–Court issues notices to defence after NAB files another request to submit JIT’s correspondence with British govt
ISLAMABAD: Maryam Nawaz’s counsel Amjad Pervaiz on Tuesday concluded the cross-examination of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)’s ‘star witness’ Wajid Zia, as the accountability court resumed the hearing of the Avenfield reference against the deposed premier and his family.
Several Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leaders, including Pervez Rashid, Mushahidullah Khan and Mahmood Khan Achakzai, were also present on the occasion.
Zia told the court about the various correspondence of the JIT with regards to the London flats.
Nawaz and Maryam skipped the last two hearings of the case as they were unable to leave Lahore due to weather conditions. During the hearing, the prosecution’s request to submit as evidence three MLAs produced by Zia, was dismissed.
Moreover, NAB filed another request in court on Tuesday to submit the JIT’s correspondence with the British government. The court issued notices to the defence and sought replies.
Later, the hearing of the Avenfield case was adjourned until April 20 whereas Zia was summoned to record his statement in the Al Azizia Steel Mills reference on April 23.
Last Wednesday, Shrif’s counsel Khawaja Harris concluded Zia’s cross-examination in the Avenfield case after ten days.
After Harris concluded his cross-examination, Maryam’s counsel began his cross-examination of Zia.
On the 15th cross-examination hearing of Zia, head of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) formed to probe the allegations against the Sharif family, Amjad Pervaiz had pointed to flaws in the team’s report.
A reply through the BVI was received on June 16, 2016 requested for confirmation and related certification of three documents in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) Financial Investigation Agency (FIA) record. The first was confirmation that BVI FIA director Errol George, penned a June 12 letter raising questions on both Nescol Ltd and Nelson Ltd to a Mossack Fonseca representative alongside copies of the aforementioned letter. The second was confirmation of George receiving a reply from the Panamanian law firm on the query raised by the former. The third was a reply of the MLA request dated May 31 that remains pending.
Three MLAs were submitted on respective dates, May 20, May 31 and June 23, 2017.
The first MLA by the JIT was addressed to BVI FIA. The second one, dated May 31, 2017 was addressed to Attorney General Office of BVI FIA.
The June 23, 2017 MLA submitted to AG BVI mentioned that the previous MLA dated May 31 was declined through response dated June 16, 2017. In this MLA, early attestation of correspondence between Mossack Fonseca and BVI FIA was sought.
Amjad Pervaiz reminded twice Zia that, “You are under oath”.
Pervaiz suggested to Zia that May 31 MLA was declined by AG BVI FIA, to which Zia replied that its incorrect to say the MLA dated May 31 was declined by the AG BVI FIA. He also voluntarily explained that the first letter of the MLA request dated May 20 are also of the same reference number.
“Is it correct that the said MLA was declined by the Attorney General (AG) office of BVI?” Amjad Pervaiz questioned. “It is incorrect to say that the MLA was declined, the first letter of request on May 20 was in reference to the request of May 31,” Zia answered. He further added that the FIA responded on 16 June and referred to the said letter without reference to specific dates or content.
Parvez then questioned whether the JIT had made the June 16 correspondence part of the JIT, to which Zia replied in the negative. “There is no mention of said email in the JIT report,” he replied. “It is correct that the MLA sent on May 20 was not addressed to the AG office of BVI,” he added.
In the June 23rd MLA, it was mentioned that the request dated May 31 was declined. Zia admitted in court that it was a mistake. However, he quickly added, “it is incorrect to suggest that I have concocted this story of mistakes today to cover up the false statement made above.”
Parvez then questioned why the FIA response of August 3 doesn’t bear an official stamp. Zia said the original letter also did not bear the original stamp, just signatures of George. “He signed the said letter in my presence, I have an acquaintance with Errol George,” Zia told the court.
