The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday directed the Sharif family’s counsel and prosecution of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to conclude arguments on the petitions seeking suspension of the judgement in the Avenfield properties reference by Thursday.

Expressing its intention of not dragging the matter for an indefinite period, the court rejected objections of additional deputy prosecutor general NAB Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi, thus enabling the counsel of the former prime minister to argue the petitions.

Nawaz, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law retired Captain Mohammad Safdar, were convicted by accountability judge Mohammad Bashir in Avenfield reference on July 6, 2018.

The accountability court sentenced Nawaz to 10 years in prison, Maryam to 7 years and handed 1 year to Captain Safdar.

At the very outset, the IHC division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb asked whether “any of the parties have the slightest doubt over the independence and integrity of this court or have any apprehensions regarding fair trial”.

He offered that in such a case, he is ready to recuse from the hearing of the matter.

However, lead defence counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed, as well as head of prosecution Abbasi, expressed confidence on the bench.

Abbasi then raised five objections on the petitions filed by Sharif family seeking suspension of Avenfield verdict. According to him, the appeals against the conviction were already fixed, there was no hardship, as per statutory provisions, the convict may seek release at least after 6 months detention, the petitioners did not cite relevant authorities as respondents in the petition.

The bench overruled these objections and Khawaja Haris was permitted to advance his argument.

Advocate Haris argued that NAB did not evaluate the price of London properties in question nor the known sources of income of Sharif were ascertained at the time when these properties were purchased.

According to him, the properties belong to the former premier’s son. Even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that the Avenfield apartments are owned by Nawaz, the case against him could only be proved if the prosecution establishes the discrepancies between the known sources of his client’s income and price of properties, the defence lawyer argued.

The bench also asked the prosecution to inform whether Maryam being dependent or benamidar of his father could be convicted under Section 9(a)(5) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) which relates to the assets beyond means.

During the hearing, Abbasi conceded that NAB has insufficient evidence to be able to prove the charge of acquiring London apartments through corrupt practice.

The court reminded him that since NAB did not file an appeal against July 6 decision, therefore, the bureau has given clean chit to Sharif family that they were not involved in corrupt practice or dishonesty and they were convicted since they failed to justify the Avenfield apartments.

The bench further asked how Maryam Nawaz was convicted for abetting his father for accumulating the assets beyond means as the only evidence against her is the forged trust deed.

The bench also asked the prosecution to explain how the trust deed was declared forged and whether the Calibri font did not exist at the time the trust deed was prepared.

Likewise, the court also raised a similar question regarding the conviction of Captain Safdar since he was accused of signing the said trust deed which, according to NAB, was meant to conceal the ownership of London properties.

The NAB’s prosecutor requested the court to first listen to Khawaja Haris and Amjad Pervaiz Advocate’s arguments before prosecution concludes its arguments as the many questions posed by the court have become confusing for the court.

Subsequently, the bench asked Amjad Pervaiz to conclude his arguments by August 15 and directed NAB’s prosecution to rebut by the following day.