ISLAMABAD: A defence counsel in the Avenfield Properties reference on Thursday questioned the admissibility of the report of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) which is the basis of three references against the Sharif family and one against former finance minister Ishaq Dar.

Before recording of the testimony of JIT head Wajid Zia in the accountability court, defence counsel Amjad Pervez said that Volume 1, 2 and 6 to 9 of the report could not be admissible as they were only part of the judicial record.

He said that under the directive of the Supreme Court, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could use certain record from the JIT report but it had made the entire report an “integral part” of the three references against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members.

Advocate Pervez also objected to NAB citing Mr Zia as a prosecution witness in the references and argued that being the JIT head he could testify as an investigation officer, not as a witness.

Defence counsel objects to production of JIT chief in accountability court as prosecution witness

He quoted the relevant paragraphs of the Supreme Court’s judgement of April 20, 2017 regarding the establishment of the JIT and its July 28 verdict in which NAB was tasked to file references against the Sharif family and Mr Dar.

He argued that the apex court had allowed NAB to utilise relevant material from the JIT report for preparing the references and, hence, a NAB investigation officer was supposed to conduct an investigation and re-examine the related record but the bureau had attached the JIT report and its voluminous annexure consisting about 6,000 pages to each of the three references.

He briefly discussed each of 10 volumes of the JIT report and said that the volumes 3, 4 and 5 might be relevant to the Avenfield properties reference.

He pointed out that the JIT in volume 8 of its report had recommended reopening of Hudabiya Paper Mills reference against the Sharif family. Subsequently, NAB filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the Lahore High Court’s order to quash the reference but the apex court dismissed NAB’s appeal.

Citing another judgement of the apex court, Mr Pervez said that the court had declared that a JIT report was not admissible evidence and it might be termed opinion of the investigation team.

The counsel explained that a report prepared under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), not a JIT report, had legal value. Hence, he contended, Mr Zia could not appear in court as a witness nor he could verify the contents of the JIT report, which had been prepared by someone else.

On the other hand, NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said that the JIT was more of an inquiry commission than an investigation team.

“This is not a traditional investigation team. Wajid Zia was not an investigator but he was heading a commission to respond to the questions posed by Supreme Court bench in April 20, 2017 verdict”, argued Mr Abbasi.

The prosecutor told the accountability judge Mohammad Bashir that NAB’s investigation officer had recorded a statement of Mr Zia which was part of the judicial record.

He argued that since the Supreme Court in its July 28, 2017 verdict had relied on the JIT report, the trial court might treat it as admissible evidence.

In a rejoinder, Advocate Pervez said that in May 5, 2017 order, the apex court had empowered the six-member JIT to investigate into certain allegations against the Sharif family. Citing the SC order, he argued that the JIT had been empowered to conduct an investigation under the CrPC, the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974. The court partially accepted the plea of the defence counsel but continued recording testimony of Mr Zia. The defence counsel is likely to cross-examine the JIT head on Friday (today).

Published in Dawn, March 16th, 2018