ISLAMABAD - Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar on Tuesday observed that high court had spoiled the country’s jurisprudence by deeply appreciating the merits of the case in the verdict rendered in suspension of sentences of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter and son-in-law.
The chief justice also expressed concerns on the language used in the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) judgment on the bail matter of Sharifs and questioned how the IHC could say there were defects in judgment of accountability court on Avenfield reference.
The chief justice, while indicating the powers of apex court in suo moto proceedings and inquisitorial jurisdiction, further observed that the Panama case should not have been referred to trial court and that the burden of proof was on Sharif to establish the sources.
He further observed that this court had no other option than to suspend the IHC verdict, the verdict wherein Sharifs sentences were suspended. The main appeals of Sharifs challenging the accountability court verdict on Avenfield reference have been pending in IHC.
However, the imprisonment of sentences of 10 years, seven years and one year handed down to deposed Sharif, Maryam Safdar and Muhammad Safdar respectively were suspended by IHC on the writ petitions.
Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar gave these observations while heading a three-judge bench which is seized with the three appeals of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against suspension of sentences of Sharifs.
The point of contention during the hearing was the jurisprudence developed on the grant of bail by the courts. The chief justice, who was two days ago inserted balloon stent after cardiac problem, remarked that he was told by the surgeon to take rest but he preferred to hear the case due to its sensitivity.
“It is not the matter of a person but the matter of the jurisprudence developed in our country,” he remarked.
When the hearing commenced, NAB’s prosecutor Akram Qureshi repeated his earlier arguments contending that the sentences could only be suspended in the case of hardship.
He defined the term hardship saying that an accused could only be released on bail if he was suffering from such an ailment which was threatening his life.
He said the court could only comment on the facts of the case if the accused person’s life was in danger or in case the date of appeal was not fixed for a long period of time. He further added that the high court could not discuss the merits in bail proceedings.
During the hearing, the chief justice asked Advocate Khwaja Haris, counsel for Sharif, “Is this the judgment which can be rendered in the bail case?” He remarked that he had never ever seen such judgment on bail matters wherein the merits were deeply discussed.
The chief justice asked advocate Haris to cite any precedent of such kind of judgment adding that the high court used hard language in the judgment on bail matter. He observed that the high court should have taken up appeals first.
The chief justice questioned the counsel that whether any court held that merits could be appreciated and errors could be fished out in bail matters. Advocate Haris contended that the IHC’s judgment comprised only 10 to 15 pages while rest were submissions of either parties.
The chief justice observed that they had gone in to speculations further raising questions to the language used in IHC judgment
Referring the word ‘defect’ and ‘infirmity’ in IHC judgement for accountability court verdict, the chief justice asked the counsel to show a single defect in accountability court verdict.
The chief justice questioned the counsel how could the high court point out faults in evidence while giving its verdict on an appeal for bail and this was what the NAB had challenged.
The chief justice further asked the counsel to show a single judgment of country’s court wherein it was held that the high court could discuss the merits in bail matters.
Advocate Haris contended that the case against Sharif was that of assets beyond income further arguing that the assets in question belonged to Nawaz’s children. He argued that the NAB must prove that the assets are beyond the known sources.
He next contended how it will be established that if the assets were gained through fair or unfair means. He said, “We have to quantify the assets and income.” He said there was no value of assets mentioned in the entire judgment of accountability court.
Advocate Haris was also confronted with the question posed by the bench that the assets belonged to whom. Advocate Haris responded that the elder son of Sharif was the owner.
The chief justice remarked that it was not NAB but Sharif who had to be responsible for establishing that the assets were owned through known sources adding that the burden of proof lies with Sharif.
The chief justice questioned whether these assets, the Avenfield properties, came from heaven and added that Panama scandal should not have been remanded to trial court and that it was apex court’s favour that the case was referred to trial court.
The chief justice remarked that the four different versions came including the Qatari letter from Sharif side. He further observed that the Panama case should have been decided by the apex court itself since it was seized with the matter under original jurisdiction and inquisitorial proceedings.
In the end of the hearing, NAB’s counsels extended their wishes to chief justice for his early recovery. The chief justice responded that his health and his life were for this court and the country. The hearing of the case has been adjourned till November 12.