ISLAMABAD: As the six-month time given by the Supreme Court to the accountability court for completing proceedings of references filed against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members is going to end next month, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has yet to obtain evidence against the accused from foreign countries.

On the directives of the apex court, NAB filed three references — Avenfield Properties, Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment — against the Sharif family members in the accountability court in September last year.

The SC directed the accountability judge to conclude the proceedings in six months. An apex court judge, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, was appointed to supervise the trial court’s proceedings.

Bureau admits record it sought against ousted PM and his family members from foreign countries is still awaited

While the trial against Mr Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law retired Captain Mohammad Safdar was in its final stages, NAB filed supplementary references in Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment cases last week.

Earlier in January the bureau already filed a supplementary reference in Avenfield Properties case.

The SC in its judgement in the Panama Papers case on July 28 had empowered NAB to file “supplementary reference(s) if and when any other asset, which is not prima facie reasonably accounted for, is discovered”.

While NAB’s request for “mutual legal assistance” through which the bureau seeks necessary evidence from foreign countries has not been responded to by the governments of the UK, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, it filed supplementary references mostly on the basis of media reports and evidence gathered by the SC-appointed joint investigation team.

In the recent supplementary references, NAB has admitted that the record it sought under the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) is still awaited.

In both the references — Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment — NAB stated, “the final responses of mutual legal assistance requests, which have already been forwarded to foreign jurisdictions, are still awaited”.

The reference further states, “the same will be placed before the Honourable Court in accordance with law, if received”.

In the supplementary reference the bureau filed last month in Avenfield Properties, NAB admitted its failure to obtain evidence it sought from the UK under the MLA.

NAB, however, declared Mr Sharif accused in the supplementary references.

In the reference related to Avenfield Properties, Mr Sharif was one of the accused along with his other family members. In the supplementary reference the bureau declared Mr Sharif the prime accused as it alleged that the former PM could not reasonably account for and did not commensurate with his sources of income. The properties were shown to be acquired in the name of Hussain Nawaz of which Maryam Nawaz was made a trustee. According to NAB, it has been proved to be fake and fabricated from the record and forensic report.

Subsequently, Ms Maryam and her brothers, Hassan and Hussain, (who have already been declared proclaimed offenders) and her husband Mr Safdar being associate aided, abetted, conspired and connived themselves with Mr Sharif in the commission of the offence punishable under relevant sections of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

In the supplementary references of Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment, the bureau alleged that Mr Sharif “acquired…the assets along with its crime proceeds in millions of rupees with the active connivance of his dependents”. In the interim reference, the bureau has held Mr Sharif and his sons equally liable for owning the assets beyond means.

Mr Sharif has recently commented that filing of supplementary references gives an impression that there is nothing in the already pending references. Therefore, he added, NAB was filing consecutive supplementary references. He said had there been any tangible evidence on record the bureau would have not filed the supplementary references.

NAB deputy prosecutor general Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, on the other hand, defended the supplementary references in the accountability court and said that they were filed on the basis of fresh evidence and new witnesses.

It may be mentioned that in three supplementary references the bureau has included 28 witnesses. In the interim references, the number of prosecution witnesses was almost the same.

Published in Dawn, February 18th, 2018