ISLAMABAD - Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday directed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to reply the questions raised regarding establishment of beneficial ownership of PML-N leader Maryam Nawaz in the Avenfield Apartments case. 

A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani conducted hearing of the appeals filed by Maryam Nawaz and Capt (Retd) Muhammad Safdar against their conviction in corruption reference. 

Maryam Nawaz and Safdar appeared before the court along with their lawyer Irfan Qadir Advocate while Usman Ghani Cheema, Sardar Muzaffar, Moazzam Habib and Barrister Rizwan appeared on behalf of the NAB. 

Initiating the arguments, Maryam Nawaz and Safdar’s counsel informed the court that he wants to highlight some points besides submitting some details to the court. 

Justice Aamer Farooq remarked that the counsel was allowed to continue his arguments in the case to make it part of the record. Irfan Qadir said, “The reference was filed against his client without having any evidence following the directives of the NAB chairman.” He said that he did not raise some points in the hearings that were mentioned in the written order of the last hearing. 

The judge remarked that the court would make it correct if there is something objectionable due to commotion in the courtroom or a writing pattern in the English language. He said that trial is underway and those points could be removed at the request of the counsel. 

The counsel said that his clients had thought the arguments were concluded by their counsel after reading the order. To this, the judge remarked that the counsel should tell their clients regarding the continuation of arguments whether it would take one day or more. He added that the counsel would have to proceed with arguments in response to the NAB as well. 

Then, the court ordered the NAB lawyer to continue arguments. The NAB prosecutor said that three accused had been given sentences on the same charges on July 6, 2018, by the accountability court in Avenfield Apartment reference. 

He said that prosecution’s case was that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was owner of Avenfield apartments which were purchased through the offshore companies Nelson and Nescol. He said that Maryam Nawaz was the beneficial owner of this property and she assisted her father to hide it through a fake trust deed while her husband signed it as a witness. It was in public knowledge that the trust deed was fake, he said. 

The NAB prosecutor said that he would give his arguments along with submitting the documents. The court ordered the NAB prosecutor to provide a copy of the documents to Irfan Qadir as well. 

Justice Farooq questioned the counsels of the prosecution and defense sides, “Have you read 6,000 pages? What is the allegation against Nawaz Sharif?” He continued that it was not inappropriate to purchase an apartment. He said that how can a case against a beneficiary proceed if there is no evidence against the prime accused. 

The bench said that the primary onus is on the NAB to prove that Maryam is the beneficial owner. Justice Aamer said that they cannot hold anyone responsible on public perception, which might be true, but this is a criminal case wherein you have to establish case through evidence. 

He asked NAB’s attorney to give independent evidence for establishing Maryam Nawaz’s ownership of the Avenfield apartments. The bench also questioned how the burden was shifted to Maryam – who denied ownership as she is a trusty – when the principal accused, Nawaz Sharif, was the one who could not explain the source of the funds.

The court further noted that Supreme Court’s observations were not enough to prove beneficial ownership in a criminal case where evidence was required to establish facts. 

Justice Kayani maintained that the primary accusation against Maryam Nawaz was ill-gotten wealth, hence the source of funds were to be established. 

The judge continued that the NAB prosecutor has to provide evidence regarding the real owner of the company to satisfy the court. 

Justice Kayani remarked that properties were not coming under the ownership of Maryam Nawaz but of a company. He questioned whether Maryam Nawaz had accepted the company ownership. 

The prosecutor said that Maryam Nawaz had rejected the ownership of the company but admitted to being a trustee. 

Justice Aamer remarked that it is a case of two lines as the prosecution would have to prove the ownership and then the beneficiary owner and trustee. The NAB prosecutor said that documents had proved the beneficiary ownership of Maryam Nawaz. 

Later, the court deferred the hearing till November 24 for further hearing.