An Islamabad accountability court on Thursday suspended the perpetual arrest warrants issued against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s sons — Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz — till March 14 in the three corruption references related to the Panama Papers.

Hussain and Hassan, through their counsel Qazi Misbahul Hassan, had filed an application in the court, seeking the suspension of the warrants issued against them in the Avenfield Apartments, Al-Azizia, and Flagship Investment references.

Accountability Court Judge Nasir Javed Rana announced the decision in the Avenfield reference today.

The court order, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, stated that “both the accused are allowed to surrender before the court, failing which the law shall take its own course.”

It highlighted that the accused persons, who were also the petitioners in the case, wanted to surrender before the court “in good faith” in order to face court proceedings.

The order noted that the court agreed with the NAB prosecutor’s submission that “the purpose of the perpetual warrant of arrest is to procure attendance of the accused and if accused intends to surrender himself before the court, he may be given an opportunity to face the trial.”

Today’s hearing

Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar, Usman Masood and Sohail Arif appeared in court today on behalf of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

During the hearing, Barrister Misbah contended before the court that Hassan and Hussain both were given interim bail but still perpetual arrest warrants were issued against them.

He told the judge that there were five accused persons in the Avenfield reference, of which three were sentenced by an accountability court and later acquitted by the Islamabad High Court.

The lawyer said his clients Hassan and Hussain both wanted to return to Pakistan on March 12 and appear before court . Hence, the arrest warrants should be suspended, he prayed.

Barrister Misbah said the purpose of the warrants was to bring back the accused persons to the court. At this, NAB prosecutor Arif argued before the court that the perpetual arrest warrants could not be revoked without a court appearance.

However, he said if Hassan and Hussain wanted to appear in court, an opportunity should be given to them.

The accountability court had reserved its verdict after hearing arguments of both the sides before issuing its verdict later.

Previous hearing

In the hearing held a day earlier, Hussain and Hassan’s counsel had infor­med the judge that their clients were residents of Saudi Arabia and the UK, respectively, and were nominated as accused persons in the trio of references along with Nawaz, Maryam, and retired Captain Safdar.

He had said that the trial in these references commenced when both of them were not in Pakistan. Advocate Qazi Misbah said that they were unaware of the formal legal process, and the state never attempted to adopt the due course to serve the legal process, which included the issuance of notices, arrest warrants, and proclamations.

He further stated that Hussain and Hassan have now decided to surrender before the court to face the trial proceedings.

According to the counsel, both sons of the former premier are set to reach Islamabad on March 12, and they requested the court to suspend their arrest warrants, enabling them to reach the court to surrender.

It may be mentioned that Nawaz and Maryam were both convicted in the Avenfield reference days before the previous general election.

Nawaz was also convicted in the Al-Azizia reference in December 2018 but acquitted in the Flagship Investment reference.

Nawaz, Maryam, and her husband challenged their conviction in the Avenfield reference before the Islamabad High Court. Nawaz also challenged the conviction in the Al-Azizia reference.

However, when Nawaz went abroad and did not return, the IHC declared him a proclaimed offender.

While he was in the UK, Maryam and retired Capt Safdar pursued the case, and the IHC finally set aside their conviction.

Nawaz returned to Pakistan in October last year, and his appeals against convictions were revived, leading to the IHC setting aside his conviction in both cases as well.

More to follow