ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court turned down on Wednesday a request by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for adjournment for two days the hearing on petitions seeking suspension of an accountability court’s judgement convicting former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law retired Captain Mohammad Safdar in the Avenfield properties reference and for their subsequent release.

NAB additional deputy prosecutor general Muzaffar Abbasi requested a division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb to adjourn the hearing for two days since the bureau wanted to file written arguments.

The bench will continue hearing till Thursday after which the IHC chief justice will constitute benches for the week commencing on Aug 20. The court expressed its displeasure over the filing of an application seeking the adjournment. Justice Aurangzeb remarked that the petitions were filed much earlier and there was sufficient time for NAB to file its reply.

Justice Minallah expressed disappointment over NAB’s request and said that it was not expected from a professional organisation like NAB to seek adjournment on such grounds. He, however, offered the prosecutor to argue his case after the defence counsel would conclude their arguments.

Sharifs’ petitions seek suspension of verdict against ousted PM Nawaz, Maryam and retired Capt Safdar and their subsequent release

At the outset, the bench took notice of the remarks falsely attributed to Justice Minallah and Justice Aurangzeb and termed these “contemptuous”. “Since yesterday some quarters have been circulating false statements attributing to this bench,” observed Justice Minallah, adding: “We have taken serious note of it and referred this matter to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).”

He observed that “for any society fair trial of any person is of paramount importance. There will be no fair trial when the courts would start giving whimsical decisions”.

The judge remarked that if someone formed an opinion that the decision would not be according to their whims and started spreading fabricated information to deter the bench, it would be fatal for the administration of justice and right to fair trial. He made it clear that the court would not spare persons behind this contemptuous act and this would also not affect the hearing of the instant case in any way.

During the course of hearing, the counsel of the Sharif family — Khawaja Haris Ahmed and Amjad Pervaiz — concluded their arguments.

Khawaja Haris claimed that the prosecution had failed to shift onus of proof on the accused. He said the investigation did not even ascertain the price of property at the alleged time of purchase, adding that this was the case of assets beyond known sources of income for which there should be a comparison of income and value of property.

When the bench asked if there was any evidence related to the sources of income of Mr Sharif, the counsel said NAB had produced a cash-flow chart of the alleged income of the former premier, but during the investigation they never asked Mr Sharif to explain his sources of income, adding that instead of a joint investigation team which authored the chart, it was produced before the trial court by NAB.

The counsel argued that the cash-flow chart did not fulfil the requirement of ascertaining known sources that was required to be compared with the value of assets to ascertain guilt.

Justice Minallah remarked that a layman said that since property belonged to a child, the father was required to justify, but the legal precedence said otherwise where the initial burden of proof was on the prosecution.

When Justice Aurangzeb asked if Maryam Nawaz was the beneficial owner of Avenfield apartments, her counsel Amjad Pervaiz replied that she was not the beneficial owner.

The judge pointed out that the documents of the British Virgin Islands (BVI) showed that she was the beneficial owner.

The counsel said that these documents were not procured in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law and, therefore, these should not be relied upon. In response to a court query about alleged fake trust deed prepared by Maryam Nawaz, he claimed that the trust deed was original, but the joint investigation team (JIT) termed it bogus on the basis of an expert’s report.

According to the counsel, forensic expert Robert William Radley was not a font expert but he opined that the report was fake since it was written in Calibri font in February 2006 when it was not commercially launched.

The counsel insisted that the font was available in 2006 and Mr Radley was also among its so many users.

The bench directed the NAB prosecutor to start his arguments by Thursday and adjourned the hearing.

Published in Dawn, August 16th, 2018