The counsel of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday told an accountability court that his client is not accountable for Al-Azizia Steel Mill Company Limited (ASCL) and Hill Metals Establishment (HME), and only his son Hussain Nawaz is answerable in this respect.
Sharif's counsel Khawaja Haris during his final arguments in Al-Azizia Steel Mill reference told the accountability court that his client has no connection with ASCL and HME and this is exactly his case. He further said investigation officer (IO) of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) did nothing except relying on the joint investigation team (JIT) report that probed Panama Papers case.
Former premier Nawaz Sharif appeared before the court but he was allowed to go after his counsel filed an application seeking exemption for him which the court approved.
Haris further said assets of Hussain Nawaz Sharif, who is co-accused in the case, are not declared in Pakistan. On this, Judge Arshad Malik asked, "Is Hussain being a non-resident not liable to declare his foreign assets in Pakistan? Prosecution did not raise the matter that non-declaration of assets by Hussain is illegal."
Sharif's counsel further said investigation officer did not conduct investigation with respect to transfer of shares in the name of Nawaz Sharif's children. "The accused Sharif never stated that he does not know about the businesses of his children but he adopted the stance that he has no connection with their businesses," he said. He said JIT made mutual legal assistance (MLA) request, which it had written to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) for obtaining annual audited accounts and financial statements of HME, part of the record.
Haris further said it was stated in the supplementary reference that huge amounts had been remitted from HME to five other individuals except Sharif. Those who received the amounts from HME admitted that they have received the amount, he said, adding that NAB did not associate those individuals for investigation.
He said NAB should have asked them if they have any shares in HME. They also included the employees of HME, he said. The defence counsel said an investigation officer cannot make the assertion that accused Sharif after holding public office had become most influential person of his family. Sharif's counsel said his client neither produced nor relied upon Al-Dar report. The JIT did not try to associate the person who prepared Al-Dar report which was annexed by Hussain Nawaz with civil miscellaneous application (CMA) on the basis of which the JIT concluded that 97 percent remittances from Hill Metals Establishment (HME) were made to accused Sharif, he said.
He said if Hassan and Hussain had appeared before this court then their confessional statements would have been used against Sharif. "If the affidavits of Tariq Shafi are used against his client then he should also be provided the right to cross-examine Shafi," he said.
On this, the court observed if Hassan and Hussain had appeared before this court then it would have made the job of NAB easier. "In case of appearance of Sharif's son before this court, the NAB would have to connect Sharif with this case", the judge further said. Haris completed his final arguments in the case and NAB's deputy prosecutor will rebut them during the next hearing to be held today (Thursday).
Comments
Comments are closed.