ISLAMABAD - The counsel for PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz Tuesday submitted an application before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) seeking adjournment of her appeal in the Avenfield Apartment Reference. 

Maryam’s counsel Amjad Pervaiz filed the application saying that the applicant was on general adjournment from August 16 to September 3. Therefore, he prayed to the court that hearing of the appeal of Maryam Nawaz may be adjourned for some other date in the interest of justice.

The case is fixed for hearing on September 1 (today) before a two-member bench of IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani. Maryam Nawaz and her husband Captain (retd) Mohammad Safdar Awan had filed appeals against their conviction in the Avenfield Apartment reference. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) had previously separated the appeals of Nawaz Sharif from the appeals of Maryam and Safdar and declared the former premier a proclaimed offender over his perpetual absence from the hearing.

On July 6, 2018, Accountability Judge Mohammad Bashir had convicted Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz Sharif and Captain (retd) Mohammad Safdar Awan in the Avenfield Apartment reference and awarded them prison terms of 10 years, seven years and one year, respectively.

 The court had later suspended their respective sentences.

In her appeal, Maryam stated she was convicted under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) of the NAO, 1999 and for the offence at Serial No.2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of 2 Million pounds under Section 10 of the NAO, 1999 for the offence under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) ibid, and to one year simple imprisonment for offence at Serial No.2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, with stipulation that both sentences shall run concurrently.

Maryam in her appeal argued that the prosecution failed to furnish any oral account in support of its case whereas the entire documentary evidence produced by it was inadmissible for want of formal proof or being attestation of copies or being photocopies.

She added that the AC judge convicted them under section 9 (a)(v) of the NAO, 1999. The conviction is based on the testimony of JIT head Wajid Zia who was an investigation officer of the case and did not have any personal knowledge regarding the facts deposed by him, his deposition was both inadmissible and irrelevant, he was not competent to play proxy to any witness not produced nor could have he proved any document of which he was neither author nor privy.

The appellant adopted that the only evidence regarding beneficial ownership of the London apartments was letter of financial investigation agency of British Virgin Island (FIA-BVI) that it wrote to Mossack Fonseca and received a reply in 2012. However, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence worth name to vouch safe the contents of the disputed letters.

Maryam said that this letter could not be treated as incriminating evidence. Maryam also said in her appeal that the trial court has felt it convenient to seek aid of presumptions for passing the impugned judgment which could not have been invoked without fulfillment of statutory requirements of requisite proof as to the necessary ingredients of the offence under section 9(a)(v).