ISLAMABAD: While expressing its intention of not dragging the matter pertaining to the suspension of Avenfield properties reference verdict, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday directed the defence and prosecution sides to conclude their arguments on the petitions by Friday.

For the hearing of two other references pertaining to Al-Azizia Steel and Flagship Investment, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was brought to an accountability court in an armoured personnel carrier, which was criticised by his younger brother and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz president Shahbaz Sharif who termed the treatment with the thrice-elected prime minister ‘unfair’ and asked party workers to reach the court at the next hearing.

At the high court, a division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb asked the defence and prosecution if any of them had the slightest doubt over the independence and integrity of the court or had apprehension about fair trial. In such a case, the judges said they were ready to recuse themselves from hearing the matter. When both sides expressed confidence in the bench, the court formally began the proceedings on the petitions filed by the Sharifs seeking suspension of the judgement in the Avenfield properties reference.

Ousted prime minister Nawaz brought to accountability court in armoured personnel carrier

In its July 6 verdict, the accountability court had awarded 10 years imprisonment to Nawaz Sharif, seven years imprisonment to his daughter Maryam Nawaz and one year imprisonment to his son-in-law retired Captain Mohammad Safdar in the Avenfield properties reference.

Additional deputy prosecutor general of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi raised five objections on the petitions filed by the Sharif family seeking suspension of the judgement in the Avenfield properties reference. According to him, the appeals against the conviction were already fixed and the convict may seek release at least six months after detention, besides the petitioners did not cite relevant authorities as respondents in the petitions.

The court overruled the objections and permitted the counsel for the ex-prime minister to advance his arguments on the petitions.

The defence counsel argued that NAB did not ascertain the price of Avenfield apartments or the known sources of income of the Sharifs at the time of their purchase.

According to him, the properties belong to the son of the ex-PM. He said even if it was assumed that the Avenfield apartments were owned by his client for the sake of argument, the case against Mr Sharif could be proved only when the prosecution established the discrepancies between the known sources of his client’s income and the price of the said property.

He recalled that the joint investigation team head Wajid Zia admitted during the cross-examination that no direct evidence of Mr Sharif’s ownership of London properties was available. During the hearing, Mr Abbasi conceded that there was insufficient evidence with NAB to prove the charge of acquiring London apartments through corrupt practice.

The IHC then asked the prosecution if Maryam being dependent or benamidar of her father could be convicted under Section 9(a)(5) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) that was related to assets beyond means.

The court said him that since NAB did not file an appeal against the July 6 decision, it gave a clean chit to the Sharif family that they were not involved in corrupt practice or dishonesty and they were convicted only because they had failed to justify the Avenfield apartments.

While reading out the accountability court’s verdict, the IHC also asked about Maryam’s conviction on a charge of abetting her father for accumulating the assets beyond means when the only evidence against her was a forged trust deed.

The court raised similar questions regarding the conviction of her husband who was accused of signing the trust deed that according to NAB was meant to conceal the ownership of London properties.

The NAB prosecutor said it would be appropriate if the court would listen to the arguments of defence counsel Khawaja Haris and Amjad Pervaiz and that the prosecution would conclude its arguments later. Subsequently, the bench asked Mr Pervaiz to conclude his arguments by Aug 15 and directed the NAB prosecution to rebut them by the following day.

Nawaz produced in court

Meanwhile, Nawaz Sharif was brought to the accountability court in an armoured personnel carrier for the hearing of the Al-Azizia and Flagship references against him on Monday.

Amid tight security, the authorities did not allow media persons to enter the federal judicial complex where both the references were heard simultaneously.

The star prosecution witness in the case and the JIT head, Wajid Zia, was cross-examined in the Al-Azizia reference.

The defence counsel, Khawaja Haris, did not appear before the accountability court as he had to pursue the petition seeking suspension of judgement against the Sharifs in Avenfield properties reference. Another defence counsel, Zaafir Khan, submitted an application in the court to get Mr Zia’s statement recorded in the Flagship reference. Opposing the plea, the prosecution insisted that his cross-examination be completed in the Al-Azizia reference first before recording his statement in the second reference.

The judge rejected the defence plea and deferred the hearing of the two references to Wednesday.

He also directed the authorities to ensure the presence of Nawaz Sharif, Wajid Zia and Mehboob Alam, the investigation officer in the Al-Azizia reference, at the next hearing.

Outside the federal judicial complex, journalists staged a sit-in and chanted slogans against the order of Islamabad’s deputy commissioner Hamza Shafqat to stop the media from witnessing the proceedings. During the protests, a police official fired into the air that his colleagues later called a ‘mistake’.

Published in Dawn, August 14th, 2018