ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday suspended the sentences awarded to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and his son-in-law Capt (R) Safdar in the Avenfield corruption reference against them.
A two-member IHC bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb gave the judgment on petitions filed by Nawaz, Maryam and Capt (R) Safdar challenging the Avenfield verdict against them.
The bench in its short order states, “The instant writ petition is allowed and sentence awarded to the petitioners by the accountability court shall remain suspended till the final adjudication of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs500,000 with one surety in the amount to the satisfaction of deputy registrar of the high court.”
Justice Athar Minallah read the judgment and said, “We accept the petitioners’ pleas seeking a suspension in their sentences”.
The IHC suspended the sentences handed to the three including former PM Nawaz Sharif, Maryam and Capt (R) Safdar by accountability court judge Muhammad Bashir on July 6.
The court has directed the petitioners to submit bail bonds worth Rs0.5 million each. The sentences will remain suspended till the final adjudication of the appeals filed by the petitioners.
As the hearing began, the NAB prosecutor Akram Qureshi argued over the sale of Gulf Steel Mills.
Pressing the record of various court judgments NAB prosecutor said that in this case the unique point is that the Gulf Steel Mills was sold in 1978 and according to the accused, the sale agreement was between Tariq Shafi and Muhammad Abdullah Kayed Ahli. This stance was adopted in petitions submitted before the Supreme Court.
To this, Justice Aurangzeb asked, “Was this the stance of the accused?” The NAB prosecutor responded in the affirmative.
NAB prosecutor further argued that the petitioners stated that they invested 12 million dirham in Qatari prince’s business and presented the settlement as money trail for Avenfield apartments. According to them the basis of money for the purchase of the London flats was these 12 million dirham but during investigation it was found that the settlement agreement presented was fake and there was no such record of it in Dubai.
Qureshi said that Dubai government has said it did not have record of the sale of 25 percent shares.
Qureshi further said, “Maryam Nawaz through a different plea in the Supreme Court adopted the stance and through CMA No 7531 she submitted documents in the top court which mentioned business matters with the Qatari family.”
He said the same stance was adopted before them that the money for the purchase of London flats was received through the sale of Gulf Steel Mills.
To this, Justice Aurangzeb asked, “What do you mean before us? The accused were never presented.”
Qureshi responded that this was their stance before the JIT.” However, Justice Aurangzeb pointed out, “You are not the JIT, there is a big difference between NAB and JIT.”
Qureshi then said, “A fake sale deed was made to hide that Maryam Nawaz is the owner.” He was then asked by Justice Aurangzeb, “You are saying that Nawaz made the papers in Maryam’s name”
Replying in the affirmative, the NAB prosecutor said, “Yes, Nawaz is the real owner of the flats.”
To this Justice Athar Minallah said, “There is no evidence showing Nawaz as owner” and asked NAB prosecutor to present evidence in this regard. How can we assume that after such an extensive investigation there was no link found of Nawaz’s relation with the flats?
“There is no evidence showing Nawaz as owner of the flats,” Justice Minallah asserted.
Responding to the judge, the NAB prosecutor said, “Till 2012, Maryam was the beneficial owner of these flats and then became a trustee through a fake trust deed.” He added, “Calibri font was used in this trust deed and the font did not exist at the time.”
To this Justice Aurangzeb remarked, “let’s assume Maryam presented fake documents, please tell us how she was sentenced for owing assets beyond her known sources of income.”
Justice Minallah remarked, “Your stance is that Nawaz bought the flats in 1993, so then how did this become a case regarding Maryam owing assets beyond her known sources of income? Your case is that Nawaz is the real owner not Maryam”.
Justice Minallah then asked if there is any evidence showing any role that Nawaz had and said, “Can someone be sentenced just based on assumptions.”
NAB prosecutor responded that the law states to do so and he had mentioned the Supreme Court judgment. However, Justice Minallah remarked, “That was a minority judgment.”
Justice Minallah then asked that as per Supreme Court directives, NAB had to conduct an extensive investigation. “Did you probe their known sources of income?”
However, Qureshi said, “Supreme Court’s law does not apply here.”
Justice Minallah then asked where the chart regarding the sources of income is and if he should write that the SC law does not apply here. Qureshi then responded in the affirmative.
Qureshi also replied in the affirmative when Justice Minallah said that he has upheld that the burden of proof does not lie on NAB since the properties are located in a foreign country.
Justice Minallah then questioned, “Were such exercises conducted in the case of an official? We are asking about former presidents and premiers.”
NAB prosecutor gave the reference of cases of Hakim Ali Zardari and Ahmed Riaz Sheikh.
To this NAB prosecutor concluded his remarks.
Additional prosecutor general Jehanzeb Bharwana then requested for a brief argument and contended that the trust deed submitted by Maryam was fake.
Justice Minallah then asked the additional prosecutor general if he agreed with Qureshi that this was a case of first impression. Bharwana replied in the affirmative.
The judge then asked who prepared the chart on the known sources of income. “Where is the person who made the chart and if they appeared before court then we would have conducted arguments over it.”
Justice Aurangzeb then asked, “What is the rush in the case? This case is being fought through NAB’s prosecutor general.” Justice Minallah then remarked, “Maryam could only have assisted if she played a role in the purchase of the properties.”
Qureshi then responded, “It is not necessary to know the worth of the properties as the flats, lavish lifestyle and media interviews are present.”
As the NAB prosecutor concluded his arguments, Nawaz’ counsel, Khawaja Harris, presented brief arguments after which the court reserved its judgment.
Accountability Court judge Muhammad Bashir on July 6 convicted Nawaz, Maryam and Capt (R) Safdar in the Avenfield properties reference and sentenced them to 11 years, eight years and one year, respectively, in prison.
Nawaz Sharif and Maryam were arrested on July 13 upon arrival in Lahore from London. On July 16, the Sharifs had filed appeals for the Avenfield verdict to be overturned.
On September 15, the anti-graft body had moved the Supreme Court in an effort to keep the IHC from ruling on an application from the Sharif family seeking the suspension of the Avenfield verdict. However, imposing a Rs20,000 fine on the bureau, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar noted that justice should be served to petitioners.
Meanwhile, a large number of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leaders, including Shahbaz Sharif, Pervaiz Rashid and Khurram Dastgir, were present in the courtroom and cheered as the judgment was announced.
Later, on the directions of Islamabad High Court (IHC), Adiala Jail authorities released former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Capt (R) Safdar.
The Adiala Jail authorities has released Nawaz, Maryam and Safdar at 7:11pm on Wednesday.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz President Shahbaz Sharif, Sardar Mehtab Abbasi and Murtaza Javed Abbasi went to Adiala Jail to bring Nawaz, Maryam and Safdar. They met in Superintendent Adiala Jail room in light mood where they offered sweet to one another. During discussion with PML-N leaders, ousted prime minister said that he believed Allah would give him justice because he was innocent. “My conscious is satisfied because I never did any wrong, he said.
The jail sources said that PML-N President Shahbaz Sharif brought sweet and cake for Nawaz Sharif in Adiala Jail.
The both sides of Adiala Road from Adiala Jail to Katcherry Chowk was jampacked with PML-N supporters as they were raising slogans in favour of Nawaz Sharif. The PML-N workers showered rose petals over the vehicle of Nawaz, Maryam and Safdar. Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Capt (R) Safdar were waving their hands to answer the slogans of public on the occasion.
The PML-N leaders including Mushahidullah Khan, Javed Hashmi, Khawaja Asif, Ahsan Iqbal, Chaudhry Tanvir, Malik Ibrar, Sardar Naseem, Malik Shakil Awan, Abbas Sharif, Haris Butt, Pervaiz Rasheed, Daniyal Aziz, Musaddaq Malik, Zafarul Haq, Marriyum Aurangzeb, Tariq Fazal Chaudhry, Ziaullah Shah, Rahil Munir and several others reached in Adiala Jail to bring Nawaz, Maryam and Safdar.
There was tight security arrangements here at both sides of Adiala Road to avoid any untoward incident.
Meanwhile, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) decided to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Islamabad High Court decision regarding suspension of conviction of ex-prime minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz Sharif and Captain (R) Muhammad Safdar in Avenfield corruption reference.
The decision of filing the appeal in the Supreme Court against the Islamabad High Court decision was taken in the meeting which was held under NAB Chairman Justice (R) Javed Iqbal and attended by NAB Deputy Chairman Imtiaz Tajwar, Prosecutor General Accountability Syed Asghar Haider and senior lawyers of the NAB.
The meeting was held just after the verdict of the Islamabad High Court and it was decided that the appeal would be filed after getting the attested copies of Islamabad High Court orders.
It is expected that the NAB will file the appeal against the Islamabad Court Decision by next week as long weekend started from Thursday.
Meanwhile, commenting on IHC order to release, the PML-N leaders said that there was no substance in cases against Sharif family.
The PML-N senior leader Chaudhry Ahsan Iqbal while talking to newsmen after the decision said the motive behind awarding punishment to Nawaz Sharif was to pave for fake success of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in general elections. “The decision was victimisation of Nawaz Sharif and his family and is tantamount to pre-poll rigging having no legal justification,” Ahsan Iqbal said adding even a blind person could feel that imprisonment awarded Nawaz Sharif was meant to his victimisation.
“People from all four provinces of the country prayed for Nawaz Sharif’s release and I congratulate them on his release,” he said.
Khawaja Muhammad Asif also expressed his satisfaction over IHC.
Speaking to the media soon after the decision was announced, Asif said: “Justice has been served. We are thankful to God and hopeful that justice will prevail in all other cases.”
Commenting on the verdict, former Sindh governor Muhammad Zubair said: “We have been saying since day one that the cases against the Sharif family have no substance.”
He further remarked that the cases against the Sharif family were politically motivated. “Justice was served but it was delayed. A single case was used to target the entire family,” Zubair said.
The PML-N Senator Dr Asif Kirmani noted that Almighty Allah had always granted victory to Nawaz Sharif and he would continue to enjoy the blessings.
Meanwhile, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said the IHC decision came as a relief for the Sharif family as after Begum Kulsoom Nawaz’ death, the Sharif family was going through testing times.
In a reaction to the verdict, Bilawal Bhutto said the PPP and Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto fought for the independence of judiciary and were an integral part of this important movement. “The PPP has also suffered at the hands of judicial verdicts but not once have we disrespected the courts,” he said.
The PPP chairman said, “We cannot comment on the legal aspects of this verdict as courts are yet to decide on the appeals. We believe that our courts should not seem to be seen as part of any political victimisation. Rule of law and independence of judiciary are essential for any democratic system to thrive,” he said.
