Islamabad High Court overturns PML-N leader’s graft conviction in Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference n PML-N leader to qualify to contest elections if lifetime ban on holding any public office is removed.

 

ISLAMABAD  -  The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday acquitted Pakistan Mus­lim League-N-Quaid Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference, remov­ing the last major hur­dle for him to qualify to contest national elec­tions in February. 

A Division Bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Jus­tice Miangul Hassan Au­rangzeb, announced the verdict, which had ear­lier been reserved after hearing the arguments from both sides. 

It may be mentioned that the accountabil­ity court had announced seven-year sentence along with Rs1.5 billion fine to Nawaz Sharif on December 24, 2018 on charges of assets beyond the source of income.

The bench acquitted the former PM Nawaz Sharif in the Al-Azizia corruption reference and declared his sentence as null and void. Nawaz Sharif now just needs the removal of a life ban on holding any public office to qualify to stand in the elections, scheduled for Feb. 8, 2024.

Last month, the court acquitted the former prime minister in the Avenfield corruption case. A two-member Islamabad High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Jus­tice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had announced the verdict af­ter hearing the appeal filed by Sharif against his conviction in the Avenfield corruption case in which he was sentenced to 10 years in jail in 2018.

It was December 24, 2018 when Islamabad Accountability Court-II judge Arshad Malik convicted Sharif in Al-Azizia case, sentenc­ing him to seven years in prison while imposing on him a fine of $2.5 million.

During the hearing, Sharif’s counsel Amjad Pervez came to the rostrum and informed the court that he wanted to argue on the matter of Nawaz’s dependents. However, Justice Aamer men­tioned that the counsel had com­pleted his arguments in the case. Pervez insisted that he wanted to argue on one point in this regard.

Then, the bench asked whether the NAB had proven anything re­lated to Nawaz’s dependents. The lawyer responded that one of the witnesses, Wajid Zia, had admit­ted that there was no evidence re­lated to Nawaz’s dependents. He said that there were several court verdicts present regarding the definition of benami. Pervez also presented 13 separate verdicts in benami cases. He contended that the legal team had also raised its objections in front of the trial court that convicted Nawaz.

He said that the trial court had relied on three major points. He added that the trial court had kept the civil miscellaneous applica­tions filed in the Panama case as the basis.

The counsel argued that all three civil miscellaneous applications were filed by Maryam Nawaz, Has­san Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz and highlighted that not a single civil miscellaneous application was filed by Nawaz. He continued that in its verdict, the trial court held that the civil miscellaneous applications were criminal mate­rial. He contended that not a sin­gle application proves that Nawaz was the owner of these assets.

At one point, the IHC Chief Jus­tice asked about the contents of the civil miscellaneous applica­tions. Sharif’s counsel replied that the applications were not placed on record and documents related to them were placed on record. He further said that the applications did not state that Nawaz owned the assets and they instead stat­ed that the matter did not concern the PML-N Quaid. He also said that it is a principle that evidence in one case cannot be admissible in another annd especially when the nature of both cases is separate.

Sharif’s counsel further said that the trial court also relied on an interview given by Hussain Nawaz to a private TV channel in 2016 and even though Hussain was saying in the interview that the matter did not concern Nawaz.

He contended that an accused was innocent until proven guilty. He said that the onus was on the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused. He added that the burden of proof is on the pros­ecution, not the accused.

He argued that the accused can­not be forced to prove his inno­cence and there was no previous assets case where the accused was convicted without presenting clear proof of ownership.

The counsel concluded that the prosecution could not present a single piece of evidence and there­fore, the the burden of proof can­not be transferred onto the ac­cused. Then, the NAB prosecutor, Azhar Maqbool Shah started his arguments. He said that a refer­ences were filed in accountabili­ty courts on the directives of the Supreme Court and a joint inves­tigation team (JIT) was formed to probe the NAB references. He added that the NAB conducted its own investigation. He adopted the stance that in cases related to as­sets, there are only two to three methods of investigation and all the evidence collected was part of the record.

The prosecutor also said that these also included statements re­corded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also read out loud some parts of Nawaz’s indictment.