NAB prosecutor protests ‘harassment’ of Wajid Zia by Sharif’s lawyer

–NAB prosecutor Muzaffar Abbasi and Nawaz Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Harris argue over ‘needless questioning’ of NAB’s star witness

–Judge admits NAB prosecutor’s stance that witness’ cross-examination be limited to ‘relevant facts’

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) prosecutor in the Avenfield reference against deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s family on Monday lashed out at defence counsel Khawaja Harris for “needlessly questioning” prosecution’s ‘star witness’ Wajid Zia regarding documents that were not part of the court’s record.

“Khawaja is basing his questions on documents that we [the court] are not considering [as part of the case record],” NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi told Accountability Judge Muhammad Bashir during Monday’s hearing. He insisted that the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness be limited to “relevant facts”.

The argument between the two lawyers occurred when Harris was cross-questioning Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Additional Director Zia, who had headed the joint investigation team (JIT) tasked with collecting evidence in the Panama Papers case by the Supreme Court. Harris had questioned Zia about his communication with international law firm Guernica, which was hired by the JIT during the investigation of Panama Papers case and which had provided Nawaz’s Iqama as well as Capital FZE’s trading license.

The JIT’s communication with the law firm had not been included in the JIT report, nor had it been exhibited in court as evidence, since it was classified as a source document.

Objecting to Harris’ line of questioning, the NAB prosecutor said it was unprecedented to allow the defence to refer source documents during its cross-questioning.

Muzaffar complained that Harris had asked “similar questions 15 times”, to which the latter replied that he had to ask the same thing in different ways “to ferret out the truth”.

“It has been 11 days yet his [the defence counsel’s] cross-questioning has not come to an end,” Muzaffar countered. “He does not want to get to the truth, he wants to intimidate [the witness],” he complained.

The court subsequently upheld Muzaffar’s objection and forbade Harris from questioning Zia about documents that were not part of the court’s record.

Zia was on Monday cross-examined for the eighth time after having recorded his statement in the case over six hearings earlier.

The NAB prosecutor also said that the statement of former interior minister Rehman Malik could have been used against Sharif family but the JIT did not solely depend on it.

The deputy prosecutor also remarked that Nawaz Sharif has accepted that he works for firm Capital FZE. “Will you [defence] refuse to accept the employment documents? Will you say that accused was not employed by the firm.”

On Friday, the hearing was adjourned as Judge Muhammad Bashir was unwell.

The Avenfield reference, which is 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.

At the last hearing on Thursday, Wajid Zia told the accountability court that Nawaz Sharif’s salary at his son Hassan Nawaz’s company, Capital FZ, was more than the stated salary on the employment contract.

As Nawaz’s defence counsel, Khawaja Harris, continued his cross-examination, Zia had said that the actual salary of Nawaz was AED100,000 but was shown as AED10,000 in the company’s employment contract. Harris’ questioning on Thursday was focused on the former premier’s employment contract, which became the basis for his dismissal from the office of prime minister.

Harris probed Zia on whether the JIT head knew who had changed the former prime minister’s income in the company documents, to which Zia replied in the negative and added that as the contract was not prepared in front of him and claimed that the document was thoroughly examined by the investigation team.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Wajid Zia had presented seven Mutual Legal Assistance (MLAs) documents in the accountability court, stating that the Supreme Court (SC) had kept Volume X of the JIT’s report sealed.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the court had directed Wajid Zia to approach the apex court for obtaining the JIT report’s Volume X.