Al-Azizia reference: IHC decides to hear Nawaz Sharif’s appeal

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday rejected the NAB request for remanding back the Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference to the accountability court, and decided to hear the appeal of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Quaid Nawaz Sharif on merit.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, which heard the PML-N leader’s appeal his conviction in the reference sought arguments from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on next date of hearing.

The former prime minister appeared before the court along with his legal team.

At the outset of the hearing, Nawaz Sharif’s counsel Amjad Pervaiz said that NAB had filed graft references on the directions of the top court.

Separate references were filed with similar allegations against the former prime minister, he said, adding that they had requested only one reference should be prepared against one allegation.

The lawyer said that NAB had withdrawn its appeal in the Flagship reference while the IHC had acquitted Nawaz Sharif in the Avenfield property case.

Amjad Pervaiz said that the court had to view that whether the prosecution had proved its charges in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference or not.

He said that his client was accused of making assets beyond known sources of income. There were 22 witnesses in the cases, including 13 people who presented the case record, he added, adding that there was no eye witness in the case.

He said that Hill Metal Establishment owned by Hussain Nawaz was set up in 2005-2006 in Jeddah. It was set up after selling the Al-Azizia Steel Mills.

The lawyer said that Nawaz Sharif never had any connection with the companies. Amjad Pervaiz said that JIT head Wajid Zia and investigation officer Mehboob Alam could not prove that Hussain Nawaz was the dependent of Nawaz Sharif.

Moreover, he said, Nawaz Sharif was not a public office holder from October 12, 1999 to May 2013. On the occasion, the NAB prosecutor objected on the arguments and said that some miscellaneous applications of Nawaz Sharif were pending which should be decided first or they should withdraw them.

Amjad Pervaiz said that there was an application of defence regarding the videos of judge Arshad Malik, which they would not pursue.

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb said that if the conduct of the then judge was not good and not based on honesty then it would have impacts on the case. He inquired that why the said judge was terminated.

The chief justice remarked that as per the directions of the top court they had two options – either to decide the case on merit after viewing the evidence or remand it back to the trial court.

Azam Nazeer Tarar said that it would be appropriate if the high court take a decision on merit rather than remanding the case back to the trial court.

The NAB prosecutor, however, requested the bench to remand back the Al-Azizia Steel Mills case. The court rejected the request of NAB and decided to hear the case itself on merit.

The court also accepted the request of defence to withdraw the application against former judge Arshad Malik.

Giving arguments on case merit, lawyer Amjad Pervaiz said that Hussain Nawaz had sent the money to his father from abroad through the banking channel after four years of setting up Hill Metal Establishment. The

amount was also showed in the tax returns in 2017. He said that Nawaz Sharif had no connection with Hill Metal and Al-Azizia Steel Mills and he had never claimed their ownership. Sending money by sons to their father was not a crime, he added.

The lawyer said that the JIT had admitted that it didn’t get any proof regarding Nawaz Sharif’s connection with the two companies. He said it was the responsibility of NAB to prove benami transactions.

The chief justice said that still NAB had to prove four elements even if it was admitted that the property was owned by Nawaz Sharif.

He questioned whether the documents pertaining to receivable salary of Nawaz Sharif from Al-Azizia Steel Mills were verified.

The lawyer argued that the accountant who prepared those documents, never appeared before the court to verify the documents.

He prayed the court to accept the appeal of his client. The court adjourned further hearing till next Tuesday.