Captain (R) Safdar mocked and ridiculed by Sharif family in the Court

*ISLAMABAD: The son-in-law of ousted premier Nawaz Sharif, Capt (retd)Muhammad Safdar was mocked and ridiculed in the Court today as he was leftalone in the Court by her wife Maryam Sadar and Father in Law Nawaz Sharif.*

*He had to face taunting questions and mocking jokes once he was left alonein the Court. He testified before an accountability court on Tuesday,saying he signed the trust deeds of offshore companies – Nielsen andNescoll – as a witness. *

While maintaining that he was the only signatory to the trust deeds of thecompanies, he seconded the stance of his wife Maryam Nawaz that she hasnever been the beneficial owner of the London flats and other mentionedcompanieslink>.“My wife was only a trustee of Nielsen and Nescoll,” he added.

Safdar said that the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report is irrelevant inthis case and it cannot be included as part of evidence.

“JIT didn’t seal the copies of trust deeds in front of Maryam, so it isquestionable that in what condition those documents may have been receivedby Radley laboratory for the forensic test?” Safdar remarked.

During hearing, he skirted several questions and said most of the questionsare not related to him. The questions he claimed to be not linked with himwere regarding the address of Nawaz Sharif in parliament, a Qatari letter,TV interviews of Hasan Nawaz, Hussain Nawaz and Maryam Nawaz, testimony ofTariq Shafi, letters of Mossack Fonseca and Samba Bank.

Safdar, who has also been nominated in the reference, began recording thestatement after other two accused Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz completedtheir statement under Section 342 of the criminal procedure code (CrPC).

Safdar has so far answered 80 questions listed in the questionnaireprepared by the court. The court has adjourned hearing till tomorrow whenit will resume recording his statement.

The Avenfield reference, pertaining to the Sharif family’s Londonproperties, is among three references against the Sharif family filed bythe National Accountability Bureau (NAB) last year on the Supreme Court’sdirectives.