–Wajid Zia tells court Sharif family did not give any written instruction to Nelson and Nescol companies to buy Avenfield flats
ISLAMABAD: Panamagate Joint Investigation Team (JIT) head Wajid Zia on Friday admitted that there was no evidence pointing to deposed premier Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam’s involvement in the incorporation of Nelson and Nescol offshore companies.
The revelation came as the accountability court presided by Judge Mohammad Bashir resumed hearing of the corruption references filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the Sharif family.
Nawaz Sharif, Maryam and her husband Captain (r) Muhammad Safdar were exempted from appearing due to security concerns owing to a protest by Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) activists in Lahore.
Maryam and Safdar’s lawyer Amjad Pervaiz began the twelfth cross-examination session of the JIT head, inquiring about the owner of Avenfield properties before it came under the possession of Nelson and Nescol. Zia replied that the team had not investigated prior ownership before its transfer to the two companies. Pervaiz then questioned Zia over a letter exchanged between Advocate Salman Akram Raja and Lawrence Radley pertaining to Avenfield apartments – in which Radley had confirmed that he acted on behalf of the purchasers of the property in or around 1993 to 1996. He further recalled that the apartments were purchased through two British Virgin Islands (BVI) companies: Nelson and Nescol and the instructions to purchase the properties were not dictated by any member of the Sharif family.
When asked if Radley was associated with any investigation, Zia stated that the JIT had decided to not associate him. He volunteered that the letter clearly stated the properties were purchased through BVI companies, adding that the reason for purchase through offshore companies is to maintain anonymity of purchasers, hence it was meaningless for the JIT.
“Was the reasoning behind its non-inclusion included in the JIT?” asked Pervaiz. “It is true that the JIT has not mentioned Radley’s letter in the report nor appended,” responded Zia.
The defence counsel suggested that it was incorrect that the JIT did not associate Radley’s letter as it would have proved that none of the members of the Sharif family had any concern with purchase of the said properties. Probing further, he inquired whether any evidence collected by the JIT proved Maryam’s involvement in the incorporation of the two companies.
Claiming that there was indirect evidence, Zia said there was certification by BVI authorities of the correspondence between Federal Investigation Agency of BVI (FIA BVI) and law firm Mossack Fonseca and Maryam’s link with Minerva Financial Services Limited was documented through a letter dated December 5, 2005 – when the properties were owned by share-bearers at the time of incorporation.
“Does the record show Maryam’s role in the incorporation of the companies?” probed Pervaiz. “No, it does not show any involvement from Maryam,” answered Zia. He voluntarily conceded that neither any witness nor any accused offered any information to the JIT regarding it.
“Similarly the letter, dated December 5, 2005, referred in previous questions does not have anything to do with the incorporation of the said two companies.”
When Pervaiz persisted if the JIT collected records of the two BVI companies, Zia said the JIT could not gather records pertaining to the incorporation of Nelson and Nescol.
Further questions revealed the JIT was not able to gather records of companies responsible for secretarial administration since the incorporation of the two BVI companies from 1993 to 1996 nor could it ascertain records of the companies responsible for the maintenance and management of the Avenfield properties.
The court adjourned the hearing until Monday.
On Wednesday, Nawaz’s counsel Khawaja Harris concluded Zia’s cross-examination in the Avenfield case.
After Harris concluded his cross-examination, Maryam’s counsel began his cross-examination.
During the last hearing on Thursday, Wajid Zia had told the accountability court that the JIT had summoned Maryam and Safdar before it obtained evidence suggesting Maryam was the beneficial owner of the Avenfield apartments.
