ISLAMABAD: A two-member bench of the Islamabad High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition seeking clubbing of three references filed against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his close relatives in the accountability court of the federal capital.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) filed the three references in September in the accountability court on the instructions of the Supreme Court that issued the order in the case involving identical petitions of Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, Sirajul Haq of the Jamaat-i-Islami and Sheikh Rashid Ahmed of the Awami Muslim League.

During the hearing on Thursday, Azam Nazir Tarar, the counsel for Mr Sharif, pointed out that several witnesses in the three references were the same and the entire evidence against the Sharif family was based on a report prepared by the six-member Joint Investigation Team (JIT) constituted on the order of the apex court in the Panama Papers case.

He claimed there were precedents where the superior courts had ordered clubbing of references against an accused in identical situations.

The deputy prosecutor general, Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, opposed clubbing of the references and said the apex court had in its July 28 verdict in the Panama Papers case specifically directed NAB to file three references against Mr Sharif and his relatives.

Mr Sharif had earlier submitted a petition for clubbing of the three references to the Supreme Court, but the court dismissed the plea with the observation that the petitioner might seek remedy at an appropriate forum.

The former premier also submitted an application on the issue to the accountability court’s judge, Mohammad Bashir. However, the trial court rejected the plea.

On Nov 14, the IHC’s division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani had issued pre-admission notices to NAB on the petition submitted on behalf of Mr Sharif. The former premier named the NAB chairman and judge of the accountability court as respondents.

In his petition, he said he was aggrieved by the accountability court’s order dated Nov 8 through which it had dismissed his application for joint framing of charges and joint trial in the three corruption references filed against him regarding alleged offences of the same kind. Through the application, the petitioner had also sought deletion of Section 9(a)(v) from the charges in the corruption reference number 20.

In all the three references it was alleged that the properties acquired from 2001 to 2009 (with remittances for the period between 2009 and 2015) in the name of benamidars Hassan and Hussain Nawaz were actually owned by the petitioner and were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Each reference is supplemented by a nine-volume report formulated by the JIT and had common prosecution witnesses.

Similarly, the petitioner’s defence against each allegation was the same. The petition claimed that for the offences under section 9(a)(v) and all the precedents pertaining thereto, a single offence could be framed against the accused irrespective of the nature and number of the assets alleged to be owned by the accused.

The petitioner requested the court to set aside the accountability court’s order dated Nov 8 through which it had dismissed his application seeking joint trial and joint charges.

It also said the accountability court’s judge might be directed to frame a single charge against the petitioner and conduct a single trial under Section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance.

The petitioner said a joint trial should also be conducted to avoid conflicting judgements. And proceedings might be suspended till the framing of the joint charges.

The trial court, in its detailed judgement of Nov 8, had said that “section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 provides a mechanism which may be adopted or not, depending on the circumstances of each case”.

Neither the prosecution nor the accused could insist on joint trial of offences even if they were of the same kind. The accused/applicant could not justify clubbing of the three references in the given circumstances, the accountability court said.

In order to avoid conflicting judgements or any likelihood of ignoring of any defence argument that the applicant might produce separately in each reference, all three of them would be decided simultaneously, added the accountability court.

Published in Dawn, November 24th, 2017