LAHORE: A special court directed lawyers on Tuesday to complete their arguments on acquittal applications of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his son, Hamza Shehbaz, in a case registered by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).
Special Judge (Central-1) Ijaz Hassan Awan conducted the case proceedings, wherein Hamza Shehbaz appeared and got his attendance marked.
However, after some time, the court allowed him to leave the courtroom. Advocate Amjad Pervaiz, on behalf of the prime minister, submitted an exemption application and pleaded with the court to exempt his client from personal appearance for one-day, as he had some crucial official engagements.
The court questioned the FIA prosecutor about the number of accounts opened in the name of Malik Maqsood. FIA Prosecutor Farooq Bajwa submitted that eight accounts had been opened in the name of Malik Maqsood, adding that all those details were available in the challan.
He submitted that as per record, neither the money was transferred in accounts of Shehbaz Sharif and Hamza Sharif directly nor it was withdrawn from their accounts directly. Hamza Shehbaz’s counsel advanced his arguments during the proceedings on acquittal application of his client, saying that there was no allegation of kick-backs or corruption.
He submitted that the bankers had been excluded from the case by the FIA, adding that they were neither accused nor witnesses in the matter. He submitted that the investigations into the case were done before the government change and statements of people were recorded on political basis.
He submitted that all investigations were carried out by the investigation team of the previous government. He submitted that no witness had given the name of Shehbaz Sharif or Hamza Shehbaz, adding that if such a statement emerged, then he would leave the courtroom. At this stage, the FIA prosecutor submitted that Hamza Shehbaz was a shareholder and owner of Ramzan Sugar Mills.
To which, the court questioned what was the evidence that the money was transferred on the orders of Hamza Shehbaz. The prosecutor replied that the agency did not have any evidence in that regard. Amjad Pervaiz submitted that the people whose accounts were opened, said that they did not know where the money came from.
However, the prosecutor submitted that the account holders admitted it, adding that the Ramzan Sugar Mills administration used to operate account of deceased Gulzar. The court questioned the prosecutor whether he could give all these details in writing. Prosecutor Farooq Bajwa submitted that he had not been directed to give a written statement in the matter, adding that he could assist the court as per available record.
At this, the court questioned FIA prosecutor about the verbal evidence. However, Amjad Pervaiz submitted that out of 66 witnesses, no one had accused Shehbaz Sharif or Hamza Shehbaz. He submitted that the challan was completed in the previous government ‘s tenure, adding that allegations could be leveled as political narrative but the court was bound to decide the case on evidence.
He further submitted that Shehbaz Sharif was neither director nor shareholder of Ramzan Sugar Mills. No amount was transferred in the accounts of Shehbaz Sharif from Ramzan Sugar Mills accounts, from 2008 to 2018, adding that the high court quashed an identical case of Moonis Elahi.
He also submitted a copy of Moonis Elahi’s case in the court. Amjad Pervaiz further argued that the state was complainant in the case of Moonis Elahi as well as the current case. He submitted that no damage was done to the government exchequer or bank and any other persons.
It was a case of political narrative and such a case could not be proceeded even for one day, he added. He submitted that the National Accountability Bureau had also made a similar case against the Shehbaz Sharif family. Subsequently, the court adjourned further proceedings till October 12 and directed the parties to conclude their arguments, besides allowing exemption application of the prime minister.
