ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Thursday set aside the Accountability Court, Islamabad’s judgment and the conviction of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz and Captain Muhammad Safdar (retired) in the Avenfield Apartments corruption reference.
A division bench of Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani that heard the appeals of Maryam and her husband against their conviction in Avenfield reference in a short order said: “The instant appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 06-07-2018 is set aside to the extent of appellants, Maryam Nawaz and Capt (retd) Muhammad Safdar; consequently, the convictions awarded set-aside and the appellants are acquitted of their charges against them in Reference No.20/2017.”
Accountability Court-I judge Muhammad Bashir on July 6, 2018, a week before the general elections 2018, had convicted former prime minister and PML-N Quaid Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt (retd) Safdar under Section 9(a)(v) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
Nawaz was awarded 10-year rigorous imprisonment with £8 million fine, Maryam seven-year with £2 million fine, and Safdar one-year imprisonment. However, the IHC on September 18, 2018, had suspended their sentence and released them on bail.
During the proceeding, Justice Kayani observed that the joint investigation team did not present any facts, it just collected information. He then said that the opinion of the investigating officer could not be considered as evidence.
NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said that Wajid Zia, former director Federal Investigation Agency, had examined the documents himself and expressed his opinion on them. “I will show from the documents that these properties were purchased in 1999,” he told.
Justice Kayani then questioned had the prosecution produced other documents apart from oral statements. He further asked what is the position of Nawaz Sharif regarding this case? The prosecutor replied that Nawaz’s position was that he had no relation to the property.
The bench asked if the ex-PM maintained that he had no link, then the prosecution had to prove that these properties were of Nawaz. It observed that Muzaffar’s statements were contradictory, adding that the NAB prosecutor had said at the previous hearing that Maryam had no role in purchasing the properties.
Justice Aamir Farooq said; “Usman Cheema (special prosecutor NAB) [in the last hearing] clearly stated that Maryam had nothing to do with the properties in 1993, but you are saying Maryam’s connection was there from the beginning.” The NAB should first make itself clear on the issue and then inform the court, he added.
Muzaffar replied that Nawaz had bought properties in London in Maryam’s name while being a public office holder. Upon that Justice Farooq asked the prosecutor to prove his claims with evidence. He remarked that the NAB had no case apart from the various applications filed.
“The details could have been taken if Wajid Zia knew that the properties were worth $5 million. It was not difficult at all to get the details of the properties,” the judge remarked, to which Muzaffar replied that determining the value of properties was not relevant.
Justice Farooq pointed out that Muzaffar was “absolutely wrong” in saying that the determination of value was irrelevant.
At one point, Justice Farooq observed that the Sharif family’s stance was that they had bought the properties in 2006. “Despite their admission, Nawaz is not related [to the case],” he remarked.
Justice Kayani also observed that on the basis of these documents, the NAB had prepared the entire case against Maryam. “In the entire case by the NAB, there is no [mention] of Nawaz,” Justice Farooq noted.
Justice Farooq remarked that a property being in a daughter’s name did not necessarily mean that it was owned by the father.
The NAB prosecutor contended that the Sharif family had not submitted any documents in its defence. At that, Justice Farooq said, “Why should they have presented any documents? It was not their job. The NAB had to prove [the case against them].”
Justice Kayani added, “They should have stood silently. They should not have said anything.”
“If they admit while standing in the rostrum that they owned the properties, even then the prosecution has to prove [the case against them],” Justice Farooq added. He said that the NAB’s case may be valid but it had failed to prove it.
“The investigator has to prove this position as wrong. The prosecution has to prove that the real ownership belongs to Nawaz Sharif,” the judge said, adding that the watchdog had to bring the facts to light after the investigation.
He told the NAB to show the documents that proved the property trail to be wrong.
Meanwhile, Justice Farooq said that the case commenced in 2006 but the accountability bureau took it all the way back to 1993. “The Sharif family had nothing to do with the properties in 1993,” he observed.
Justice Kayani concurred, saying that according to the Sharif family’s admission, the case against them was registered in 2006.
He noted that Maryam being written down as the beneficial owner was just an opinion and there was no evidence for it. “The case that NAB has made is against Maryam Nawaz and not against Nawaz Sharif,” he added.
Justice Farooq said here how the case was merited since the PML-N vice president was not any public office holder.
“If they did not have their own admission then there would have been no case against them. The Sharif families had nothing to do with the properties in 1993,” Justice Farooq noted.
Furthermore, Justice Kayani pointed out that it was now clear the ownership of the properties belonged to the companies and then called on NAB to show the link of the companies to Nawaz or Maryam.
“Captain (retd) Safdar was convicted on the basis of the trust deed. Even if we consider that this is a fake document, all parties are accepting [it],” he said, adding that there was a possibility that the document was “false and prepared later”. Justice Kayani also inquired if Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz or Captain Safdar were ever arrested in the case. “No, none of them was arrested,” the NAB prosecutor replied. After hearing the arguments, the court reserved its verdict, which was announced later on.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.