Avenfield case: trust deed can be ‘called pre-dated’

Maryam Nawaz says time ripe for no-trust move against PM

ISLAMABAD:

Justice Amir Farooq of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday remarked if Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz had signed the trust deed, which was presented in an accountability court during the Avenfield reference, then the document could be called pre-dated and not fake.

The deed issue came up during hearing of appeals of Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retd) Safdar against the sentences awarded to them by the accountability court and for their acquittal by an IHC bench comprising Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani.

During the hearing, Irfan Qadir, the counsel for Maryam Nawaz said that the entire proceedings of the case – from filing of the reference by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to the trial by the accountability court – were misuse of power.

However, NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi argued that the prosecution had proved with evidence that Maryam Nawaz was not a trustee, but a beneficial owner. He added that forensic analysis proved that the trust deed was a fake document.

Qadir told the court that the petitions raised questions about the whole process. He added that he would not touch the merits of appeal for now, rather highlight the parts where due process was not followed.

The lawyer added that the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Panamagate case was no different from unconstitutionally removing an elected government. He added that Imran Khan wanted to become prime minister, therefore, Nawaz Sharif’s government was removed in an unconstitutional way.

When Justice Amir Farooq asked whether a review petition was filed against the decision of the Supreme Court, Qadir replied that the Supreme Court had written in the judgment that the judicial observations would not impact the trial.

In this case, the powers that law gave to NAB were retained by the Supreme Court, the lawyer said. Maryam Nawaz was accused of owning certain properties, he continued, but insisted that he would first point out irregularities in the whole process.

The lawyer said that NAB did not complete the basic details in the case. He mentioned that requirements under the NAB Ordinance were not met. He also said that the value and source of the assets were not disclosed before, adding that the court could acquit Maryam Nawaz now if it wanted.

The court told Irfan Qadir that he had to prove that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against his clients. He replied that there were other aspects as well. Justice Farooq said that the court had to see whether there was evidence against the accused or not.

Qadir said that it was the first case in Pakistan’s legal history where the Supreme Court supervised the case.

He mentioned that the apex court also referred the cases – about rental power and Hajj arrangements – to the agencies concerned but did not appoint a monitoring judge.

The court remarked that the case could conclude in five minutes, if the lawyer proved that NAB had failed to prove the case. Justice Farooq also told the lawyer that he had to point out the shortcomings in the investigation and the trial, and the court would examine them.

Qadir posed a question, saying that when NAB did not investigate the case, how could it file the reference. The court asked the lawyer to argue on the allegations against his client, instead of arguing on the misuse of the process.

The lawyer said that a letter from British Virgin Islands was treated as evidence by the trial court. The whole case was based on that letter, Irfan Qadir said, adding that this one letter was taken by the trial court as primary evidence.

The accountability court sentenced Maryam Nawaz on the basis of a letter from British Virgin Islands that stated that Maryam Nawaz owned the Avenfield apartments. The accountability court said that Maryam Nawaz could not offer anything in response to the letter, Qadir told the court.

The court asked whether there was something else attached to the letter. The bench remarked that it was a covering letter and asked NAB as to who wrote the letter.

The NAB prosecutor said the letter was written by a firm to the head of the joint investigation team (JIT), Wajid Zia, on July 3, 2017. The NAB prosecutor presented the letter received by Zia in reply to the MLA. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said it was the internal correspondence of law firm Mossack Fonseca. The court asked the prosecutor if the letter could prove anything.

When the prosecutor replied in affirmative, the court observed that then the law of evidence would have to be rewritten.

Justice Amir Farooq asked if a letter written in 2012 could be relied upon in accordance with the law of evidence. The judge further asked whether the lawyer and the agency referred to in the MLA made any statements. He also asked how could a letter formed evidence without a statement from a British agency concerned and the relevant law firm. Justice Amir Farooq said that the hearing would not be adjourned, as the court would hear answers to its question. He then addressed the prosecutor, saying that this question had to be answered by him and that he would get the answer from NAB.

Justice Amir Farooq also asked the prosecutor to tell the court in few sentences what was the NAB’s case against Maryam Nawaz. Prosecutor Abbasi said that Maryam Nawaz claimed that she was the trustee of this property but the prosecution proved that she was the beneficial owner.

He pointed out that the forensics proved that the trust deed produced in the case was fake.

The court asked if it was a forgery, was it was presented before the Supreme Court or before the JIT. He replied that the deed was submitted to the Supreme Court and then Maryam Nawaz confirmed it before the JIT. The court asked the prosecutor what he meant when he said that the trust deed was fake. Saying that the court would come to the Calibri font later, the judge asked the prosecutor whether it was proven that Maryam Nawaz had not signed this deed.

The NAB prosecutor replied in negative. The court then asked if it was proven that the deed was not signed by Hussain Nawaz. The NAB prosecutor again replied in negative. Justice Amir Farooq said that if this was the case then the document would not be called fake, rather it would be called pre-dated.

The court remarked that the signatories of the trust deed still say that they had signed it, while Capt Safdar was convicted only for being a witness to these signatures. He also asked prosecutor if a father made properties illegally and gave it to the daughter, would the daughter be guilty.

The NAB prosecutor replied that he would argue on that point when the time came. Justice Kayani said that the court had reached that point, adding that there would be no more delays. The judge observed that NAB would have to answer court’s questions and then Maryam Nawaz’s lawyer would be heard.

The court asked Maryam Nawaz’s lawyer if he had seen the documents related to the trust deed. Qadir replied that he had not seen it as yet. The court then directed Qadir to read the paper files of the case and adjourn the hearing till February 17.

'Time ripe for no-trust move'

Later, talking to the media, Maryam Nawaz, the vice president of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) said that the prevailing situation in the country was suitable for introducing a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.

She conceded that party supremo Nawaz Sharif was initially not in favour of a no-trust move, “however, the party pressed him that people’s wishes ought to be listened to as it is the only way to steer the country out of crisis”. She did not elaborate whether Nawaz had given nod to the move or not. Maryam said that the PTI lacked ideology or commitment. “We see its [PTI’s] ship sinking. Everyone in this party wants power but when this ship sinks, these people will be nowhere to be seen,” she said, adding that many PTI lawmakers were ready to jump ship.

The PML-N leader said it was her sincere advice to Prime Minister Imran and his party members to wear helmets whenever they go out in public or they should climb up on a container because the hands of the people were about to reach their necks.

Responding to a question, Maryam Nawaz said that it was too early to talk about Imran’s successor. “First, we have to reach the stage of introducing a no-confidence motion. Then a consensual decision on the next prime minister would have to be taken.”

To another query, the PML-N leader claimed that Imran’s recent speeches reflected his frustration as he lacked public support because of his failure to deliver and inability to govern the country. Those backing the prime minister were now bound to listen to the grievances of people and act accordingly,” she said. She claimed that it was a fact that the PTI government was not sustainable. “The PTI’s allies are aware that they would not be able carry the burden of the government’s failures in their next election campaigns,” she added. “The PTI will be wiped out from mainstream politics in the coming days.”

The PML-N leader said the recent 15% increase in the salaries of Rangers and FC personnel by the prime minister was significantly low in view of almost “500%” surge in inflation.

On the award of appreciation certificates to different ministries by Prime Minister Imran earlier in the day, Maryam said key ministries, including the foreign ministry, were left out of any recognition as the government had failed on various fronts.

Responding to yet another question, she said: “Nawaz Sharif can’t return to the country but his entire party is united.” About the hearing of her appeals, she claimed that NAB had failed to provide any evidence against her before the IHC.