Earlier the court on Tuesday ordered NAB counsel to complete his argument in the case against conviction in Avenfield Reference.
A two member bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the petitions.
As the hearing began, the bench inquired why Maryam Nawaz had been convicted under Section-9A of the NAB’s ordinance if assets were owned by Nawaz Sharif. The bench further inquired how two individuals can be convicted on assets owned by a single person.
“How Nawaz Sharif can own property when the ownership of the same rests with his children? Does court announce verdict merely on basis of this myth?”, remarked Justice Athar Minallah.
During the hearing, Justice Minallah remarked, “Seemingly, the accountability court’s verdict was based on the assumption that the Avenfield properties are occupied by the children but owned by Nawaz.”
“When the second Panama judgement was announced it was binding on all judges but the first was not declared binding,” he added. However, NAB prosecutor Akram Qureshi stated that the second Panama judgement is still under process.
Justice Minallah said that all judges signed the second Panama judgment. Meanwhile, Justice Aurangzeb added, “The first judgment did not disqualify Nawaz and it was issued by minority judges.”
In response the NAB prosecutor stated that “this is no ordinary case” and pertains to a “web of numerous companies”.
Qureshi continued, “It was not possible to investigate this case in such a short period and any observation by the court in this regard will not be appropriate.”
Further, the NAB prosecutor argued, “Parents are the guardians of their children and the London flats were the children’s possession.”
Stating that parents are “natural supervisors”, Qureshi asserted, “The burden of proof of ownership of flats lies on this.”
He [Nawaz’s counsel] says that Hassan and Hussain Nawaz can tell about the ownership although as father and supervisor, the burden of proof lies on him, the NAB prosecutor added. “The expenses are not on record.”
To this, Justice Minallah remarked, “The defence says that Panamagate JIT head and prosecution’s star witness Wajid Zia did not present a chart on the known sources of income. Even the investigating officer said he does not know who prepared the chart.”
Qureshi then said, “Bogus deeds were made.” To this, Justice Minallah asked, “Were those bogus deeds registered there?” However, Qureshi said, “The deeds were only made to inform the brothers.”
However, Justice Aurangzeb remarked, “The brothers are Nawaz’s sons.” After which, Justice Minallah turned to Qureshi and said, “You indicted them stating that Nawaz is the owner of the properties and not Maryam Nawaz.”
Justice Minallah then said, “Should we announce a judgment based on criminal law on assumptions? This assumption that the property is occupied by the children but the ownership is Nawaz’s?”
“Seemingly, the accountability court’s verdict was based on assumptions,” he observed.
Earlier on September 10, as the bench began hearing the case, Nawaz’s brother and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) president Shehbaz Sharif was present in the courtroom.
Prosecutor of the National Accountability Bureau Akram Qureshi contended that it would be biased to hear the petitions to suspend the sentence. Qureshi requested the court to grant him the permission to submit a written response to the defence lawyer’s petition.
Justice Minallah noted that the court could not examine all the proofs and assess the merit thereof.
On July 16, the Sharifs and Captain Safdar had filed appeals for the Avenfield verdict to be overturned. Their lawyers had also filed petitions that argued that until the IHC adjudicates on the appeals against the accountability court’s decision, the convicts should be released on bail.
In the appeals, counsel Khawaja Haris had argued that the prosecution must establish its case beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to shift the onus of proof on the accused, but in the Avenfield properties reference the prosecution failed to establish such a case.
The convicts had appealed to the court for setting aside their sentence, suspending their sentence and granting them bail, and transferring Al-Azizia and Flagship references against them to a different trial court.
Earlier on August 17, Islamabad High Court’s division bench comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiani and Justice Gul Hassan Aurangzeb adjourned hearing into the appeals.
On August 11, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) bench formed to hear bail petitions of Sharif family in Avenfield reference was dissolved once again. The development came as Justice Aamir Farooq went abroad on leave in summer vacations. Previously, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani also went on summer vacations.
IHC registrar office sent the matter pertaining to the formation of the new bench in the case to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). The new bench will conduct hearing into the petitions of former premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt (R) Safdar. The earlier three-member full bench dissolved after Justice Shams Mahmood Mirza recused himself from hearing the petitions due to personal reason.
On July 6, Accountability Court Judge Mohammad Bashir announced the verdict in the Avenfield properties corruption reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), handing the ousted prime minister 10 years’ jail term and seven years to his daughter Maryam Nawaz.
from Latest News - SUCH TV - SUCH TV https://ift.tt/2MNeLme
Hello, my name is Jack Sparrow. I'm a 50 year old self-employed Pirate from the Caribbean.
No comments:
Post a Comment