- Documents provided by SC include constitutional petitions, multiple CMAs and petitions and responses filed against Sharif family, FIA additional director tells court
- Nawaz’s counsel seeks to record Avenfield proceedings over Wajid Zia’s ‘u-turns’
ISLAMABAD: The accountability court was informed on Monday by head of the Panama case joint investigation team (JIT) – formed to probe the Sharif family’s assets during the Panama Papers case in the Supreme Court (SC) – and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Additional Director Wajid Zia that the probe in the Avenfield reference case was limited to the documents provided to the JIT by the Supreme Court.
As the court resumed hearing the Avenfield flats reference, former premier Nawaz Sharif, daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law MNA Capt (r) Muhammad Safdar reached the accountability court.
The case, based on a reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in light of the Supreme Court’s July 28’s verdict in Panama Papers case, pertains to the Sharif family’s London apartments.
During the hearing, defence counsel Khawaja Harris continued to cross-examine Zia.
“The documents provided by the SC included constitutional petitions, multiple CMAs and the petitions and responses filed against the Sharif family,” Zia told the court.
Nawaz Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Harris was trying to point towards the fact that the land-rent agreement, professional licenses and the premises where the factory was set up were not investigated.
Zia conceded that the team had not probed Gulf Steel Mills which was renamed to Ahli Steel Mills. The cross-examination led to a debate over the 1978 and 1980 agreements which revealed that 75 per cent of the shares of the steel mills belong to Abdullah Ahli while the remaining 25 per cent remained in the name of Tariq Shafee.
Zia also confirmed that neither Nawaz himself nor any witness claimed that the former premier remained associated with the Gulf Steel Mills or Ahli Steel Mills. Zia also asserted that there was no proof that Nawaz benefitted from the sale of 75 per cent shares of Gulf Steel Mills.
Harris also questioned whether Zia tried to verify the mill’s record from Dubai municipality authorities, to which the head of the JIT informed the court that the team wrote to relevant authorities in Dubai recently, seeking further details of Gulf Steel Mills but have yet to receive a response.
The defence counsel then drew Zia’s attention towards certain pages and asked if the JIT tried to verify the records Gulf Steel Mills, but Zia replied in the negative.
Zia maintained that the documents were presumed to be true.
“JIT did not feel the need to verify the documents from the Dubai municipality earlier, neither did we feel the need to verify the contents and authenticity of the professional licence for Gulf Steel Mills for purpose of ascertaining whether Abdullah Ahli and Tariq Shafee had indeed been working as partners with effect from 1978.”
Responding to further questions, Zia said he cannot be precise about the number of days invested in analysing the SC documents, but agreed that the one million square feet land allotted to the mills and the rent agreement between Tariq Shafee and Mohammad Hussain regarding the availability and the setting up of the steel mill were verified during the examination.
Zia said all such documents came to his notice when the JIT was conducting the examination.
Furthermore, Harris pointed to Zia’s ‘u-turns’ in his statements, pleading the court to record the proceedings of the case. The judge informally agreed to the notion.
The hearing was then adjourned until Tuesday when the cross-examination will continue.
Wajid Zia was cross-examined on Friday as well after he completed recording his statement over several weeks.
