Islamabad High Court (IHC) will begin hearing of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's appeal against Accountability Court verdict in the Al-Azizia reference and the National Accountability Bureau's plea against Sharif's acquittal in the Flagship reference from 25th November.

A division bench of IHC comprising Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani will hear both the appeals.

In December 2018, Judge Arshad Malik convicted Nawaz Sharif in Al-Azizia reference and acquitted him in the Flagship reference. The former premier was sentenced to seven-year rigorous imprisonment and was also disqualified from public office for a period of 10 years.

The ex-PM in his appeal contended that he was convicted under section 10 of NAO, 1999 read with schedule thereto and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years along with a fine of Rs 1.5 billion and US $25 million.

Sharif submitted that from a bare perusal of the said judgment, it is evident that the findings recorded therein and forming basis for the conviction of the petitioner under section 9(a)(v) of NAO, 1999 read with section 10 ibid, are based on no evidence.

He argued that he was convicted and sentenced on the basis of inadmissible evidence, unproven documents and statements of proxy witnesses, which is not permissible in the eye of law.

The petitioner maintained that it is apparent on the face of the record that, prima facie, conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner is illegal and unwarranted by law and consequently his incarceration in jail pursuant to his impugned conviction is tantamount to being held in custody without lawful authority.

While referring the legal lacunas in the judgment of AC, Sharif requested the court in his appeal to acquit him of all the charges framed against him in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference No. 19 of 2017.

In his petition, Nawaz maintained that the decision was based on assumptions and false interpretation of law while the evidences were misperceived and the accountability court announced the verdict without hearing objections by the accused.

Therefore, he maintained that the said judgment, conviction and sentence are even otherwise illegal, without jurisdiction, unwarranted by law, based on inadmissible evidence and unproven documents and on misconception and misinterpretation of law and are liable to be set aside as such.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2019