IHC rejects NAB’s plea for adjournment in suspension petitions

Meanwhile, the counsel for Sharif, Khawaja Haris, and counsel for Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retd) Safdar, Amjad Pervaiz, concluded their arguments on the petitions on Wednesday. PHOTO:FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court turned down on Wednesday the National Accountability Bureau (NAB)’s request to adjourn petitions seeking suspension of sentences awarded to jailed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter and son in-law in the Avenfield Apartments reference.

IHC’s division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb turned down NAB deputy prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi’s two-day adjournment request and directed him to present arguments on Aug 16 (today). He sought adjournment on grounds that NAB needed time to prepare written reply but the bench not only expressed displeasure over the application and remarked that there was sufficient time for NAB to file reply since petitions have been instituted.

“It was not expected from a professional organisation like NAB to seek adjournment on such grounds,” Justice Minallah remarked, adding the prosecutor should argue his case after the defence counsel conclude their arguments. Thursday can be the last day for the bench as IHC’s chief justice would constitute benches for the next week.

Meanwhile, the bench took notice of the fake remarks in the shape of tickers and story attributed to the judges that were circulated through Whatsapp groups and on social media after the last hearing on Aug 13. The judges called the remarks “contemptuous” saying they have taken notice of it and referred the matter to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). Justice Minallah said that “some quarters were circulating false statements attributing to the bench”. He made it clear that the bench would not spare persons behind it and it would not affect hearing of the petitions in any way.

“Free trial and access to justice is of paramount importance in any society. Do not comment on pending cases. Discuss freely when judgments are given because they are for public,” he said. “You [media] are part of the criminal justice system,” Justice Minallah remarked, adding media should convey version of justice but not create any environment which may cause harm. In addition, he said, spreading misinformation would be “fatal for the administration of justice and right to fair trial” if someone spreads fabricated information to deter the courts.

Meanwhile, the counsel for Sharif, Khawaja Haris, and counsel for Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retd) Safdar, Amjad Pervaiz, concluded their arguments on the petitions on Wednesday.

First, Haris argued before the bench that the prosecution failed to shift burden of proof on the accused persons as per the criteria defined by the superior courts. He reiterated that the price of purchase of the London flats was neither in evidence nor in the judgment and without the price, one can’t compare the known sources of income and the assets acquired.

On court’s query, Haris said that prosecution claims to have discharge its duty of shifting the onus of proof on accused by producing a JIT-made chart of assets and cash flow in evidence. He, however, informed the court that neither the chart carries signatures of anyone nor it emerged throughout the trial who prepared it. He said NAB did not include anyone, including the 40 experts assisting JIT, in investigation who might have prepared the chart.

In addition, he said, investigation officer admitted that he did not ask JIT head Wajid Zia who prepared the chart. Also, he said, requirements of the Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984 were not fulfilled. “What did the investigation officer do when he has not even asked about the known sources of income of accused,” Justice Minallah remarked. He said initially the burden of proof is on prosecution.

Meanwhile, Justice Aurangzeb asked from Maryam’s counsel if she was the beneficial owner of Avenfield Apartments in line with the documents of the Financial Investigation Agency (FIA) of the British Virgin Island (BVI). To this, he said she was not the beneficial owner and the BVI documents do not fulfill requirements set in QSO of 1984 and the court should not rely upon them. “Ownership of assets has been denied by the principal accused and I am [Maryam] has just been accused of aiding and abetting,” Pervaiz said. He said prosecution did not establish any connection between Sharif and Maryam regarding the properties.

Arguing on the “fake” trust deeds, Pervaiz said that Maryam has claimed that the trust deed was original but the JIT termed it bogus on the basis of a report of a forensic expert, Robert Radley. He said the expert stated in his report that Calibri font used in the trust deeds was not “commercially” available till January 2007 but the trust deeds were prepared in February 2006. However, he informed the court, Radley admitted before trial court that font was available since 2005; he himself downloaded and used it despite not being a computer expert or geek.

Following the arguments, the court directed NAB to present arguments on Thursday (today).

Source: Express Tribune