Prosecution has failed to establish ownership of Avenfield properties, argues counsel

The counsel for Maryam Safdar and Captain Muhammad Safdar (retd), Amjad Pervez said on Thursday that the prosecution has completely failed to establish the ownership of the Avenfield properties, known sources of Nawaz Sharif's income, his expenditures, and difference between his earning and expenditure.
Presenting his closing arguments in the Avenfield properties reference before Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir, Pervez said that prosecution has failed to establish ownership of the London properties. He also said that National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has found out neither known sources of income of Nawaz Sharif nor his expenses.
At the start of the hearing, Pervez filed the pleas of Sharif and his daughter seeking a seven-day exemption from personal appearance before the court. A medical report of Kulsoom Nawaz dated June 22 was also attached with the application filed before the court.
Former Premier Sharif and his daughter are currently in London where Sharif's wife and Maryam's mother, Kulsoom Nawaz, is undergoing cancer treatment. The court granted exemption to Sharif and his daughter from Thursday hearing and asked their counsel to produce a fresh medical report of Kulsoom by today (Friday).
During final arguments, Pervez said that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that probed the Panama Papers case has tried to mislead the Supreme Court through its report. It was the responsibility of the prosecution to establish the ownership of the London properties, find out known sources of income and expenses and if there is any difference, those could be compared, he said. Pervez said if they have proved the difference between known sources of income and expenses then they could think about applying section 9 (a) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999.
The defense counsel gave references of different judgments of the apex court including the Mazharul Haq case, the Qasim Shah case and the Muhammad Hayat case. He said that main responsibility of the prosecution was to establish case against the accused and the accused were to prove their innocence. In this case, the prosecution has completely failed to establish the case, he said.
The counsel also read out two judgments of the apex court related to the anama Papers case during the hearing. There is no mention of Maryam and her husband in the April 20, 2017 judgment of the apex court, he said, adding that Maryam and her husband were not parties to the constitutional petition filed in the Supreme Court.
He said the prosecution did not provide volume 10 of the JIT report under the pretext that it will prejudice the ongoing investigation. "The prosecution also cancelled those facts in volume 10 which were finalized," he said, adding that those facts which were cancelled by the prosecution have prejudiced his case.
He said that there is no mention of trust deeds of two offshore companies, Nielson and Nescoll, holding London flats in the questions given by the apex court to the JIT. "The apex court did not authorize the JIT to hire a solicitor," he said. The hearing of the case was adjourned till today (Friday) and Pervez will continue his final arguments in the case.