Pakistan former PM’s family gets Supreme Court reprieve
COURT REJECTS APPEAL CHALLENGING SUSPENSION OF SHARIFS’ SENTENCES
Pakistan’s Supreme Court yesterday rejected an appeal by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), which challenged the suspension of sentences handed to members of the Sharif family in the Avenfield case.
Last July, an accountability court sentenced former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Mohammad Safdar to 10 years, seven years and one year in prison, respectively in the reference pertaining to the Sharifs’ purchase of four upmarket flats in Avenfield House, London.
They were later granted bail on appeal when the Islamabad High Court (IHC) suspended their sentences in September, saying that the country’s anticorruption watchdog, the NAB, was unable to prove a financial link between the Sharifs and the apartments in question.
The IHC ruling was subsequently challenged by the anti-corruption watchdog in the apex court.
A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel also upheld the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decision.
NAB argument rejected
The top court ruled that, “NAB has failed to provide the ground for cancellation of bail and that the IHC had not exceeded its powers in granting bail to the convicts.”
The chief justice asked NAB prosecutor Akram Qureshi, to convince the apex court why the lower court’s ruling should be suspended.
The NAB prosecutor argued that bail could only be granted in the case of “hardship”, which was not the reason behind the IHC’s verdict.
He said the IHC had questioned the merit of the trial in its judgement, however IHC exceeded it powers. The chief justice, however, told the NAB prosecutor that “an interim order is never final and never affects the final verdict either.”
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said the NAB’s argument was not “solid” and rejected the claim that the high court had exceeded its authority. ■ ■ Hussain when he had arrived in London in 1994, adding they took possession of the fourth apartment (17A) within the next six months.
‘Hid some facts’
The JIT observed that either one or both brothers had lied to hide some facts and hence they could not be given the benefit of doubt.
It said Nawaz Sharif had distanced himself from the apartments and could not explain the time frame and procedure adopted for obtaining the possession of Avenfield apartments by his sons, and was even uncertain about which son claimed the ownership of the flats now.
But Nawaz told the JIT that he usually stayed in apartment No 16 (Avenfield) whenever he visited London. The prosecution produced 21 witnesses in the Avenfield reference.
In May this year, Nawaz, his daughter and son-in-law recorded their statements under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after which the court invited final arguments from the prosecution and the defence counsel.
The lead defence counsel Khawaja Haris took seven days to conclude the final arguments after which the counsel of Maryam and Safdar started his final arguments.
During the course of arguments, the defence counsel cited a number of judgements of the superior courts to prove that the case against the former prime minister and his family was devoid of evidence.
Nawaz and Maryam have appeared before the court around 100 times, according to media reports.
He remarked that IHC decision was an interim order and apex court would not intervene the court proceedings, adding that the court would not repeat mistake which earlier IHC did.
Justice Nisar said since Nawaz Sharif was already in jail and cooperating with court proceedings, there was no reason to dispute his bail in the Avenfield reference.
Subsequently, the court dismissed the appeal and maintained the IHC decision.
Justice Nisar said since former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was already in jail and cooperating with court proceedings, there was no reason to dispute his bail in the Avenfield reference. Subsequently, the court dismissed the appeal.