Apparently, accountability court's verdict was based on assumption: IHC

Irked by consistent National Accountability Bureau (NAB) delaying tactics, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) division bench on Tuesday passed an order, saying whether or not the anti-graft body completes its arguments, the bench will announce its verdict in the Sharif family case today (Wednesday).
A division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Aurangzeb issued an initial order that even if NAB prosecutor does not conclude his arguments, a verdict will be announced on the Sharif family's pleas challenging the Avenfield reference verdict against them.
The two-judge bench heard the petitions filed by former Premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Safdar and son-in-law Capt Muhammad Safdar (retd) against their conviction in the Avenfield apartments case by an accountability court in July last.
During the course of hearing, Justice Minallah remarked: "Apparently, the accountability court's verdict was based on the assumption that the Avenfield properties are occupied by children but owned by Nawaz Sharif."
"When the second Panama case judgment was announced, it was binding on all judges but the first verdict was not declared binding," he added. However, NAB Prosecutor Akram Qureshi stated that the second Panama case judgment is still under process.
To this, Justice Minallah said that all judges signed the second Panama case judgment. Meanwhile, Justice Aurangzeb added, "The first judgment did not disqualify Nawaz and it was issued by minority judges."
In response, the NAB prosecutor stated that "this is no ordinary case" and it pertains to a "web of numerous companies."
Qureshi continued, "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."
Furthermore, the NAB prosecutor argued, "Parents are the guardians of their children and the London flats were in the children's possession."
Stating that parents are "natural supervisors," Qureshi asserted, "The burden of proof of ownership of flats lies on Sharif."
He [Nawaz's counsel] says that Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz can tell about the ownership, though as father and supervisor, the burden of proof lies on him (Sharif), the NAB prosecutor added. "The expenses are not on record," he further said.
To this, Justice Minallah remarked: "The defense says that Panama papers 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 said that bogus deeds were made. To this, Justice Minallah asked: "Were those bogus deeds registered there?" However, Qureshi said, "The deeds were only made to inform the brothers."
However, Justice Aurangzeb remarked, "The brothers are Nawaz's sons."
Justice Minallah turned to Qureshi and said, "You indicted them stating that Nawaz is the owner of the properties and not Maryam Nawaz."
Justice Minallah then asked, "Should we announce a judgment based on criminal law on assumptions? The assumption that the property is occupied by the children but the owner is Nawaz?"
"Seemingly, the Accountability Court's verdict was based on assumptions," he observed.
Justice Aurangzeb asked, "How can there be two types of ownership at one time? Is Maryam the rightful owner or is she owner only on papers?"
To this, Qureshi said that Maryam Nawaz assisted in the wrongdoing.
"So if Nawaz is owner then how was Maryam sentenced under section 9(a)(iv)," Justice Aurangzeb questioned.
Justice Minallah then explained, "Justice Aurangzeb's question is that they both cannot be sentenced under the same indictment charges, so how was the sentence announced on the same indictment charges?"
"The daughter should not have been sentenced under the section 5," Justice Aurangzeb observed. He then asked if Maryam's assets are beyond her known sources of income, to which the NAB prosecutor responded in the affirmative.
Qureshi then pleaded to the court to adjourn the hearing till Wednesday (today) as he recently underwent an open heart surgery and cannot stand for more than two hours.
However, Justice Minallah pointed out that Qureshi had said he will conclude his arguments within an hour. "Tomorrow, I will conclude my arguments within 30 minutes," the NAB prosecutor responded.
Justice Aurangzeb then told the NAB prosecutor, "We will give you a chair to sit on." However, Qureshi said that sitting on chairs exerts pressure on feet.
At this point, Nawaz's counsel Khawaja Harris said, "We have already wasted enough time but cannot express reservations on health concerns."
Justice Minallah then remarked, "This is an important case and it would be great if we conclude it by tomorrow (Wednesday). We will take a whole day for this case."
Turning to the NAB prosecutor, Justice Aurangzeb remarked, "There is a limit to everything and you have presented initial arguments. Even if you do not appear for the hearing tomorrow, we will announce the verdict."
Justice Minallah added, "You have presented good arguments and if you do not appear then Justice Bharwana will present arguments and even if they are not concluded, we will announce a verdict tomorrow."
Qureshi stated that in NAB cases bail can only be granted in case of hardship.
To this, Justice Minallah remarked, "We will see if this is a case regarding hardship or not."
Qureshi then turned to Justice Minallah and said, "It is said that you have close ties with Nawaz and played an important part in the former Premier's movement."
Responding to the NAB prosecutor, Justice Minallah said, "The movement was regarding supremacy of law and you can see my judgments." The court then adjourned the hearing till Wednesday.