Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court is set to announce the verdict on Sharif family’s pleas challenging the Avenfield reference judgement on Wednesday (today).

In an initial order issued by Justice Athar Minallah on Tuesday, the court insisted that the verdict would be announced even if the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) prosecutor remains unable to conclude arguments.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the petitions filed by former premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt (retd) Safdar. During the hearing, Justice Minallah remarked, “It seems that the accountability court’s verdict was based on the assumption that the Avenfield properties are occupied not by his children, but by Nawaz himself.”

“When the second Panama judgement was announced it was binding on all judges but the first was not declared binding,” the judge said.,

NAB prosecutor Akram Qureshi maintained that the burden of proof of ownership lied with the person who possesses a property. Justice Minallah responded that all judges had signed the second Panama judgment, and Justice Aurangzeb said, “The first judgement did not disqualify Nawaz and it was issued by minority judges.”

The NAB prosecutor maintained that the case was of an ordinary nature, and added that it pertained to a ‘web of numerous companies’. He said , “It was not possible to investigate this case in such a short period and any observation by the court in this regard will not be appropriate. Parents are the guardians of their children and the London flats were the children’s possession. Thus, the burden of proof of ownership of flats lies on them.”

To this, Nawaz’s counsel said that only Hassan and Hussain Nawaz could tell about the ownership.

Justice Minallah remarked, “The defence says that Panamagate JIT head and prosecution’s star witness Wajid Zia did not present a chart on the known sources of income. Even the investigating officer said he does not know who prepared the chart.”

Qureshi raised the issue of bogus deeds after which Justice Minallah said, “Were those bogus deeds registered?” The NAB prosecutor replied that the deeds were made just to inform the two [Sharif] children. Justice Minallah addressed Qureshi and said, “You indicted them stating that Nawaz is the owner of the properties and not Maryam Nawaz. Should we announce a judgement based on criminal law on assumptions? This assumption that the property is occupied by the children but the ownership is Nawaz’s?”

Subsequently, Justice Aurangzeb asked the NAB, “If Nawaz is the owner then how was Maryam Nawaz sentenced under section 9(a)(iv)? How can there be two types of ownership at one time? Is Maryam the rightful owner, or only on paper?” When the NAB prosecutor responded that Maryam had abetted in the crime, Justice Aurangzeb repeated his question and Justice Minallah explained that his question is that ‘they both cannot be sentenced under the same indictment charges. So how then was a sentence announced on the same indictment charges?’

Justice Aurangzeb remarked that Maryam should not have been sentences under section 5, and asked if Maryam’s assets were beyond her known sources of income to which the NAB prosecutor responded in the affirmative. After a brief argument with the NAB prosecutor over the conclusion of his arguments, the court adjourned the hearing till Wednesday and decided to announce the verdict even if the prosecutor’s arguments remained incomplete.

Published in Daily Times, September 19^th 2018.