IHC will consider Nawaz’s merit-based appeal against Al-Azizia’s conviction
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Nawaz Sharif’s appeal against his conviction in the Al-Azizia reference would be heard by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on a merit-based basis, the court noted on Thursday.
The National Accountability Bureau’s (NAB) June 2018 application for a sentence extension was slated to be heard alongside the former prime minister’s appeal by a two-member bench made up of IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hasan Aurangzeb.
Applications to revive Sharif’s appeals against his conviction in the Avenfield and Al-Azizia corruption references were accepted by the high court in the capital last month.
“On the merits” refers to a case in which the outcome is determined by applying the law to the particular facts and evidence that were presented in that case. This is not the case in circumstances when procedural issues determine the outcome.
Nawaz’s conviction in the case was declared void by the high court, notwithstanding the NAB’s motion to remand the matter back to the accountability court.
Amjad Pervaiz, Nawaz’s attorney, told the court today that the NAB, acting on directions from the Supreme Court (SC), had filed many references on the same charges against the leader of the PML-N.
He contended that Nawaz in the flagship reference had been exonerated by the accountability court. “On November 8, 2017, the court observed that all three references will be disposed of together,” Pervaiz stated, adding that “we had submitted an application requesting for one reference to be filed on an allegation.”
The accountability court oversaw the joint announcement of verdicts while conducting the trials in isolation.
The trial court’s order to deliver the verdict concurrently was upheld, Nawaz’s attorney further informed the court, noting that the IHC had noted in its ruling that “the sky won’t fall if the judgment of the three cases is announced together.”
The lawyer was questioned by the court regarding the claim in the case. The attorney retorted that it was an instance of assets beyond means.
Amjad Pervaiz continued, saying that 13 of the 22 witnesses in the case had produced documentation. “There are only two witnesses remaining to the incident because there isn’t an eyewitness. Mehboob Alam was one, and Wajid Zia was the other,” he remarked. The attorney went on to read out some of the witness testimonies to the court, identifying one as the head of the joint investigation team (JIT) and the other as the NAB investigation officer.
The two-member bench was notified by Pervaiz that Althe-Azizia Steel Company Private Limited was established in 2001 and is registered in Saudi Arabia. He continued by saying that Hussain, Nawaz’s son, founded the Hill Metal Establishment in Jeddah between 2005 and 2006. He went on, “It is a well-established fact that the Hill Metal Establishment was founded following the sale of the Al-Azizia company.”
The attorney went on to say that the NAB had claimed that these businesses were benaami owned by the PML-N supremo, but the leader of the party had nothing to do with the companies’ activities or bank accounts.
The legal representative additionally contended that although Hussain Nawaz’s age was stated as 28 years old in the Al-Azizia reference, the ages of Nawaz’s children in the Avenfield reference were under 18. He insisted that it was not possible for the principal witnesses to demonstrate Hussain’s reliance on his father.
He went on to say that Nawaz held no public post from October 1999 to May 2013.
The NAB prosecutor then stepped in to let the court know that the defense was presenting its case on its merits. The prosecution mentioned to the court, “They also have some miscellaneous pleas,” referencing the late accountability court judge’s video controversy that resulted in the verdict.
The prosecution demanded that the defense either respond to or retract such requests. In response, Nawaz Sharif’s attorney told the court that, given Judge Arshad Malik’s subsequent passing, they had no desire to pursue the request pertaining to the video controversy.
At this point, Justice Aurangzeb said there might be consequences if the judge had acted improperly when making the decision. “Explain to us why he was removed from the bench? “What was the charge?” he inquired, stating that if the defense pursues the motion, the court will investigate the claims.
Judge Arshad Malik may have passed away, but the others were still alive, according to the IHC judge. The defense was given the freedom to decide whether to press the application in this particular case, the court informed the attorneys.
In response, the attorney said, “I’ve been told not to pursue the application in relation to the video controversy.” Judge Aurangzeb informed the attorneys that because the application was there, it was up to him whether or not to take up Judge Arshad Malik’s case. “Remember that this can be a double-edged sword. We’ll put up a screen here and play the video,” he said.
IHC CJ Aamer Farooq stated that the high court now had two choices in light of the SC’s ruling. First, it calls for evidence and determines the case on its merits. Remanding the reference back to the accountability court was the second option.
We will decide the case based only on merit if that is what you choose. We’re not going to give up,” the IHC CJ continued.
At this point, top PML-N leader Advocate Azam Nazir Tarar informed the court that Nawaz Sharif had “already faced many injustices.” We ask that this court consider the merits of his appeal. Two cases have already been decided by this same court on the merits,” he continued.
Afterwards, the IHC chose to consider the Al-Azizia case on merit after rejecting the NAB’s motion to move the matter to an accountability court and stating that Nawaz’s conviction was void.
The hearing was postponed by the court until December 12.
On December 24, 2018, an accountability court declared former prime minister Nawaz Sharif guilty in the Al-Azizia reference case, one of the three graft cases that NAB filed in compliance with the top court’s order, and sentenced him to seven years of harsh jail.
On July 28, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that Sharif was ineligible to participate in the Panama Papers case and directed the NAB to file three distinct cases, Avenfield, Al-Azizia, and Flagship references.
In the Avenfield case, Sharif and his relatives have already been found guilty. But in the Flagship reference, Sharif was exonerated by the late Muhammad Arshad Malik, the judge of the accountability court.
The judge declared in the Al-Azizia case that Nawaz Sharif was found guilty of the charges of corruption and corrupt activities, and as a result, he was found guilty under section 10 of the NAO 1999 “read with schedule thereto.”
“And in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the convict is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 07 years along with a fine of Rs 1.2 billion and $25 million,” the order stated following the defendant’s conviction.
I am a dedicated student currently in my seventh semester, pursuing a degree in International Relations. Alongside my academic pursuits, I am actively engaged in the professional field as a content writer at the Rangeinn website.
