Shafaqna Pakistan: A key accused in Judge Arshad Malik’s video case, who mysteriously went missing, has claimed that none of the Sharifs’ associates had ever blackmailed the judge facing a controversy linking to ex-premier Nawaz Sharif’s cases.
In an affidavit, Khurram Yousaf submitted to the FIA days before his mysterious disappearance, he (Khurram Yousaf) contradicted all the allegations leveled by Judge Arshad Malik in his plea.
“Neither did I blackmail Judge Arshad Malik nor did anyone blackmail Judge Arshad Malik in my presence.” It is further stated that he never conveyed any message to Judge Arshad Malik in this regard. All allegations leveled in affidavit submitted by Judge Arshad Malik, and FIR 24/2019 are baseless, false and concocted. He said that he denies all false allegations leveled in FIR 24/2019, and affidavit sworn by complainant Judge Arshad Malik against him, said Yousaf in affidavit exclusively made available with Geo News.
Judge Arshad Malik in his plea claimed, “In middle of February 2019 I met Khurram Yousaf and Nasir Butt. During the conversation, Nasir Butt asked me [Judge Arshad Malik] whether Nasir Janjua had shown me the Multan video. I was shocked when basing on that video, a group of people including Nasir Janjua, Nasir Butt, Khurram Yousaf and Mahar Ghulam Jilani started to pressurise and blackmail me to help Mian Nawaz Sharif, who has earlier been convicted by me in the NAB Reference 4.” Khurram Yousaf, who went missing with his family last week, further said in his affidavit, “I came to know about the registration of FIR 24/2019 against me, I got afraid and in that situation the complainant Judge Arshad Malik arranged a stamp paper in my name and got my signature on that blank stamp papers with the promise that he will get my name cleared from FIR 24/2019. I do not know what Judge Arshad Malik wrote on that stamp papers. Now, I came to know that Judge Arshad Malik presented some affidavit in my name in his favour. I deny all its contents and I do not own that stamp papers presented by Judge Arshad Malik or anyone else in my name.”
Khurram Yousaf continued to reveal, “I never sworn any affidavit in favour of Judge Arshad Malik and if anybody presents any affidavit in this regard before any investigating agency or court of law will be fake, concocted and prepared based on ulterior motive. I have a right to initiate legal proceedings civil/criminal against that person. That my statement recorded by investigating officer during my physical remand and this affidavit with reference to FIR 24/2019 are only true and correct.”
Contrary to it Judge Arshad Malik in his response to FIA team said, “so, to the extent of the surreptitiously made audio/video recording of that meeting, I say that it was made by both these individuals in collusion with each other. Nasir Janjua, Mahar Ghulam Jilani and Khurram Yousaf have also visited me on other occasions and may also have secretly recorded the meetings. After longtime he [Nasir Janjua] again met me with Khurram Yousaf in October, 2018 who introduced him as his business partner and at that time I was reminded that we first met years earlier when he visited my senior Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, advocate, in his office. It was Mian Nasir Janjua whom I knew because he roamed around in the social circle to which I was also a member. Rest of the characters (i.e. Khurram Yousaf and Mahar Jilani), were closely associated with Nasir Janjua who came across me in different social gatherings. Nasir Butt also approached me with the same message through Khurram Yousaf, but my response to both was in the negative.”
Khurram Yousaf further stated in his affidavit, “I received summons for attendance u/s 160 CrPC from your [FIA] office for appearance on Sep 17, 2019. I am law abiding citizen, I want to appear before you but could not appear due to the reason that an FIR 362 u/s 489 F PPC was registered with PS Kohsar Islamabad for cheque dishonor against me by my business partner, I am settling this issue and after my legal settlement on this issue, I will appear before your good self. I would like to further explain that due to pre-occupied with FIA, the said FIR was not handled by me that is why the FIR 362 u/s 489 was registered against me.”