ISLAMABAD - Registrar office of the Islamabad High Court Thursday fixed former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s two petitions against his conviction in Al-Azizia corruption reference on January 21 for hearing.
A dual bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Moshin Akhtar Kayani will conduct hearing of the former prime minister’s petitions including his appeal against his conviction and the sentence awarded to him by the Accountability Court (AC) Islamabad on December 24, 2018 in the said reference and seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail till the final adjudication of his appeal.
In his application seeking bail, the former prime minister prayed to the court that during pendency of the appeal filed by him against the Accountability Court’s judgment and the conviction and sentence thereby recorded against him, this court may suspend the execution of sentences and he may be released on bail.
Sharif moved the application through his counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmad and cited state through chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB), NAB through its chairman, judge accountability court–II Islamabad and superintendent central jail Kot Lakhpat Lahore as respondents.
The petitioner stated in the application that he was convicted under section 10 of NAO, 1999 read with schedule thereto and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years along with a fine of Rs1.5 billion and $25 million.
“Furthermore, vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial judge also pronounced that all assets, properties, rights, receivables and interests of and in HME stand forfeited to federal government in terms of 10(a) of NAO, 1999 and it was also held that in view of section 15 of NAO, 1999, the petitioner shall forthwith cease to hold public office, if any, held by him and further he shall stand disqualified for a period of ten years to be reckoned from the date, he is released after serving his sentence, for seeking or being elected, chosen, appointed or nominated as a member or representative of any public body or any statutory or local authority or in the service of Pakistan or of any province and he shall also not be allowed to apply for or be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the form of loan or advances or other financial accommodation by any bank or financial institution owned or controlled by the government for period of 10 years from the date of his conviction,” said the application.
Sharif contended that from a bare perusal of the said judgment, it is evident that the findings recorded therein and forming basis for the conviction of the petitioner under section 9(a)(v) of NAO, 1999 read with section 10 ibid, are based on no evidence.
He argued that he was convicted and sentenced on the basis of inadmissible evidence, unproven documents and statements of proxy witnesses which is not permissible in the eye of law.
The petitioner maintained that it is apparent on the face of the record that prima facie, the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner is illegal and unwarranted by law and consequently his incarceration in jail pursuant to his impugned conviction is tantamount to his being held in custody without lawful authority.
He continued that if during the pendency of the appeal, the operation of the impugned judgment is not suspended, his fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution shall stand violated, he shall suffer an irreparable loss and the interests of justice shall by adversely affected.
While referring the legal lacunas in the judgment of AC, Sharif requested the court in his appeal to acquit him of all the charges framed against him in National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference No 19 of 2017.
In his petition, Nawaz maintained that the decision was based on assumptions and false interpretation of law while the evidences were misperceived and the accountability court announced the verdict without hearing objections by the accused.
The Al Azizia verdict said that the accused No 1 (Nawaz Sharif) was held guilty for the offence of corruption and corrupt practices and accordingly, is convicted under section 10 of the NAO 1999 ‘read with schedule thereto’.
“And consequent upon his conviction, having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the convict is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years along with a fine of Rs1.2 billion and $25 million,” said the order.
According to the verdict, Sharif is disqualified to hold any public office for a period of ten years. Likewise, he will not be allowed to apply for or be granted or allowed any financial facilities in the form of loan or advances or other financial accommodation by any bank or financial institution owned or controlled by the government for a period of 10 years from the date.
Sharif’s counsel stated in the appeal, “ the findings given the learned trial court judge in the instant case are not only against the evidence brought on the record of the case but also in derogation of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.”
Khawaja Haris contended, “We are not persuaded to agree with learned deputy prosecutor general NAB that conviction could have awarded in view of the provision as contained in section 14 of NAB Ordinance, 1999 for the simple reason that “the section cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in every exceptional class of cases, the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and never shifts. The section does not affect the onus of providing the guilt of an accused which always rests on the prosecution and it does not cast any burden on an accused person to prove that no crime was committed, by proving facts specially within his knowledge, nor does it warrant the conclusion that if anything is unexplained which the court thinks the accused could explain, he ought therefore, to be guilty.”
He argued that it would be misconception of law that every accused who faced trial in the accountability court or against whom a reference has been sent, the “presumption as envisaged in section 14 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999” would start running against him. “Where the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus of “proof” by adducing cogent, concrete and forthright evidence the presumption of guilt would not arise against him and thus the question of conviction would have not arisen …”
Therefore, he maintained that the said judgment, conviction and sentence are even otherwise illegal, without jurisdiction, unwarranted by law, based on inadmissible evidence and unproven documents and on misconception and misinterpretation of law and liable to be set aside as such.