ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) observed that the Trust Deed of Maryam Nawaz did not fall in the ambit of forgery, rather it could be called a pre-dated document because Maryam Nawaz owned the same.
A division bench of Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani heard the appeals filed by Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retired) Muhammad Safdar against their conviction in corruption reference. The bench asked some hard questions from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).
During the hearing, Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N)’s Vice President Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retired) Muhammad Safdar appeared before the court along with their legal team.
Irfan Qadir advocate, counsel for Maryam Nawaz, argued that the NAB did not fulfill the basic requirements of the case and the actual value and source of the assets are not stated in advance. He added that the reference also did not meet the requirements of Section 9-A of the NAB Ordinance.
The NAB prosecutor read out the letter of the British Virgin Island Authority before the court. The judge asked the prosecutor, is this letter your basic evidence. He added that if Maryam Nawaz is the beneficial owner, who has invested money to back her. The bench also said the NAB has to inform whether the money was invested by Maryam, Nawaz Sharif or anyone else.
The court questioned that the NAB is saying that Nawaz Sharif handed over his ill-gotten money to Maryam Nawaz then how Maryam is involved in the offence, if the money is given by Nawaz Sharif. The bench further said that you have to tell only what Maryam did to be declared an offender.
The NAB prosecutor said in his arguments that the main accused was not providing answer about how he purchased the property.
At this, Justice Aamer asked the NAB prosecutor then how a daughter could be declared criminal, if her father had earned the wealth through wrong means and he had been giving gifts to her.
Justice Farooq said the bench would review the trial record and see whether the NAB had proved its case or not.
Irfan Qadir said his application under section 561-A raised the question on the whole process of the trial. He asserted that the NAB had not fulfilled the basic requirements in this reference and that such cases had been controversial in the past. He argued that the NAB had filed this reference without any investigation.
The IHC bench said they would examine whether there were proofs available against the accused or not. The court asked the defence lawyer to prove the fact that the NAB could not establish its case. Later, the bench directed the NAB to produce its record of the case and deferred the hearing of the case till February 17 for further proceedings.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.