A prosecution witness on Wednesday told the Accountability Court hearing corruption cases against former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his sons that Al-Azizia Steel Mills Company Limited (ASCL) was a limited company.
Mehboob Alam, prosecution witness and National Accountability Bureau (NAB) investigation officer told the Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik that it came to his notice during investigation that ASCL was a limited company. He was replying to defense counsel Khawaja Haris during the cross-examination in the ASCL and Hill Metals Establishment (HME) reference, who asked when it came to his notice that ASCL was a sole-proprietorship or a limited company or a partnership concern.
When Haris asked the witness, "Did it come to your notice that in the entire MLA request, the name of the business was not mentioned as ASCL?" The witness said that he did not recall it.
Former Premier Nawaz Sharif was present in the courtroom during the hearing who was later allowed to leave. Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) President Shehbaz Sharif and some other party leaders arrived at the court to express solidarity with their leader.
Nawaz Sharif during a brief informal chat with journalists after reading a poetic verse said that he is in a different mood and they are asking political questions. "I am talking generally and this verse is not related to the statement of Rana Mashhood," he said.
The witness said that he had gone through mutual legal assistance (MLA) request sent by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that propped the Panama Papers case with respect to question in the instant reference. "Out of these MLA requests, one which was sent on May 31, 2017 was related to Hill Metals Establishment (HME)," he said, adding that no response of that MLA was received as long as the investigation continued.
To another question, he said he had written a letter to NAB headquarters to send a reminder to authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabi (KSA) for replying the said MLA request. The witness said that he had not appended the copy of the said letter with his investigation report.
He further said that NAB headquarters had sent a letter to KSA authorities in pursuant to his letter. "I had gone through the documents related to ASCL and HME before sending a letter to NAB headquarters for sending a letter to competent authorities in KSA," he further said.
Haris asked the witness what name was used in the entire MLA request. The witness replied that he does not recall what name was used in the MLA request for the business carried out in KSA.
The defence counsel asked the witness if it had come to his notice after going through the documents collected by JIT whether the HME was a sole-proprietorship or a limited company or a partnership concern.
The witness replied that he had concluded the HME was a sole proprietorship. "I cannot recall whether in MLA request, HME was mentioned as a sole-proprietorship or a limited company or a partnership concern."
He said that the actual name of HME was Hill Modern Industry for Metals Establishment and it came to his notice through the documents collected by the JIT. In the MLA request, the name of HME was not mentioned as Hill Modern Industry for Metals Establishment. "I cannot recall whether or not complete address of ASCL was mentioned in the MLA request," he said.
At one stage, NAB Prosecutor Mohammad Akram Qureshi and Khawaja Haris' associate Ayesha Hamid exchanged harsh words with each other.
The witness said that he had written letters to concerned departments including Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for providing record and material available with them relevant to instant reference.
Haris asked the witness if he had received any reply of letters written to the FIA and NAB. On this, the witness said that no response was received.
The defence counsel asked the witness if he can provide the copies of both the letters written to NAB and FIA. The copies of the letters are not available with him at present, he replied, adding that he can produce copies of both the letters later.
When the witness was asked if he mentioned in his investigation report that he had written letters to FIA and NAB, he replied that he did not remember that he had specifically mentioned in the investigation report submitted before filing of reference that he had written letters to FIA and NAB for provision of relevant record; however, both the FIA and NAB informed that no such record relevant with allegations was available with them.
The court adjourned hearing of the case till Thursday (today) and Haris will continue cross-examination of the witness.
Comments
Comments are closed.