan to verify them. The judge remarked that several options could be used to record the statement of the Qatari prince.
The judge added that a Qatari court could have been requested to record the prince’s statement and send it here. By this way, the Qatari prince would have known that he was writing a letter to another country's court.
SHC unhappy with govt lawyers’ performance
The prosecutor said that the name of Hussain Nawaz, son of Nawaz Sharif, was mentioned in the sale agreement of Al-Azizia Steel Mills but the accused did not provide details regarding the mills' establishment.
“The information was deliberately kept under wrap to misguide the investigators,” he contended. To a judge’s query, Malik said the accused were of the view that the profit earned from the 12 million AED investment had been collected from 1980 to 2000 period.
He said that accused did not provide any evidence regarding purchase of machinery from Ahli Steel Mills. Sharif’s sons were shown as the beneficiaries of all the foreign investment made by the former prime minister, he added.
The prosecutor said during investigations, Hussain Nawaz never cited the money transfer to his father as gift. All the accused had deep connection with one another. The two sons Hassan and Hussain Nawaz had never claimed that they had made investment at their own, rather Nawaz Sharif had transferred his assets in their names after he joined politics.
Another NAB prosecutor Imran Shafiq argued that in a case pertaining to assets beyond known sources of income, the burden of proof was with the accused. He cited legal references of several countries including India, Hong Kong and others pertaining to the cases of assets beyond known sources of income.
Court reserves ruling over final arguments in Al-Azizia reference
He also gave the example of Caliph Hazrat Umer Farooq (RA), who had presented himself for accountability when a question was asked about his dress. Another NAB prosecutor Akram Qureshi said the accused should have presented the money trail if there was any.
The judge asked whether the former prime minister had changed his lawyer during the proceedings of the references. At times the change of lawyer resulted in change of statements, he said, adding that it had become a norm to tell lies before the courts.
Telling lies before the court has become a culture, the judge remarked. Plaintiff, accused and lawyers all lie and then expect from the court to give its verdict based on truth.
At the conclusion of prosecution’s final arguments the judge directed defence counsel Khawaja Haris to start his arguments in the reference on Tuesday (today) and adjourned further hearing of the case.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor on Monday completed his final arguments in the Al-Azizia reference filed in the accountability court in Islamabad against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his children.
During the hearing, the defense counsel requested the court to exempt Sharif from personal appearance. The lawyer said that Sharif suffered from knee problem therefore, he could not come to the court. Judge Arshad Malik accepted the application and allowed the exemption.
Continuing his arguments, Prosecutor Wasiq Malik informed the court that there were contradictions between two letters sent by Qatari Prince Hammad bin Jassim during the investigation. There was no signature of the prince on the worksheet presented along with his second letter, he said.
He said according to the letters, 12 million AEDs (United Arab Emirates Dirham) was never remitted to Qatar for purchasing the Avenfield property. At this, the judge observed that Khawaja Haris would answer the point in his turn.
The judge asked whether the letters held any worth if the witness (Qatari prince) did not come to Pakistan to verify them. The judge remarked that several options could be used to record the statement of the Qatari prince.
The judge added that a Qatari court could have been requested to record the prince’s statement and send it here. By this way, the Qatari prince would have known that he was writing a letter to another country's court.
SHC unhappy with govt lawyers’ performance
The prosecutor said that the name of Hussain Nawaz, son of Nawaz Sharif, was mentioned in the sale agreement of Al-Azizia Steel Mills but the accused did not provide details regarding the mills' establishment.
“The information was deliberately kept under wrap to misguide the investigators,” he contended. To a judge’s query, Malik said the accused were of the view that the profit earned from the 12 million AED investment had been collected from 1980 to 2000 period.
He said that accused did not provide any evidence regarding purchase of machinery from Ahli Steel Mills. Sharif’s sons were shown as the beneficiaries of all the foreign investment made by the former prime minister, he added.
The prosecutor said during investigations, Hussain Nawaz never cited the money transfer to his father as gift. All the accused had deep connection with one another. The two sons Hassan and Hussain Nawaz had never claimed that they had made investment at their own, rather Nawaz Sharif had transferred his assets in their names after he joined politics.
Another NAB prosecutor Imran Shafiq argued that in a case pertaining to assets beyond known sources of income, the burden of proof was with the accused. He cited legal references of several countries including India, Hong Kong and others pertaining to the cases of assets beyond known sources of income.
Court reserves ruling over final arguments in Al-Azizia reference
He also gave the example of Caliph Hazrat Umer Farooq (RA), who had presented himself for accountability when a question was asked about his dress. Another NAB prosecutor Akram Qureshi said the accused should have presented the money trail if there was any.
The judge asked whether the former prime minister had changed his lawyer during the proceedings of the references. At times the change of lawyer resulted in change of statements, he said, adding that it had become a norm to tell lies before the courts.
Telling lies before the court has become a culture, the judge remarked. Plaintiff, accused and lawyers all lie and then expect from the court to give its verdict based on truth.
At the conclusion of prosecution’s final arguments the judge directed defence counsel Khawaja Haris to start his arguments in the reference on Tuesday (today) and adjourned further hearing of the case.