Objection raised over documents submitted by Wajid Zia

ISLAMABAD: An accountability court on Tuesday reserved its order on an application filed by the Sharif family, which stated that the prosecution witness Wajid Zia can only refer to the documents he collected during investigation subject to admissibility and neither the JIT report nor any opinion and inference drawn by the investigation officer can be brought on record as admissible evidence.

The court will announce its order on the issue today (Wednesday) after the counsels for Nawaz, Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retd) Safdar requested the court to issue a written order, determining to what extent Wajid can refer to the JIT report during recording of his statement. The defence counsels said previously, they made a submission before the court but the court only gave verbal observations and “now it is necessary to issue a written order”.

Nawaz’s counsel Khawaja Haris submitted this plea through his junior associate Saad Hashmi who read out the application in the court. The application was submitted when Wajid was recording his testimony in the Avenfield apartments’ reference.

The application says during the course of recording the statement of Wajid, neither the JIT report nor any opinion formed nor inference drawn by the investigating officer can be brought on the record, being inadmissible under the law. It also says that Wajid cannot be allowed to make any deposition pertaining to any opinion formulated on the basis of the material/document which impinges on the innocence or guiltiness of the accused.

It is argued in the plea that certain questions arose during the testimony of Wajid regarding the admissibility of some part [of the JIT report] he wished to bring on record.

According to the defence counsel, the JIT report can be categorised into three distinct parts – the material in the form of documents collected by the JIT as evidence in the case, the statements of various persons and the opinion formed or inference drawn on the basis of the material collected and statements recorded during the course of investigation.

It says Wajid can only refer to the documents he collected during investigation but these will also be subject to admissibility. Wajid by no means can refer to the statements of the accused who deposed before the JIT and also statements of the prosecution witnesses.

When Wajid Zia referred to some documents regarding Jabal Ali Free Zone Authority, the counsel for Maryam and Safdar, Amjad Pervaiz, raised objection and said the documents were not attested by the notary public and diplomatic agent and these should not be made part of the record.

Amjad said the Supreme Court has framed questions for the JIT and did not direct the NAB to file reference on the findings of the probe team. The July 28, 2017 order directed NAB to file references on the basis of ‘material’ collected by the JIT, he added.

He emphasized that only material documents could be exhibited and not the opinion and inferences as there was a difference between the fact and notion. He said all the evidence produced before a court should qualify the principles laid down in Qanoon-e-Shahadat or (law of evidence).

NAB prosecutor Imran Shafique argued that Wajid has already recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the NAB’s investigation officer and was appearing before the court as a witness rather than an investigating officer.

“Material is not limited to the documents but how this material is collected is also part of the evidence. Prosecution witness Wajid Zia can narrate how the documents were obtained,” said the prosecutor who added that there is a difference between police, JIT and “this particular JIT”.

During the proceedings on Tuesday, Nawaz’s Iqama was exhibited by the court while other documents were only marked, not admitted, as evidence, as the defence counsel had raised objections that the witness could only refer to a document that either he himself authored or collected.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the accountability court judge, Muhammad Bashir, reserved order in this matter. Similarly, Wajid also sought time to prepare his testimony in Al-Azizia and Flagship references. The court will continue with his statement tomorrow [Thursday].