ISLAMABAD: Nawaz Sharif’s counsel, Khawaja Harris, on Wednesday concluded his arguments before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in a petition filed by the jailed prime minister for suspension of the accountability court’s verdict against him in the Avenfield properties reference.
A two-member IHC bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard Nawaz’s petition. As the hearing started, Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi sought time to provide paragraph-wise comments in line with the request of Nawaz’s counsel. Abbasi requested that the hearing be adjourned for two days so that he can prepare a reply as he did not receive a copy of the court order on time. However, Justice Minallah remarked that the court cannot adjourn the hearing on these grounds. The NAB counsel further said he was not in town. However, the bench rejected his plea and Nawaz’s counsel presented his arguments before the court.
Justice Minallah then turned to Harris and remarked, “According to you, there’s no record of Nawaz’s property.” To this, Nawaz’s counsel responded, “NAB witnesses have agreed that there is no evidence against Nawaz.” Abbasi, however, responded that NAB has brought forth records of known sources of income of Nawaz and his children.
Following the deputy prosecutor’s statement, Justice Minallah questioned how known sources of income were brought on record. “This is not a case of money laundering,” he said. Responding to the judge, Abbasi said, “I will explain it to you.” However, Justice Minallah asked, “What is the contradiction when the worth of assets is not known?”
Harris informed the bench that prosecution’s star witness and Panamagate joint investigation team (JIT) head Wajid Zia had presented a chart of the assets. “JIT made the chart but Zia presented it,” he said. “Reservations were raised in the JIT report on this chart which are on the record,” the counsel added.
During the hearing, Justice Minallah observed, “The registrar office has informed us that incorrect statements attributed to judges were aired after the hearing on August 13 … we have taken serious notice of this. We are also forwarding the matter to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).”
Justice Minallah stated, “If judgments are given on one’s wishes, then there will be no justice.” He said, “We value the media but those who are indulging in this practice are committing the contempt of court.” Justice Minallah continued, “For a fair trial, it is essential to have trust in the legal system, and if trials start taking place outside court then that is contempt of court.” “We have no pressure from anyone and have to pass judgments based on law no matter who the convict,” he asserted.
The Sharif family had filed petition against their conviction in the Avenfield reference. Nawaz had also filed a plea for transferring the Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment corruption references from the court of Judge Muhammad Bashir to another accountability court. Later, the IHC had clubbed the two references.
NAB court adjourns hearing of Al-Azizia, Flagship references
An accountability court in Islamabad on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of two remaining corruption references against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family till August 20.
The jailed former prime minister appeared before accountability court II Judge Arshad Malik as he resumed hearing into the Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment references. During the hearing, the statements of investigating officer Mehboob Alam were recorded in the Al-Azizia reference.
Directing Alam to continue recording his statements during the next hearing, the court adjourned the case till August 20. The court also summoned prosecution’s star witness and Panamagate joint investigation team (JIT) head Wajid Zia for the hearing on Monday.
Both the references were heard simultaneously during the last hearing and Zia was cross-examined in the Al-Azizia reference. The head of the Panamagate joint investigation team has yet to record his statement in the Flagship Investment reference.
Nawaz’s counsel, Zafir Khan, had submitted an application in the court to get Zia’s statement recorded in the Flagship reference. However, the prosecution opposed the plea and insisted that the cross-examination of Zia should be completed in the Al-Azizia reference first before recording the statement in the second reference. The judge had rejected the plea and deferred the hearing of the two references.
On August 7, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) had transferred the two references to Accountability Court II.
Published in Daily Times, August 16th 2018.