The PTI has once again categorically dismissed the Toshakhana reference filed against the party's founder, Imran Khan, and his wife, Bushra Bibi. The former ruling party has described the case as "devoid of merit" and "a concocted fabrication."
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) last year filed a reference against Imran and Bushra, accusing the couple of misusing the state’s gift repository—Toshakhana.
Last week, the lawyer for the PTI founder cross-examined NAB principal witness, Imran Masih. The party on Sunday issued a statement claiming that the reference now stands discredited following the witness's statement in court, deeming it to be without foundation.
According to the PTI, Shehbaz Khosa, advocate for Imran Khan, systematically dismantled the entire case during the cross-examination of Masih. The party alleged that NAB relied on images of Toshakhana's jewelry sent to Masih, constructing the entire case based on the responses obtained from him.
Read: Toshakhana: lawyer picks holes in testimony
The party asserted that Imran Masih lacks any certification for the assessment of jewelry, including the absence of familiarity with the abbreviation "IGI," which pertains to the relevant certificate for diamond grading. Furthermore, he does not possess any official documentation for his establishment, and even the proprietor remains oblivious to his identity.
PTI emphasized that the witness failed to furnish any written evidence regarding market research and appraisals conducted by jewelry establishments. Moreover, the salesman did not possess any letter from the company, authorizing him for price determination and testimony in court.
The statement underscored that the gifts scrutinized in NAB's reference had not undergone machine examination, relying solely on photographic evidence. Notably, Imran Masih, in his report, recorded the weight of diamonds in grams, whereas the standard metric for weighing diamonds is carats.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ