ISLAMABAD, Aug 30: The defence in the Steel Mills case on Friday questioned the admissibility of evidence against Asif Ali Zardari and asked the court to decide these under Qanoon-i-Shahadat before announcing the final decision.

The request was made through an application submitted before the accountability court in Rawalpindi by senior defence counsel Farooq Naik.

The defence recalled that the Ehtesab Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, had ordered for the examination of the evidence under the Qanoon-i-Shahadat.

The court, however, issued a notice to the prosecution for Saturday.

The counsel analyzed the witness of former chairman of Pakistan Steel, Sajjad Hussain, which was recorded before Magistrate Chaudhry Mohammad Ali in Karachi under section 164 of the CrPC.

He said the statement was not recorded under the mandatory provisions of issuing notice to Mr Zardari for cross-examination, despite the fact that both the magistrate and the prosecution knew that the accused was in a Karachi jail at that time.

He said the evidence had no value as it failed to prove that Sajjad Hussain had met the accused at the Prime Minister House to hand over the bribe money. Besides, there was also no evidence to prove that foreign exchange bearer certificates and dollars, allegedly given to Mr Zardari during the meeting, were recovered. Therefore, the evidence provided by Mr Hussain should be discarded in view of sections 265 J and 164 CrPC. The council also said the tender of pardon was purportedly given to Sajjad Hussain by the then chief ehtesab commissioner in the absence of the federal government and after the investigation into the case was over. This was again against the relevant rules of the then Ehtesab Act 1997.

He said the signatures of Mr Hussain in his statement were completely different from those found in other documents produced earlier by the prosecution.

Mr Naik also complained that the prosecution abused the law by, what he said, forcibly producing Mr Zardari at the court on Thursday despite the fact that he was unwell. He added that the court had not issued any order to produce the accused before it.

The counsel said it was their right to move applications in the court. However, the prosecution said it was also their right to object to the applications because it wanted to have unhindered proceedings of the case, as directed by the Supreme Court.