ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) was informed that the references against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif were filed on the direction of the apex court.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo Nawaz Sharif’s appeal against his conviction in the Avenfield corruption reference.
Amjad Pervaiz argued before the bench that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Panama Papers case led to Nawaz’s disqualification. He told the court on the apex court order Joint Investigation Team was constituted.
Appeal in Avenfield reference: IHC seeks arguments from Nawaz’s counsel on 27th
Justice Miangul Hassan questioned the relevance of Pervaiz’s arguments. In response, the counsel provided the court with details about the JIT’s formation and members.
He informed that the JIT submitted a comprehensive 10-volume report to the apex court in July 2017. After that, the court issued its final verdict on July 28, 2017, and disqualified Nawaz.
The judge sought clarity from Pervaiz regarding the specific orders issued by the SC. He inquired whether the SC had provided directives to the NAB chairman. Pervaiz affirmed that the apex court had issued explicit instructions to NAB to file references against Nawaz Sharif.
He specified that the SC had ordered the NAB to file references against Nawaz, his daughter Maryam, sons, Husain and Hasan, and Captain Safdar (retired) in the Avenfield case, while the Al-Azizia and Flagship references were filed against Nawaz and his two sons.
The lawyer emphasized that according to the apex court’s orders, the NAB was authorised to file supplementary references based on newly discovered evidence.
Justice Aurangzeb asked about the events between the SC’s order and the NAB’s filing of the references. He inquired whether all three references were filed on the same day, to which Pervaiz responded that the filing occurred in September 2017.
The judge further asked whether the former prime minister was present in the country when the references were filed. Pervaiz clarified that his client was in the United Kingdom along with his daughter.
Justice Farooq sought clarification regarding the indictment of the suspects. He asked whether the indictment was limited to the Avenfield reference or extended to all three cases. Pervaiz explained that the indictment occurred in all three cases on the same day, but the proceedings were handled separately at a later stage.
The counsel said that the prosecution had withheld a copy of Volume 10 of the JIT report. The chief justice expressed his surprise, stating that at least some details from Volume 10 should have been presented during the trial. The counsel maintained that no document from Volume 10 had been brought on the record, acknowledging that a few questions were answered during the interrogation.
Justice Aurangzeb asked about Nawaz’s acquittal in one of the references. The NAB prosecutor confirmed that an accountability court had acquitted Nawaz in the Flagship reference.
The judge then questioned whether the NAB had filed an appeal against the acquittal. The NAB prosecutor responded, “yes”, but clarified that notices had not yet been issued, and the case was not yet scheduled for a hearing.
Nawaz’s lawyer contended that accountability judge Mohammad Bashir had issued a verdict on one of the references, followed by a plea to transfer the remaining cases to another court. He also raised questions on the NAB’s reliance solely on the JIT report for filing references against Nawaz.
Justice Aurangzeb expressed skepticism, asking whether NAB had exercised any independent judgment in the matter. Pervaiz asserted that NAB’s actions were limited to issuing a call-up notice to Nawaz Sharif. He criticised the bureau for failing to present any “concrete evidence” beyond witness statements. He further argued that the call-up notice had no bearing on the investigation.
The judge sought confirmation from Pervaiz that NAB had not conducted an independent investigation. However, the lawyer said that no document from the volume was brought on the record, adding that a “few questions were answered during the interrogation.”
Nawaz’s lawyer then read out the text of the indictment in the Avenfield reference. He said that Nawaz had denied wrongdoing after the charges were framed. He said that after the indictment, an accountability court had sought evidence from NAB, which first presented a preliminary report before submitting a detailed one.
He said that the preliminary investigation report only referred to the SC’s verdict, adding that the charges against Nawaz were incorrectly framed. He said the statements of six out of the 18 witnesses were recorded in the Avenfield reference when NAB filed a supplementary reference.
The IHC bench asked that did any witness gave a statement after which the NAB decided to file a supplementary reference. To this, Pervaiz said that the first witness produced records from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP).
He argued that while the witnesses were being cross-examined, the NAB decided to bring a supplementary reference.
The lawyer further said that the trial court announced its verdict in the Avenfield reference in the absence of Nawaz and Maryam. He added, “Mian Nawaz Sharif and Maryam Nawaz were in London to visit Kulsoom Nawaz.” He said that Kulsoom was suffering from late-stage cancer at the time. He said that the PML-N had asked the trial court to change the date of the hearing but the application was rejected the same day.
At one point, PML-N’s Tarar asked the court to exempt Nawaz from appearance before the court. “There are security issues at every hearing,” he contended. The judge said that you may file an application for exemption then the court will consider it. Later, the bench deferred the hearing of the case till Wednesday for further proceedings.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023