Safdar claims he was ‘dragged’ in NAB cases to pressurise Nawaz

• Deposed PM’s son-in-law says doesn’t feel need to produce witnesses as prosecution has no case against him

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supreme leader Nawaz Sharif’s son-in-law, Capt (r) Muhammad Safdar on Wednesday claimed that he had been “dragged” in the graft references to pressurise the deposed prime minister, as he refused to produce any witnesses in his defence, saying he didn’t feel the need to do so as the prosecution had failed to establish a case against him.

Recording his statement in the Avenfield reference under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedures Code (CrPC), Safdar categorically denied his involvement in the reference, as his legal counsel Amjad Pervaiz submitted that many of the business dealings occurred before his marriage to Nawaz’s daughter Maryam.

The Avenfield reference, pertaining to the Sharifs’ London properties, is among the three filed against the family by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) last year on the Supreme Court’s directives.

During the proceedings, Safdar said, “the letter by Mossack Fonseca does not concern me, it is not a primary document,” adding, “this letter cannot be verified as per the law for indictment.”

A day earlier, he had admitted that he was a signatory of the trust deeds of offshore companies Nielsen and Nescoll while his wife Maryam was a trustee.

“Accepting the letter as evidence would be contrary to holding a free trial,” he remarked.

When asked about the Capital FZE certificate, Safdar said that the certificate does not concern him. “The indictment doesn’t concern me either.”

Safdar, like Maryam had during her testimony, claimed that he had been victimised and dragged into the case to exert pressure on Nawaz.

He claimed that the Joint Investigation Team’s (JIT) decision to include him in the references despite not being named in the SC’s April 20 judgement showed that the JIT’s “intentions are malafide”.

When asked to disclose the source of the funds with which Maryam had bought the Avenfield apartments, he denied that Maryam was the owner of the property.

Safdar also told the court about his military career, right from his joining of the Pakistan Army to his posting as Nawaz’s security officer.

He then drew upon the events of the 1990s to try and prove how his father-in-law had been ‘wronged’ multiple times, first in 1993 by then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan and then in 1999 by former chief of army staff, Gen Pervez Musharraf.

“Nawaz Sharif wisely saved the region from an imminent war but he could not save his own regime,” Safdar said, referring to the Kargil Operation which had sparked a tiff between Nawaz and Musharraf which eventually escalated into the infamous coup.

Safdar skipped most of the questions posed to him, deeming them “irrelevant”.

In the end, when asked if he wanted to add something, he simply claimed to be innocent.

Following the conclusion of Safdar’s testimony, the accountability court summoned JIT head Wajid Zia to appear on Thursday when he will be cross-questioned by Nawaz’s counsel in connection with the reference concerning Al-Azizia Steel Mills.

Meanwhile, the court will hear final arguments on the Avenfield reference on June 5.