­ISLAMABAD - Former premier Nawaz Sharif, who had been given a lengthy questionnaire by the trial court, is expected to come up with some definite answers in his defence vis-à-vis the Avenfield apartments during his appearance in the court today.

On May 16, Accountability Court judge Muhammad Bashir handed over a detailed questionnaire comprising 128 questions to the counsel representing the Sharif family.

The judge has asked Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt (r) Mohammad Safdar to respond to the questions in their statements which the court is scheduled to record on Monday.

A lot of stuff has been put together against the Sharif family on the basis of charges framed by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), constituted on the orders of the Supreme Court in the light of the Panama Papers verdict.

Though some of these questions were already addressed by the Sharif family and their mouth-pieces time and again in the media, the answers to be made by Sharif under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are expected to further clear up the possible outcome of the case.

For instance, question number 54 – after the findings of Robert W Radley wherein he established that trust declaration produced by Maryam Nawaz was prepared after 31-07-2008 because the ‘calibri’ font used in said documents was not commercially available until 31-01-2007 — needed a categorical answer.

In question number 90, the court has asked to respond why no notarization of the agreement of Mr Tariq Shafi was available under which a payment of 12 million AED was made.

This is the amount which was given to Fahad bin Jasim Al-Thani in cash and the same investment was later on used for the settlement of Avenfiled properties in the year 2006, according to the claim of the respondents.

The questionnaire further says in question 91: "It has come on record there is no LC for transportation of scrap machinery of Al Ahli Steel Mills from Dubai to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as per your claim. What do you say about it?"

JIT head Wajid Zia in his statement declared that the collection of 12 million AED from Al-Ahli in cash and deposited with Fahad bin Jasim Al-Thani by Tariq Shafi was without any documentary proof and the same was a wrong assertion. The court has asked former premier to explain the said anomaly in question number 92.

“The liabilities of the Gulf Steel Mills were to the tune of 36 million out of which 21 million was paid as full sale proceeds of 75 percent share and liabilities to the tune of 14 million AED were the responsibilities of the Tariq Shafi, who was working on behalf of Mian Muhammad Sharif.

“Mr Tariq Shafi also obtained a loan from BCCI, all the liabilities never cleared and even Mr. Tariq Shafi was sentenced for defaulting of a loan of BCCI,” it was stated by Wajid Zia and the court wants an answer in question number 93 from the Sharif family.

The former premier will have to explain or provide a documentary proof of agreements between the Sharif family and Al-Thani family in his answer to question number 94 because JIT head has also declared the two letters of Hamad bin Jasim Al-Thani as ‘fabricated and concocted story’ to camouflage the accruing of properties by the Sharif family.

“The content of these letters were not proved through any agreement between the Sharif family and the Al-Thani family and other supporting documents,” he had said.

On the basis of Zia’s statement in which he had highlighted that according to the assertion of the Sharif family, an investment of 12 AED was converted into dollars, the profit was earned year-to-year and disbursement made by the Qatari royal on instruction of Mian Muhammad Sharif from time to time, which included four payments to Hassan Nawaz, used for establishing companies including Flagship Investments and three transactions to Hussain Nawaz used for setting up Al-Aziza Steel Mill in Saudi Arabia, but transactions were not supported by any document.

“Moreover, another transaction of 8 million dollars in the year 2000 for payment of Al-Toufiq Company is shown in worksheet, which is shown as long-term loan in directors’ report of Hudabiya papers mills”, Zia had stated.

The court has asked Sharif in question number 95 to respond why no documentary evidence was available about these transactions.

“The JIT attempted to engage Hamad bin Jasim Al-Thani for verification of the assertion made by you [defendants] in your concise statements filed before the apex court and supporting documents annexed, but on your instigation and persuasion, Qatari Royal on flimsy and frivolous grounds did not join investigation because your assertion and contents of letters were wrong and misleading”, Zia’s observation has been quoted by the court in question number 98.

The court has also sought the viewpoint of Sharif about his two sons Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz, who are absconders in the case.