Defence counsel presents final arguments in Avenfield reference

The decision of Queen's Bench Division of High Court of London regarding the Hudaibiya Papers Mills loans acquired through Al-Towfeek Investment Fund, delivered in 1999, proves the association of Sharif family with London flats but it did not show any nexus of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his children with these properties.
Amjad Pervez, counsel of Nawaz Sharif's daughter Maryam Nawaz and her husband Captain Muhammad Safdar (retd), stated this while presenting final arguments in Avenfield reference before accountability court Judge Muhammad Bashir. He added that the Queen's Bench decision does not show any nexus of Nawaz Sharif and his children Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz with the London properties.
"The Queen's Bench decision did not mention name of Sharif and his children," he said, adding that the London court in 1999 had mentioned the name of Mian Shahbaz Sharif, Mian Abbas Sharif and Mian Muhammad Sharif.
The defence lawyer also objected to the absence of Shezi Naqvi, former director of Al-Towfeek Company, who had submitted an affidavit in the case. Naqvi gave a statement on the basis of former interior minister Rehman Malik's report and it was not official, as even the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had not accepted it, he said. "The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) formed to probe Panama Papers case also did not rely upon Malik's report," he said. Pervez contended that hiring of Quist Solicitor Akhtar Riaz Raja was the classic example of nepotism at the expense of national exchequer. "Raja was not an impartial person; rather, he was an interested witness in the case," he said, adding that the words like 'Frankenstein forgery,' which he used during recording his testimony, shows his interest in this case.
He said Raja, the prosecution witness, while recording his statement stated that he is the first cousin of Wajid Zia, head of JIT. The counsel also said Raja also prepared a commentary based on an article published in English daily and drafted consent order. "Raja prepared the commentary without having knowledge or reading the final order," he said, adding that his opinion is totally based on the newspaper article and under the law, newspaper cuttings could not be used in favour of the prosecution or against the accused.
He said as per apex court's directions, the JIT was mandated to hire local or foreign expert to facilitate the investigation. "There are a number of lawyers available in Pakistan for making opinion or preparing commentary," he added. He further said that Raja's so-called commentary does not mention the name of Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz.
About the role of Raja, Pervez said Quist Solicitor Raja sent a letter to Jeremy Freemen who signed and witnessed the trust deeds of two offshore companies holding London properties, engaged forensic expert Robert Radley and prepared a commentary. "There is no plausible explanation to show as to why Radley was hired through Raja and was not engaged directly by the JIT," he said, adding that the JIT could have hired him directly.
He said Raja is the only expert engaged by the JIT whose CV was not attached by the team with the report.
He claimed that Robert Radley was not a truthful witness. Referring to the report of Radlely regarding trust deeds, he said expert opinion under the law is weak evidence.
Pervez presented prosecution witness Mazhar Raza Bangash's letter and questioned its authenticity. "Bangash said he presented the record in a sealed envelope; however, NAB's witness Zawar Manzoor has said the envelope was not sealed," Pervez said. He argued that the documents submitted by Bangash were photocopies and thus could not be made part of the court's record under Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
The counsel said under the law of evidence, audio and video clips of interviews of the accused are not admissible. "But even if we take on its face value, Maryam Nawaz denied beneficial ownership of London properties during the interview," he said. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till July 2. Pervez will continue his final arguments on Monday. The court also summoned Wajid Zia on July 3 for the Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference.