Judge gives ruling in Avenfield case: What can and what cannot be made part of court's record

The Accountability Court hearing corruption cases against the Sharif family on Monday ordered that the investigation officer in the Avenfield case can make those documents part of court's record, which were collected by Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that investigated the Panama Papers case.
Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir hearing the Avenfield properties reference filed against Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and his son-in-law Captain Muhammad Safdar (retd) ruled that investigation officer can make the documents collected by the JIT part of the court record; however, the entire JIT report cannot be made part of the case record.
Investigation Officer Imran Dogar, who was the last witness in the Avenfield reference, while recording his statement told the court that the competent authority on August 3, 2017 had authorized him to conduct investigations into the Avenfield case against the accused Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Safdar, Hassan Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz and Capitan Muhammad Safdar (retd). He said that during the course of investigation, he obtained complete JIT report from the Supreme Court. The Volume-1 to Volume-9A are the integral parts of the reference and were also submitted along with the reference, he said.
Defense counsel Khawaja Haris while objecting to Dogar's statement said that neither did he (Dogar) prepare the JIT report nor was it prepared in front of him. "Then how can Dogar present the JIT report?" Haris questioned.
NAB Deputy Prosecutor General Syed Muzaffar Abbasi adopted the stance that after being assigned the investigation by the competent authority, the investigation officer obtained JIT report as a material and evidence. The Supreme Court in its July 28, 2017 judgment ordered to file a reference on the basis of evidence collected by the JIT and relevant material, he said.
He said the defense counsel had cross-examined each and every part of the JIT report then there is no harm to bring it to the court record. After hearing the arguments of both defense and prosecution, the judge adjourned the hearing for a short time and then announced the judgment.
The court ruled that investigation officer can only make documents collected by the JIT part of court record but could not make the entire JIT report part of the case. The court adjourned hearing till May 2. Sharif, Maryam and Safdar were present in the court during the hearing but were later allowed to leave the court.
At the start of the hearing, Sharif's counsel filed an application before the court that recording the statement of investigation officer in the Avenfield reference before recording the statement of prosecution witness Wajid Zia in the Flagship and Al Azizia references will adversely impact their defense. He pleaded the court to first record the statement of Zia in Flagship and Al-Azizia references.
Abbasi while opposing defense counsel's plea said that the prosecution wants to conclude the Avenfield case first and the defence should have submitted its request before Zia's cross-examination in the Avenfield reference.
He further told the court that the investigation officer is not the common witness as he is the only investigation officer of the Avenfield case. "The defense never raised such kind of objection about the common witness of this case," he said, adding that this application is baseless and, therefore, should be rejected and the investigation officer be allowed to record his statement.
Hearing the arguments, the judge ruled that he will give an order on the plea later and directed the investigation officer to start recording his statement.