ISLAMABAD: Disregarding Nat­ional Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) suggestion that ex-PM Nawaz Sharif’s conviction in the Al-Azizia reference be set aside and the case be re-tried, which was endorsed by his lawyer, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday declared it would decide the PML-N supremo’s appeal on merit.

The suggestion by the anti-graft watchdog came when the IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb took up Mr Sharif’s appeal against his conviction in the reference.

Mr Sharif was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment by the accountability court of Islamabad on Dec 24, 2018.

Amjad Pervaiz, counsel for the former premier, argued that prosecution had failed to prove Mr Sharif’s ownership of Al-Azizia Steel Mills and its successor Hill Metal Establishment (HME).

Ex-PM’s lawyer says he did not own Al-Azizia Steel Mills, Hill Metal Establishment

He said the prosecution had brought 22 witnesses, among them 13 were custodians of record and five witnessed the seizure of recovery memo.

He argued that out of 22, only two — head of JIT Wajid Zia and NAB’s investigation officer Mehboob Alam — were the material witnesses.

He then referred to the testimonies and cross-examination of both the witnesses and pointed out that they had admitted that there was no direct evidence of Mr Sharif’s ownership, price of the steel mills, determination of the income of the former premier and a comparison of his known sources of income with the price of the companies.

He said Mr Sharif was not holding a public office when Al-Azizia Steel Mills was established in 2001 and HME in 2006 as he was in exile following the October 1999 military coup.

He informed the court that Mr Sharif’s son Hussain Nawaz had established the Al-Azizia mills along with his grandfather Mian Mohammad Sharif. He said HME was procured after Al-Azizia was sold in 2006.

The lawyer explained that Hussain Nawaz was 28 years old when Al-Azizia was set up and 34 when HME was procured, adding that he was not a dependent of Mr Sharif.

When the bench inquired about the tangible evidence against Mr Sharif, advocate Pervaiz said the prosecution had relied upon the Audit Bureau report which was obtained from Saudi Arabia. The report, he added, was shown under the objection of the defence counsel for being a photocopy, and not an original document.

The court observed that the prosecution had claimed that Hussain Nawaz had remitted 80 per cent of the profit of the companies to Mr Sharif, which proved the latter’s ownership of Al-Azizia and HME.

Mr Pervaiz replied that NAB’s evidence was not an original document and it could not be exhibited. He said Hussain Nawaz had remitted the amount into Mr Sharif’s accounts through legal channels and the former premier had declared it in annual tax returns.

He said neither the Federal Board of Revenue ever raised any objection to the remitted amount nor did the State Bank of Pakistan issue any Suspicious Transaction Report on the transfer of amount.

The lawyer argued the trial court had assumed that since the father had been receiving money from the son, he was the owner.

NAB’s prosecutor Azhar Maqbool Shah said there were civil miscellaneous applications which might be decided before final arguments on Mr Sharif’s appeal are heard.

Plea against deceased judge

Mr Shah pointed out that an application against then-accountability judge, the late Arshad Malik, who had convicted Mr Sharif in the Al-Azizia reference, was also pending.

The application was filed by Mr Sharif after Maryam Nawaz held a press conference at which she released an audio recording of Arshad Malik with a PML-N activist, Nasir Butt.

In the leaked audio, the judge was allegedly saying that he had convicted Mr Sharif under duress. Justice Aurangzeb remarked that this is a very serious matter, which would have grave repercussions.

The bench inquired whether the defence counsel would pursue the application even after the demise of the judge.

Mr Pervaiz replied that since they could not cross-examine the judge, he would not pursue this application.

The NAB’s prosecutor pointed out that the Supreme Court had also dealt with this matter and offered two options if the misconduct of the judge was proved; the matter could be remanded to the accountability court for a re-trial or the IHC may decide the case on the basis of available record.

Mr Sharif’s counsel argued that the Lahore High Court had dismissed the judge for misconduct.

He then consented to NAB’s suggestion to remand the reference to the accountability court, but sought a direction for its disposal in a fortnight.

However, the bench decided to hear the appeal on merit.

The hearing was adjourned to Dec 12.

Published in Dawn, December 8th, 2023