Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and her husband former captain Safdar failed to present any witness on their behalf, or documentary proof, and never gave their testimony under oath, claiming that the prosecution had failed to present any evidence against them. National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 places the burden of proof on the accused and not on the prosecution, legal experts pointed out to Business Recorder.
Ramzan Chaudhry, a former judge of Lahore High Court, stated that sometimes the accused opt not to give their testimony under oath as they may fear that under cross-examination other incriminating evidence may come to light or later they may be indicted for perjury. He further stated said the case against the Sharifs is under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999, which is a special law that lays the burden of proof on the accused and not the prosecution, while in ordinary law the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Advocate Faridon Awan did not concur and stated that though the Sharif trial is under NAO yet the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been applied in this case and under Section 342 CrPc the accused is not bound to prove his innocence. In cases where the prosecution has irrefutable evidence then the accused does not give a statement on oath. He said in criminal cases the slightest doubt goes in favour of the accused, adding that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Deputy Prosecutor NAB Syed Muzaffar Abbasi during the proceedings contended that the prosecution had established its case beyond a shadow of doubt, while Khawaja Haris contended that the prosecution failed to establish a case therefore there was no need to produce any witness on behalf of his client. Khawaja Haris, the lead counsel, insisted that the JIT report was inadmissible and NAB was 'totally wrong' in making the JIT report a part of the reference against his clients. He further contended that inferences, opinions and conclusions drawn by JIT were not admissible.
He further argued that Nawaz Sharif was never the beneficial owner of Avenfield Apartments and had no link to these properties and this is proved as Nawaz Sharif's name is not mentioned in 81 documents produced by the prosecution before the Accountability Court. He further stated that the matter relates to trust deeds of two offshore companies Nielson and Nescoll between Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz with no third person involved; therefore, Nawaz Sharif is not connected to these trust deeds.
NAB prosecutor argued that the accused - Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Muhammad Safdar (- concealed facts to mislead investigators and failed to prove the source of their vast income. NAB prosecutor further maintained that Nawaz Sharif is the real owner of Avenfield Apartments and the decision of Queen's Division Bench London, 1999, in Hudaibiya Papers Mills loan case proves Sharif family's ownership of the London flats.
The prosecutor further contended that the trust deeds of Nielson and Nescoll submitted by the accused Maryam Nawaz was found to be fabricated in the light of Robert Radley report, a UK-based forensic expert. The defence neither produced any expert to rebut this report nor produced any original trust deed before the court, he further stated.
Comments
Comments are closed.