Al-Azizia reference: Prosecution lacks concrete evidence, argues Nawaz's lawyer

Defence counsel told the Accountability Court hearing corruption cases against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif Tuesday that prosecution has failed to produce any concrete evidence to establish that accused Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz were benamidar of their father with respect to Al-Azizia Steel Mills Company Limited (ASCL) and Hill Metals Establishment (HME).
Defence counsel Khawaja Haris during his final arguments told the Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Arshad Malik in Al-Azizia reference that prosecution has declared Sharif as benamidar owner but failed to produce any evidence in this regard.
He said that the main question is what the definition of benamidar is as per law. He said as per law, benamidar is that person who keeps property of anyone else. As per this definition, the ownership of property with anyone else needs to be proved, the lawyer said, adding that proving the connection of ownership of the property with the accused is mandatory.
Haris said that only benefit of the property to the accused does not make him its owner.
He said that ASCL was set up in 2001 and Hussain Nawaz was 29-year-old at the time. The prosecution said that Sharif's sons Hassan and Hussain were dependent of his father but failed to produce any evidence in this regard, he said.
The defence counsel said that sending of remittance from the HME to his father Sharif does not complete the component of benamidar. He said a person sending remittance does not become benamidar.
No amount has been remitted to Sharif from the ASCL, he said, adding that this has been constant stance of Sharif that his son sends him money from HME. "The money sent to him by his son was declared in his wealth statements," he said.
Sharif's counsel said that at the time of setting up of ASCL and HME, his client Sharif did not hold any public office. Similarly, at the time of establishment of aforesaid companies, Hussain was not minor, he said.
The lawyer Haris said that neither had Sharif been involved in selling of Gulf Steel Mill nor had he any direct information about Gulf Steel Mill. "The joint investigation team (JIT) that probed Panama Papers case stated in its report that Sharif's statement about Gulf Steel Mill was hearsay," he said.
About Qatari Prince Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al-Thani's letters that were presented to establish Sharif's money trail, he said, the Nawaz Sharif did not rely upon those letters.
On this, the judge observed, "As per your point of view, Qatari letter was the stance of Hussain Nawaz while Sharif did not rely upon it in his statement under the section 342 of CrPC." On this Haris said that Qatari letters were produced by Hussain Nawaz.
He said that according to evidence, ASCL had three shareholders, including Abbas Sharif, Rabia Sharif and Hussain Nawaz.
Sharif's counsel said that under the law, investigation officer's opinion could not be considered as admissible evidence. The job of an investigation officer is only to collect evidence and place it before the court and the report of investigation officer/agency is not admissible under the law, he said.
The judge remarked those who recorded statements before the JIT had been disappeared and did not appear before the NAB investigation officer."
Haris replied that it should be examined how much efforts the investigation officer has made for recording statements of different people.
The court got annoyed when Haris submitted an application before it to seek exemption for his client. The judge said that he was thinking that Sharif would appear before the court after appearing before the Supreme Court. "If I do not say anything then it does not mean that you should file exemption application for your client every day," he said.
The court summoned Sharif for recording his statement under the section 342 of CrPC in Flagship reference on Wednesday (today) and also approved his exemption application. The court also adjourned hearing of Al-Azizia reference till today (Wednesday).