ISLAMABAD - Three more prosecution witnesses recorded their statements in corruption references against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members. Later the court adjourned the hearing in all cases till January 3.

In the Flagship Investment Reference details of a sealed letter addressed to JIT Chief Wajid Zia by Qatari Prince Hamad bin Jasim was presented in the court by Director Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On Tuesday when the court took up cases against Sharif family, former premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt(Retd) Muhammad Safdar were present in the court.

In the Avenfiled properties reference, prosecution witness Yasir Shabbir, a banker, presented details about Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz bank accounts’ details and submitted before the court that all these details were attested copies.

Defence counsel in the case, Kh.Harris advocate objected that the record presented by the accused was not prepared by him.

The witness giving details of the money transfer from the Hill Metal Jeddah account to Maryam Nawaz Sharif informed that the first transaction was of Rs8.87 lakh, second transaction was of Rs1.9124 crore, third transaction was Rs1.12 crore while the fourth one was Rs1.7731 crore.

During cross-examination, the witness confirmed that these money transactions in the account of Maryam Nawaz had nothing to do with Nawaz Sharif and also admitted that there was no irregularity in these transactions.

Director Afaq Ahmad of Ministry of Foreign Affairs presented details of the letter written by Qatari Prince Hammad bin Jasim to JIT Chief Wajid Zia. He informed the court that on May 28, 2017 Prince Hammad visited Pakistan Embassy in Doha while on May 31 he wrote letter to JIT head which was sealed.

Another prosecution witness, Assistant Director NAB Shakil Anjum informed the court that on August 10, 2017 he requested Registrar Supreme Court for provision of JIT copies and after couple of reminders on August 17 three attested copies of JIT up to volume nine were provided to him.

He further informed that on August 25 he appeared before the investigation officer and recorded his statement.

Defence counsel raised objection that some of the documents attached with the reference were not original as copies of the documents attached were not attested.

Later he cross-examined the witnesses and hearing in these three references was adjourned till January 3.