ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) will resume hearing of appeals filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law retired Captain Mohammad Safdar seeking suspension of the verdict in the Avenfield properties reference on Tuesday.

The same court will also hear appeals of Mr Sharif for transfer of two pending references — Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment — from the accountability court of Judge Mohammad Bashir to another court.

Also read: What are the ways the Sharifs could appeal the Avenfield verdict?

A counsel for the Sharif family, Barrister Saad Hashmi, on Monday filed an application with the IHC seeking photocopies of previous orders of the accountability court passed in the Avenfield reference during the course of trial.

An IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb will hear the transfer application as well as the appeals seeking suspension of sentence awarded to the Sharif family after the accountability judge Mohammad Bashir convicted them in the reference.

Judge Bashir awarded 10 years imprisonment to Mr Sharif, seven years to Ms Maryam and one year to Mr Safdar. Besides imposing a fine on Mr Sharif and Ms Maryam, the court also disqualified them from contesting elections for 10 years.

Avenfield conviction: Is it game over for Nawaz?

The IHC admitted the petition for regular hearing on July 17. The court issued notices to the National Acco­untability Bureau (NAB) as well as to the investigation officer (IO) of the Avenfield properties reference and summoned him on the next date of hearing, which is likely to commence shortly as the matter had been put off till July’s last week.

The appellants took the plea that in order to shift the onus of proof to the accused, the prosecution must establish its case beyond a shadow of a doubt and referred to a 2007 judgement of the Sindh High Court passed in the Hakim Ali Zardari case.

It explained that the prosecution was required to prove four ingredients — (a) the accused was holder of public office, (b) nature and extent of pecuniary resources or property which were found in his possession, (c) what were his known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution after thorough investigation and (d) such resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income — to prove its case.

There is no burden of proof on the accused when the prosecution could not prove these four ingredients, the appeals stated.

Published in Dawn, July 31st, 2018