ISLAMABAD - The court pressed Khawaja Haris for presenting money trail of Avenfield apartments and revealing their real owner and beneficiary, as the lead defence lawyer Wednesday asserted there was no proof that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif owns the London property.

He also maintained before the Panama judgement implementation bench that the Joint Investigation Team did not say in its report that the prime minister misused his power to earn money.

Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, head of the three-judge bench, pointed out the JIT gave the finding that Avenfield apartments were jointly owned by the Sharif family.

The PM’s counsel pointed out that the JIT did not say in definite terms that the flats were of the entire family or jointly owned, and that the Sharifs were a big family.

The bench heard the arguments of the defence counsels on the report of the JIT, which probed financial affairs of Sharif family for around 60 days.

Khawaja Haris has completed his arguments and from Thursday Salman Akram Raja would plead the case of PM’s children – Maryam Safdar, Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz.

Mr Raja told the court that he also wanted to submit documents which his clients have obtained from UAE Customs Department, regarding shifting of Gulf Steel Mills scrap from Dubai to Jeddah.

Khawaja Haris asked the apex court that in the worst case scenario if the court comes to any [averse] conclusion then it will have to see whether the property (UK flats) were connected to the prime minister in any way.

Justice Ejaz said the court wanted to know about the ownership of the London flats in black and white. He observed that according to a document presented to the court Maryam Safdar is the beneficial owner of Neilsen and Nescoll companies, which own the flats. He asked then asked who exactly owned the flats.

The lawyer maintained that the prime minister is not connected with the Avenfield apartments, while Maryam is not dependent on the PM. He said the PM Nawaz Sharif told the JIT that he did not participate in the affairs of Gulf Steel Mills, UK flats and even the Qatari investment.

Haris argued there was no finding of the JIT report that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif during his tenure acquired assets [through illegal means].

Justice Azmat affirmed there was no document showing that the PM owned the flats, but he said the person [Maryam] who was owner of the flats was dependent on the PM at that time [when flats were acquired].

He posed four questions: Who is the owner [of London flats]? Where from the money came [for buying those]? What is the relation of owner of flats with the PM? Who drives benefit from the property?

All this is shrouded in mystery, the judge remarked. He also pointed out that, according to the record provided to the court, the prime minister sons sent him Rs1.7 billion while their mills were going in loss.

Kh Haris told that the PM has declared all his assets in his income tax returns and the nomination papers. Besides the declared income, the PM has no other resources, he added.

The counsel said even the JIT report did not say in clear terms that the PM had any undeclared assets or any other person held property on his behalf.

He contended that the JIT also did not say that Avenfield apartments are in the name of PM Nawaz Sharif but the report says that the flats are in the name of the Sharif family, which is a monolithic family.

Khawaja Haris referred Section 9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and briefed the bench about the definitions of the terms ‘Associate’ and ‘benamdar’ which have been used in that section. He questioned which part of section 9(a)(v) covered the case of the prime minister.

He said suppose a ‘person X’ is living in an apartment of ‘person Y’ then it does not fall in the purview of that specific section of the accountability law.

Upon that Justice Azmat remarked the case in hand was not hypothetical and they [judges] know what the counsel wanted to say.

Justice Ejaz observed, may be, the PM is not holding Avenfield apartments, which were acquired in 1993, but the other respondent (Hussain Nawaz) who owns them did not have the independent source of income at that time.

Justice Azmat said if a criminal investigation is like a canal, the financial investigation is like a river [in scope].

Justice Ijaz said that the fundamental questions are when the property was acquired, from where the funds came, where is the money trial for the business in Saudi Arabia and Qatar investment, where the funds originated and how they reached to London.

The lawyer said he was not denying anything, but contended the PM is not personally involved in any of the business affairs of his family. He said there were no substantial documents available against the PM, and he wonders how the JIT came to the assumption that the PM owned London flats.

Regarding Hills Metal Establishment (HME), Khawaja Haris said HME was owned by the PM’s son, who is independent.

Justice Azmat said they would not close eyes on all the things i.e. source of funds and unknown equity.

The counsel argued that money came from the son through proper banking channel. Hassan Nawaz was neither dependent nor a benamdar of the prime minister, he asserted.

Ishaq Dar case

Dr Tariq Hassan, appearing on behalf of Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, argued that the JIT went beyond its mandate. He told that his client filed tax returns of 32 years to the JIT.

Justice Ijaz said opportunity was provided to Dar to explain his position but he claimed privilege on many questions, instead of answering. The judge pointed out that the minister provided missing documents to the JIT only two days before it finalised the report.

Tariq said as the FBR did not have the record from 1982 to 2002 therefore his client had to trace the income tax returns of those years from NAB to provide those to the JIT.

Justice Azmat directed him to substantiate contention that the NAB took his tax returns from FBR and which they retrieved them from the NAB. He said that “don’t make new documents now”.

Tariq Hassan said there were no allegations against his client but the JIT summoned him.

Justice Ejaz reminded the lawyer that the petitioner (Imran Khan) has levelled serious charges against Ishaq Dar and demanded his disqualification. He said the JIT finding against the incumbent finance minister was that not only his income but his assets were also beyond the known sources.

Tariq argued that Hudaibya Paper Mills case could not be opened on JIT recommendation, as under Article 13 of the Constitution a person could not be sentenced again for the same crime. He said that the high court had quashed the Hudaibya case.

Justice Ejaz said that his client was an approver in that case and he gave statement against the Sharifs. If that statement is taken out then he is an accused in that case.

The case was adjourned until Thursday.