ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor on Friday stated before the accountability court that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had acquired four apartments in Avenfield House, Park Lane, London, in the name of his children.

Mr Sharif was the actual owner of the four apartments, said NAB’s additional deputy prosecutor general Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi while concluding his arguments in the Avenfield properties reference against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and retired captain Mohammad Safdar.

The prosecution counsel said the accused persons did not produce anything in their defence despite the fact that the burden of proof was on them.

Reading out excerpts from the speeches of Mr Sharif and his sons, Hussain and Hassan Nawaz, the counsel said the Sharif family insisted that they had purchased the apartments through ‘legitimate’ financial resources. However, they remained unable to disclose those resources before the accountability court or the Supreme Court.

He then referred to the forensic report of Robert William Radley and said the forensic expert testified that the Sharif family had provided ‘fake’ trust deeds related to the offshore companies.

Prosecution concludes final arguments in Avenfield property case

“We have proved our case and it is up to the accused persons to prove their innocence,” he said.

Mr Abbasi said the prosecution had presented the evidence showing the former premier as the actual owner of London flats. He added that the stance of the accused persons over money trail also proved wrong.

The prosecution counsel said the flats had also been under the possession of the accused persons even in 1999. The decision of the Queen’s Bench of London also proved that the apartments were owned by the accused persons, he added.About the defence counsel’s objection to the prosecution counsel’s meeting with Mr Radley before the latter recorded his testimony, Mr Abbasi said he had visited the UK with court’s permission since the forensic expert was unaware about how Pakistani courts proceeded. Addressing Judge Mohammad Bashir of the accountability court, Mr Abbasi then added: “Even you have asked me to advise Wajid Zia how to record the statement” to ensure that he followed the procedure.

In response to the defence’s stance that the prosecution did not produce even direct evidence to prove Mr Sharif owned the London properties, Mr Abbasi said that this was not the case against him. “Our case was simple, these benami properties belong to the accused persons,” he argued, reiterating that the burden of proof was on them.

After concluding his final arguments, the prosecutor requested the court that the defence counsel be asked to advance his final arguments, leading the court to conclude the trial proceedings in the Avenfield properties reference.

However, the defence counsel, Saad Hashmi, said he could not advance the final arguments since the Islamabad High Court had admitted a petition against the final arguments. When the prosecution counsel argued that the IHC had not issued any restraining order, Advocate Hashmi expressed surprise that despite being a petitioner he did not know whether or not the IHC had issued the stay order, but the prosecutor who had not even attended the IHC’s hearing was aware of the order that he said was still in the chamber of the IHC’s judge who had not signed it yet.

The accountability judge then intervened and remarked that the case had already been fixed on June 11 for the cross-examination of Mr Zia in Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference. Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till Monday.

Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2018