Sharif denies ownership of assets in Flagship reference
Ex-PM to submit replies of the remaining four questions today
Political opponents drew up charges against me, says Nawaz. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday told the accountability court that he was wrongfully named the owner of assets belonging to his son, Hasan Nawaz, by the joint investigation team (JIT).
Sharif recorded his statements in the Flagship reference case. Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik conducted the hearing. He responded to 136 questions.
Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris informed the court that his client would submit answers to the remaining four questions on Thursday.
Sharif stated that charges against him were politically motivated. “No charges have been proved, still I will submit the documents to the court,” he said, adding that on the basis of “JIT’s one-sided report”, references were filed against him by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
“Hasan Nawaz made these assets, and the JIT wrongly named me as the owner,” former premier claimed. “Apart from [JIT head] Wajid Zia and investigation officer Kamran, no witnesses recorded statements against me,” he added.
Sharif took the plea that both the JIT chief Wajid Zia and the NAB investigation officer, Muhamad Kamran, tried to frame him in the references. “But both [of them] also stated that no such document was found which showed that my children were under my care.”
Responding to a question about the Flagship reference by Judge Malik, Sharif said that his children used to buy flats and later sold them after decor. “They would also sell a company under the flat name,” he added.
The judge remarked that “through Hussain Nawaz the money went to Hasan Nawaz, if Hussain had appeared, the matter would have been resolved. Even if the Qataris had appeared before the court matter could have been resolved.”
Sharif said that his children were independent and he had no link with their businesses, which they had established abroad. The judge remarked that he [Sharif] should have enquired from his sons about expanding business abroad. Haris stated the sons of former prime minister were grown up and he could not force them.
Meanwhile, Haris continued his final arguments in the Al-Aziza Steel Mills reference. He said that no part of the JIT report could be accepted as evidence against his client. He argued that the prosecution could not give any reference to the JIT report.
Haris claimed that the prosecution had not proved that the sons of Sharif were his dependents. The letter of the Qatari prince also had no connection with the former prime minister, he said. Judge Malik remarked that the case was not related to a ‘benamidar’ transaction rather it was regarding a crime that was done as a ‘benamidar’ owner of the assets.
“You are giving arguments regarding a ‘benamidar’ transaction. However, in the case, the accused was blamed for hiding his crime under the guise of ‘benamidar’ ownership,” the judge said, addressing Khawaja Haris. It seemed the defence counsel did not want conclusion of the trial in time given by the Supreme Court, he added.
At this, Haris said he would try to conclude his arguments on Thursday. His client would also complete his statement on Thursday.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday told the accountability court that he was wrongfully named the owner of assets belonging to his son, Hasan Nawaz, by the joint investigation team (JIT).
Sharif recorded his statements in the Flagship reference case. Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik conducted the hearing. He responded to 136 questions.
Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris informed the court that his client would submit answers to the remaining four questions on Thursday.
Sharif stated that charges against him were politically motivated. “No charges have been proved, still I will submit the documents to the court,” he said, adding that on the basis of “JIT’s one-sided report”, references were filed against him by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
“Hasan Nawaz made these assets, and the JIT wrongly named me as the owner,” former premier claimed. “Apart from [JIT head] Wajid Zia and investigation officer Kamran, no witnesses recorded statements against me,” he added.
Sharif took the plea that both the JIT chief Wajid Zia and the NAB investigation officer, Muhamad Kamran, tried to frame him in the references. “But both [of them] also stated that no such document was found which showed that my children were under my care.”
Responding to a question about the Flagship reference by Judge Malik, Sharif said that his children used to buy flats and later sold them after decor. “They would also sell a company under the flat name,” he added.
The judge remarked that “through Hussain Nawaz the money went to Hasan Nawaz, if Hussain had appeared, the matter would have been resolved. Even if the Qataris had appeared before the court matter could have been resolved.”
Sharif said that his children were independent and he had no link with their businesses, which they had established abroad. The judge remarked that he [Sharif] should have enquired from his sons about expanding business abroad. Haris stated the sons of former prime minister were grown up and he could not force them.
Meanwhile, Haris continued his final arguments in the Al-Aziza Steel Mills reference. He said that no part of the JIT report could be accepted as evidence against his client. He argued that the prosecution could not give any reference to the JIT report.
Haris claimed that the prosecution had not proved that the sons of Sharif were his dependents. The letter of the Qatari prince also had no connection with the former prime minister, he said. Judge Malik remarked that the case was not related to a ‘benamidar’ transaction rather it was regarding a crime that was done as a ‘benamidar’ owner of the assets.
“You are giving arguments regarding a ‘benamidar’ transaction. However, in the case, the accused was blamed for hiding his crime under the guise of ‘benamidar’ ownership,” the judge said, addressing Khawaja Haris. It seemed the defence counsel did not want conclusion of the trial in time given by the Supreme Court, he added.
At this, Haris said he would try to conclude his arguments on Thursday. His client would also complete his statement on Thursday.