ISLAMABAD: The defence counsel for Nawaz Sharif on Friday apprised the accountability court that the Supreme Court’s observations on disqualification of the former prime minister were not binding on the trial court.

Lead defence counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed arguing before Judge Mohammad Arshad Malik of the accountability court said the apex court on July 28, 2017 disqualified Mr Nawaz from holding PM Office on the basis of two key points which are not subject to the Flagship Investment reference.

In response to the query of Judge Malik regarding Mr Nawaz’s disqualification, Advocate Haris argued that the SC in its decision categorically said the observations of the bench were not binding on the trial court. He said the SC had disqualified the ex-premier for concealing a ‘receivable’ salary while mentioning his assets in a declaration form. He said Mr Sharif was not facing any allegation of forgery and perjury while the apex court directed the trial court to decide the references on the basis of available evidence.

The counsel said his client had never stated at any forum that he had been associated with the family business by any means. He said the SC referred the matter to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for filing references against Mr Sharif.

Defence counsel says ex-PM’s disqualification is based on points not subject to Flagship Investment reference

According to Advocate Haris, the prosecution accused the ex-premier of being the real owner of Flagship Investment and other UK-based companies, which were established by his son Hassan Nawaz in 2001.

He said the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that probed Panamagate linked Mr Sharif with the businesses of his two sons, Hassan and Hussain, due to his employment in the Capital FZE as its chairman. He said Mr Sharif during his exile required an Iqama to travel to and from the UAE and owing to this fact he was required to be associated with any UAE-based company.

The JIT connected Mr Hussain’s Capital FZE with Mr Hassan’s Quint Pad­dington since the former had lent 615,000 pounds to the latter in 2008-09. Hassan in 2009-10 provided Rs87.3 million to Sharif Sugar Mills, owned by the Sharif family, and in 2012-13 Hassan gifted 800,000 pounds to Maryam Nawaz.

The defence counsel said: “Mr Sharif was never charge-sheeted for receiving any amount from his son, Hassan”.

In response to the judge’s comment that the prosecution case was about the wealth being circulated among family members, Advocate Haris citing the charge-sheet said his client had been accused of owing companies in the name of his sons. He said both sons of Mr Sharif were adult and were not dependent upon their father at the time of establishing their business in the UK and the UAE.

The defence counsel said Mr Sharif never concealed this fact from the Supreme Court that he had remained an employee of Capital FZE. He said the prosecution implicated the ex-premier in the Flagship reference on the basis of his employment with the Capital FZE and the amount transferred to Maryam Nawaz as her gift from her brother Hassan. He added there was nothing on record to establish that Mr Sharif was assigned any role in the said company other than what he had already acknowledged before the SC.

“The only person who claimed Nawaz Sharif is the owner of these companies is the investigation officer,” Mr Haris remarked.

The court adjourned further proceedings till December 17.

Published in Dawn, December 15th, 2018