Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif bought Avenfield properties with embezzled money which is why he transferred the ownership to his children, remarked National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi while presenting his concluding arguments in the accountability court.
The Avenfield reference, pertaining to the Sharif family’s London properties, is among three filed by NAB last year on the Supreme Court’s directives.
During the hearing on Friday, Abbasi said Nawaz claimed during one of his speeches that those who buy property through corrupt means do not put it in their own name. The deputy prosecutor general said Nawaz’s statements were presented in the court as evidence by the prosecution, which meant to prove that public office holders do not keep illegally earned assets in their own names. He added they have presented direct proofs of Nawaz being actual owner of the London flats.
According to Abbasi, Nawaz said during a public speech that a judicial commission should be formed to probe the source of money with which he bought the London flats. The NAB official said all the accused of the Sharif family admitted to owning the properties but their statements differed when it came to the source with which the flats were bought.
Speaking further about the evidence on ownership of London flats, Abbasi said even Hussain Nawaz admitted to owning the properties during an interview.
Abbasi claimed that the prosecution has proved that Nawaz Sharif is the actual owner of four apartments in Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, while he acquired these properties in the name of his children. He argued that Sharif family never claimed that the apartments were acquired via Qatari investment and insisted that they purchased these through ‘legitimate financial resources’. “We have established our case and it is up to the accused persons to prove their innocence,” he added.
The prosecutor then referred to the forensic report of Robert William Radley and said that the forensic expert has testified that trust deeds related to the offshore companies were not genuine. Regarding objections raised by the defence counsel of Sharif family, Abbasi said that their objection that the correspondence for acquiring the report was done mysteriously. Clarifying his meeting with Radley ahead of latter’s testimony, Abbasi said that he went to the UK with the permission of the accountability court. The defence counsel also objected that Abbasi met the witness in order to manipulate the testimony, however, the prosecutor argued before the accountability court that since the forensic expert was unaware how Pakistani courts proceed, therefore, he held a meeting with the Radley before his testimony. Abbasi then addressed to accountability judge Mohammad Bashir and said that “even you have asked me to advise Wajid Zia how to record the statement” to ensure that he should not go out of track.
In response to the defence’s stance that prosecution did not produce even single direct evidence to prove that Sharif ever owned the London properties, Abbasi said that this was not the case against him. “Our case was simple, these benami properties belong to the accused,” he argued. According to Abbasi, the accused persons did not produce anything in their defence despite the fact that the burden of proof was on them. After concluding the arguments, the prosecutor insisted the court that the defence counsel may be asked to advance final arguments leading the court to conclude the trial proceeding in Avenfield reference.
The defence counsel Saad Hashmi apprised the court that since the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has admitted the petition against the final arguments, therefore, the defence side may not be asked for final arguments. NAB’s prosecutor Abbasi said that IHC did not issue any restraining order. This came as a surprise to advocate Hashmi as he responded that being a petitioner he did not know whether IHC issued the stay order or not. But the NAB prosecutor who has not even attended the IHC’s hearing was somehow aware of the order which is still in the chamber of the IHC’s judge, as he has not signed it yet.
Subsequently, the court adjourned for Monday, June 11. Meanwhile, the accountability court on Friday sought a third extension from the apex court to conclude proceedings. Judge Muhammad Bashir has written to the top court on this account. In May, the SC granted a one-month extension, asking the court to conclude proceedings by June 9.
Published in Daily Times, June 9th 2018.
.jpg)