Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told the Accountability Court that he had gifted 70 percent of the remittances he received from abroad to his daughter Maryam Nawaz. The former prime minister said this while recording his statement in Al-Azizia Steel Mills and Hill Metals Establishment (HEM) reference under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik.
Sharif replied that he gifted most of remittances he received from abroad to his daughter, when he was asked: "There is evidence that more than 70 percent amount he received as remittances during the relevant period he gifted it to his daughter who purchased immovable properties with these funds." The former prime minister recorded replies to 120 out of a total of 151 questions for the third consecutive day.
Sharif said that all the money he received from abroad was duly reflected in his tax returns and wealth statements. The amounts remitted to him by Hussain Nawaz, whether through his own account or through the account maintained by him in the name of business entity, were gifts and this factum of gifts is acknowledged by him.
He further said that he had never been a part of any transaction related to the sale of Al-Azizia Steel Mills. "I have never claimed to own Al-Azizia Steel Mills. I have always said I had nothing to do with Al-Azizia Steel Mill. "With regard to my co-accused, neither are they before this court nor are they being jointly tried with me; hence, any inference drawn on the basis of the income tax return, wealth statements and wealth tax return is inadmissible in this case," he said.
When the accused was asked about the TV interview of Hussain Nawaz, he said that Hussain is neither before this court nor is he being tried with him in the instant case, hence any statement attributed to him is neither relevant nor admissible as evidence.
To a question about accused Hussain's claim about establishment and operating the affairs of Al-Azizia Steel Mill, Sharif said that it is not correct, adding Al-Aziza Steel Mill was established by his late father Mian Muhammad Sharif and its business was being operated by Hussain.
He said that neither has any CMA request been proved in accordance with law, nor was any statement of any of his co-accused recorded by the JIT in his presence.
To a question if all the proceeds of Al-Azizia Steel Mill were utilised for establishment of HME, he said that he has no personal knowledge as he had never participated in any transaction involving sale proceeds of Al-Azizia Steel Mill or their subsequent utilisation.
Sharif further said that neither had he prepared the Aldar statement nor was the same prepared in his presence. Furthermore, neither the person who had actually prepared the Aldar has been contacted by the JIT in investigation, nor has the statement of any person who may have prepared such statement been recorded by the JIT. The Aldar statement has no evidentiary value whatsoever in this case, he said.
He said that the origin of this particular Aldar statement is suspected and it appears to have been fabricated by the JIT and made part of the record with ulterior motives to make out a false case against the accused persons.
The accused Sharif has no knowledge of the correspondence that took place between the prosecution witness Wajid Zia and Qatari Prince Sheikh Hamad Bin Jasim Al-Thani. He was not the subject matter of any of the questioned letters referred to in the said correspondence.
"However, I may add here that as per the contents of the correspondence placed on the record, the Qatari prince had in each of his letter written in response to Zia's letters confirmed the contents of his letters and had also offered verifying their contents in person in Doha and without being restricted by the imposition of any of the stringent and unreasonable conditions as suggested in the subsequent letters written by Zia," he said.
The correspondence between Zia and the Qatari prince shows that Qatari prince through his letter dated June 11, 2017 had invited JIT to visit him in Doha at a mutually agreeable place as to facilitate the verification by him in person of his two letters, he said.
He said that not only this but also through the same letter the Qatari prince asked the JIT to provide him a questionnaire in advance prior to its visit to Doha for the said purpose. It is only after the JIT "maliciously" refused to accede to this very reasonable request on part of Qatari prince and on the contrary imposed extremely strict unreasonable conditions for recording his statement, the Qatari prince was forced to apprehend that he was the subject to JIT investigation and he wrote back to the JIT that he was neither subject to any investigation nor was required to appear before any court of law or tribunal. It may also be added here that in this letter the prince reiterated his willingness to meet the JTI in Doha in order to verify content of letters, Sharif further said.
Sharif said that truth of the matter is that the JIT itself, with mala fide intention, was avoiding the recording of statement of the Qatari prince for purposes of verification of the letters produced before the Supreme Court while the Qatari prince had never shown any lack of cooperation with the JIT.
He said that as far as the reliance placed upon these letters by his co-accused in the reference is concerned, it is submitted that neither did they appear before this court nor are they being jointly tried with him and as such any stance attributed to them is inadmissible in evidence in this case.
The court also wrote a letter to the Supreme Court seeking another extension to complete trial against Sharif family in remaining two references. The court adjourned hearing of the case till November 19.
Comments
Comments are closed.