IHC hears Maryam Nawaz's appeal against conviction in Avenfield reference

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has heard the appeals of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s daughter Maryam Nawaz and her husband Captain (Retired) Mohammad Safdar seeking annulment of their conviction in Avenfield Apartment reference.

The high court’s division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani also heard the miscellaneous petition of Maryam Nawaz in the same case.

Maryam Nawaz and Capt Safdar appeared in the hearing along with the leadership of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) and lawyer Irfan Qadir Advocate.

Usman Ghani Cheema, Sardar Muzaffar, Moazzam Habib and Barrister Rizwan have appeared in the hearing on behalf of the National Accountability Court (NAB).

READ: IHC GIVES TIME TO MARYAM TO APPOINT NEW LAWYER IN AVENFIELD REFERENCE

While initiating the arguments, Maryam Nawaz and Capt Safdar’s counsel told the court that he wants to highlight some points besides submitting some details to the court.

Justice Aamer Farooq remarked that the counsel was allowed to continue his arguments in the case to make it part of the record.

Irfan Qadir Advocate said, “The reference was filed against his client without having any evidence following the directives of the NAB chairman.” He added that he did not raise some points in the hearings that were mentioned in the verdict.

The judge remarked that the court will make it correct if there is something objectionable due to commotion in the courtroom or a writing pattern in the English language. He added that the trial is underway and those points could be removed at the request of the counsel.

READ: NAB WRITES DCS TO SALE NAWAZ SHARIF PROPERTIES FOR AVENFIELD CASE FINE

Irfan Qadir said that his clients had thought the arguments were concluded by their counsel after reading the order.

To this, the judge remarked that the counsel should tell their clients regarding the continuation of arguments whether it would take one day or more. He added that the counsel will have to proceed with arguments in response to the NAB as well.

Later, the court ordered the NAB lawyer to continue arguments.

The NAB prosecutor said that three accused had been given sentences on the same charges on July 6, 2018, by the accountability court in Avenfield Apartment reference.

The court directed the NAB prosecutor to initiate a debate on the central appeal first.

The NAB prosecutor said that he will give his arguments alongside submitting the documents. The court ordered the NAB prosecutor to provide a copy of the documents to Irfan Qadir.

Justice Farooq questioned counsels of the prosecution and defence sides, “Have you read 6,000 pages? What is the allegation against Nawaz Sharif?” He continued that it was not inappropriate to purchase an apartment. He said how can a case against a beneficiary proceed if there is no evidence against the prime accused.

The judge questioned the NAB prosecutor, “Are you saying that Maryam Nawaz is the owner of both companies? If a father wants to give something to his daughter then what do we have to do.”

The judge continued that the NAB prosecutor has to provide evidence regarding the real owner of the company to satisfy the court.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani questioned the company’s ownership and trust deed. To this, the prosecutor said that Maryam Nawaz had hidden the facts regarding the company’s ownership. He added that Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Captain Safdar had established offshore companies and hid the facts. The offshore companies of Maryam Nawaz had been exposed after the Panama Papers leak, he said.

The court questioned, “Will the beneficiary tell the owner source if the prime accused is not revealing the source?”

The judge remarked that the properties were not coming under the ownership of Maryam Nawaz but of a company. He questioned whether Maryam Nawaz had accepted the company ownership.

The prosecutor said that Maryam Nawaz had rejected the ownership of the company but admitted to being a trustee. The judge questioned what Maryam Nawaz had responded in her defence.

The judge observed that the verdict of the Supreme Court (SC) was an opinion but a trial is a different matter as the prosecutor will have to provide all details.

The court also raised a question regarding the registration of the companies in the British Virgin Islands and proofs of their beneficiary owner from the Sharif family.

The prosecutor said that both companies were registered and their documents are present.

The judge remarked that the letter regarding the companies could not be considered as evidence. The judge maintained that it is not a civil case but a criminal case. The NAB prosecutor will have to prove the beneficiary owner of the company.

Justice Aamer Farooq remarked that it is a case of two lines as the prosecution will have to prove the ownership and then the beneficiary owner and trustee. Justice Farooq maintained that the case is not about the gift of ownership.

The judge remarked that the letter was written to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in 2012. He questioned whether a case could be heard in 2018 on the basis of a letter sent in 2012.

The NAB prosecutor said that the documents had proved the beneficiary ownership of Maryam Nawaz.

The judge remarked that the objection raised by the accused had been addressed by the parliament. The judge maintained that NAB could not blame anyone on the basis of a letter. He questioned whether the NAB prosecutor has the original copy of the documents. The prosecutor replied that he has original documents with him.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing till November 24.

On July 6, 2018, the accountability court had announced the verdict in the Avenfield properties corruption reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), handing ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif 10 years as jail time for owning assets beyond known income and 1 year for not cooperating with NAB.

His daughter Maryam Nawaz Sharif was given 7 years for abetment after she was found “instrumental in concealment of the properties of her father” and 1 year for non-cooperation with the bureau.