Prosecution opens final arguments in NAB case against Nawaz

0ISLAMABAD: The prosecution of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Tuesday started final arguments in the Avenfield properties reference after the accountability court dismissed the application moved by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif to defer further proceeding till closing of evidence in other two references. Mr Sharif ’s counsel Barrister Saad Hashmi said that his client would file an appeal against the order of accountability judge Mohammad Bashir before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday. Earlier in the day, Mr Sharif had moved an application seeking the postponement of the final arguments in the Avenfield reference till the closing of the prosecution’s evidence in the other two cases — Al-Azizia Steel Mills and Flagship Investments references. During the course of arguments, Barrister Hashmi had taken the stance that Wajid Zia was the only material witness and the JIT (joint investigation team) report was the only evidence that the prosecution had. He said the other two references also involved the same evidence and witness; thus, the final arguments should be conducted once proceedings in all three references concluded. The counsel added that if the court proceeded with the final arguments in the Avenfield reference, it would give the prosecution an opportunity to address gaps in the cases they made in the other two references — Al Azizia and Flagship Investment — which would seriously damage the defence’s case. Barrister Hashmi said that the prosecution had created misconceptions and misled the court, leading it to fix the Avenfield reference for final arguments without closing of evidence in the other two references. He said “the accountability court has consistently held that all three references will be decided simultaneously”. He further stated before the court that the Islamabad High Court (IHC) while upholding the above-mentioned order of the accountability court held that the identical witnesses, where there was an apprehension of defence might be prejudice, might be testified all together. Barrister Hashmi argued that although the accountability court had to conclude the cases against Mr Sharif and his family within a certain timeframe, the Supreme Court had also provided that a deadline should not be an excuse to compromise the due process of law. He requested the court to dismiss the application.