ISLAMABAD: An accountability court judge on Tuesday reserved the judgement on an application filed by ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif for clubbing together three references filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the Sharif family under the directives of the Supreme Court in the judgement of the Panama Papers case.

Judge Mohammad Bashir will announce the judgement on Wednesday (today).

It appears that NAB filed references against the ousted prime minister and his children in ‘haste’ as the prosecution told the accountability court that the bureau was still waiting for key evidence from other countries.

Special prosecutor Wasiq Malik during the course of arguments opposed Mr Sharif’s application for clubbing together three references against the Sharif family and said that NAB under the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) was seeking key evidence from other countries on the basis of which the number of accused persons might increase in each of three references.

Mr Sharif arrived in the courtroom along with his daughter Maryam Nawaz, son-in-law retired Capt Muhammad Safdar and other Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leaders. He witnessed the proceedings quietly. Pervez Rashid sitting close to him whispered to him sometimes, causing the latter to smile. They stayed in court till the conclusion of arguments of their counsel and then left with the permission of the judge without speaking to media persons.

“NAB sought evidence under MLA in all three references separately and it is expected that the investigators may get something worthwhile,” argued Mr Malik.

“If we could get any tangible evidence, we will be in position to implicate other accused persons as mentioned in the July 28 verdict of the Supreme Court,” he added.

It may be mentioned here that the said verdict not only disqualified Mr Sharif but also directed NAB to file three references against him in the accountability court.

As per the verdict, NAB was asked to include National Bank of Pakistan Chief Executive Officer Saeed Ahmed, family friends of Mr Sharif, namely Javed Kayani, Sheekh Saeed, Musa Ghani and Pakistan-origin British national Kashif Masood Qazi.

Advocate Khawaja Haris, counsel of Mr Sharif, pointed out that NAB should have waited for evidence before filing of references. “They should have completed the investigation and would file the reference after receipt of evidence,” he argued.

“It appears that they are assuming certain things and filed the reference with anticipation of getting evidence at a later stage,” he said. He suggested to the accountability court judge that instead of relying upon evidence which has yet to come on the court record, the court might pass an order on the basis of available record.

“Such assumptions should not be the basis of prosecution evidence,” he added.

Earlier, Mr Haris argued on the application filed by Mr Sharif seeking clubbing of the three references.

He read out an order sheet of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), according to which the accountability court was asked to examine the matter in the light of Section 17-D of the National Accounta­bility Ordinance (NAO), 1999.

As per the said section, “a person accused of more offences than one of the same kind…may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of such offences”.

The counsel argued that the offences against Mr Sharif in all three references were identical and same in nature.

Advocate Haris summarised his plea as, “our case is simple, there should be one reference, one charge and one conviction”.

He requested the court to club the references for a joint trial of all the accused persons.

Deputy prosecutor general Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, however, opposed clubbing of references.

He pointed out that the Supreme Court had passed specific direction for filing of three references against the Sharif family and one against Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in the July 28 verdict.

He said that the Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 17-D of the NAO was for single accused where as in all the three references, there was a set of accused persons in each reference.

He said that the references, including Flagship Investment Co, was related to the private firms established by Hassan Nawaz in the UK, Al-Azizia reference was about the companies owned by Hussain Nawaz in Saudi Arabia whereas the Avenfield Properties reference alleged all the family members of purchasing four flats in Park Lane, UK, without legitimate financial means.

Calibri font

Maryam Nawaz and her husband retired Capt Safdar on Tuesday filed an application before the accountability court for deletion of a charge related to use of Calibri font.

The accountability court on Oct 19 indicted Mr Sharif, Ms Maryam and Mr Safdar in Avenfield reference related to London properties. Besides other charges, the court also charged Ms Maryam with signing a document in Calibri font in February 2006 when that font did not even exist.

The application filed by Advocate Amjad Pervez pointed out that “as per mandatory provision envisage by Section 30 of the NAO 1999, the cognizance of an offence of false evidence committed in the course of the investigation or trial is to be taken upon pronouncement of judgement”.

Advocate Pervez argued that the apex court in the July 28 verdict declared that “in case the accountability court finds any deed, document or affidavit filed by or on behalf of the respondents or any other person to be fake, false, forged or fabricated, it shall take appropriate action”.

The counsel further argued that under the law, there were certain sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) that dealt with the submission of forged or fake documents before the court.

When Judge Bashir asked NAB’s prosecutor Afzal Qureshi to argue, the latter replied that he needed time to respond.

Subsequently, the proceeding was adjourned till Wednesday (today).

Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2017