ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Tuesday, acquitted Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Quaid Nawaz Sharif in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference, and declared his sentence as null and void.
A division bench of Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb announced the verdict which it had reserved after hearing the NAB and the appellant’s counsel.
Judge of Accountability Court-II, Islamabad Arshad Malik on December 24, 2018, sentenced Nawaz Sharif in Al-Azizia case to seven years imprisonment and imposed a fine of $2.5 million.
During the hearing, Sharif’s counsel Amjad Pervez came to the rostrum and requested to allow him to argue on the matter of Nawaz’s dependents. However, Justice Aamer told him that he had completed his arguments at the last hearing.
The bench then asked whether the NAB had proven anything related to Nawaz’s dependents. The lawyer responded that one of the witnesses, Wajid Zia, had admitted that there was no evidence related to Nawaz’s dependents. He said there were several court verdicts present regarding the definition of benami. Pervez also presented 13 separate verdicts in benami cases. He contended that the legal team had also raised these objections in front of the trial court that convicted Nawaz.
He said the trial court had relied on three major points. He added that the trial court had kept the civil miscellaneous applications filed in the Panama case as the basis.
The counsel argued that all three civil miscellaneous applications were filed by Maryam Nawaz, Hassan Nawaz, and Hussain Nawaz, and highlighted that not a single civil miscellaneous application was filed by Nawaz. He continued that in its verdict, the trial court held that the civil miscellaneous applications were criminal material. He contended that not a single application proves that Nawaz was the owner of these assets.
At that, the chief justice asked about the contents of the civil miscellaneous applications. Amjad replied that the applications were not on record, but the documents related to them were placed on the record. He further said that the applications did not state that Nawaz owned the assets and they instead stated that the matter did not concern the PML-N Quaid. He also said that it is a principle that evidence in one case cannot be admissible in another, especially when the nature of both cases is separate.
Sharif’s counsel further said that the trial court also relied on an interview given by Hussain Nawaz to a private TV channel in 2016, adding that even though Hussain said in the interview that the matter did not concern Nawaz.
He contended that an accused was innocent until proven guilty. He said the onus was on the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the accused, he added.
He argued that the accused cannot be forced to prove his innocence and there was no previous assets case where the accused was convicted without presenting clear proof of ownership.
The counsel concluded that the prosecution could not present a single piece of evidence and therefore, the burden of proof cannot be transferred onto the accused.
NAB prosecutor Azhar Maqbool Shah argued that the reference was filed in accountability courts on the directives of the Supreme Court, and a joint investigation team (JIT) was formed to probe the NAB references. He added that the NAB conducted its own investigation. He adopted the stance that in cases related to assets, there are only two to three methods of investigation and all the evidence collected was part of the record.
The prosecutor also said that these also included statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also read out loud some parts of Nawaz’s indictment.
Then, Justice Aamer said tell us on what basis you transferred the burden of proof onto the accused. He asked that is there any evidence on record. Is there any witness present?
Azhar said Nawaz was indicted on charges of corruption and corrupt practices and witnesses from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) were presented in court. He added that this is a case of white-collar crime. He further said that evidences were collected from across the country and said that letters were also written to collect evidence from abroad.
The IHC CJ then asked the NAB counsel to refer the evidence which is linked with the case. There must be some documents pertaining to the ownership of assets, he remarked.
At that Justice Miangul Hassan said before going into the evidence, he would like to clear up confusion. He added that on the previous hearing, you had asked for the case to be remanded back to the trial court. He also said that they have not yet passed an order and you can maintain the conviction while arguing on the merits of the appeal.
Azhar accepted that the bureau had asked for the case to be remanded back to the trial court. He said after the Supreme Court’s verdict concerning Judge Arshad Malik who had convicted Nawaz in the case and his subsequent dismissal, the “verdict cannot be called accurate”. He said that the trial court’s verdict in the Al-Azizia case was “biased”.
Justice Aamer said that the court did not pass an order on the petition concerning judge Arshad Malik. He noted that the NAB had stated that it did not want further proceedings on the matter.
He remarked that the NAB lawyer was correct in saying that the Supreme Court’s observations in the Arshad Malik case were quite strong and the IHC would have kept that in mind if the NAB had not filed an application on the matter. The NAB prosecutor argued that according to the JIT formed by the Supreme Court, the assets in question were acquired through corrupt practices.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023