ISLAMABAD - In a major development, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter and son-in-law have been set free on bail, two months after they were sentenced by an accountability court.

The three-time former primer, Maryam Safdar and Captain (r) Safdar were convicted in July by the Islamabad Accountability Court in Avenfield corruption reference. They had denied wrongdoing.

On Wednesday, a division bench of the Islamabad High Court granted bails to the Sharifs by allowing their petitions seeking suspension of their sentences.

The two-judge bench of Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb ordered that Nawaz, Maryam and Safdar be released once they each post a bond of half a million rupees (around $4,000).

Supporters of ex-ruling Pakistan Muslim League rushed to the court in jubilation after the decision, chanting slogans in favour of their leaders.

PML-N president and brother of Nawaz, Shehbaz Sharif was present in the court along with several other party leaders when the verdict was announced.

The prosecutors in the case, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), said they would appeal Wednesday’s ruling and take their case against Sharifs to the Supreme Court.

The release of PML-N Quaid Nawaz and his heir-apparent Maryam is the latest twist in a series of scandals involving the ex-PM and his family, beginning with former’s ouster from office last year.

The father and the daughter were sentenced to ten and seven years of rigorous imprisonment respectively, on July 6, shortly before the country held general elections.

The conviction of the top PML-N leaders was seen as a political decision by their supporters, who believed they were being punished for challenging the powerful establishment.

The sentencing also resulted in their disqualification to contest the polls or hold public office for a period of 10 years after their release.

The Nawaz League lost the July 25 elections and has now taken on the mantle of the opposition to new Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government.

Interestingly, Muhammad Sakhi Abbasi and his sons Rabnawaz Abbasi and Wajid Nawaz Abbasi who reside in Bani Gala – where Imran Khan lives – submitted the surety bonds of Sharifs to the IHC deputy registrar for their release.

Prime Minister Khan was in Saudi Arabia on a state visit when the decision was announced.

The court said prosecution was unable to prove a financial link between the former prime minister and the Avenfield apartments in London.

“The prosecution has failed to show the properties belong to Nawaz Sharif. It also failed to prove how was Maryam Nawaz sentenced under the same charge sheet which convicted Nawaz Sharif,” said Justice Athar Minallah in his remarks.

The court in its short verdict noted, “For detailed reasons to be recorded, the instant petitions …… are allowed. The respective sentences awarded to the petitioners by the Accountability Court No 1, Islamabad shall remain suspended till the final adjudication of the appeals filed by the petitioners.

Jubilant party workers were seen congratulating each other and distributing sweets outside the court to celebrate the release of their leaders.

After the bail amount was posted, the Sharif’s were released from Adiala prison in the nearby garrison city of Rawalpindi where they have been serving their sentences.

The trio was earlier released briefly on parole earlier this month to attend the funeral of Nawaz’s wife, Begum Kulsoom Nawaz, who died at a London hospital after a long battle with cancer.

 

 

Reactions and possible impact

“This is a triumph of justice,” said former Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif, who was also at the court along with Mushahiddullah Khan, Raja Zafarul Haq, Ahsan Iqbal, Senator Asif Kirmani, Maryam Aurangzeb and some other central leaders of PML-N.

Former interior minister Ahsan Iqbal said the anti-graft tribunal had convicted Sharif, his daughter and son in-law without any legal grounds, but “based on a vendetta.”

However, analysts see the Wednesday’s court decision as a “temporary relief” but a definite boost for Nawaz and his supporters.

“If the court finally quashes Nawaz Sharif’s conviction, that will be a cause of concern for the new government [of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf,” said Tauseef Ahmed, adding that “Sharif is still a popular leader and has the capability to mobilise masses.”

But others pointed out that with elections over and a new government in place, there is no likelihood of PML-N gaining any considerable political advantage in the short run.

Nawaz himself also remains barred from running for public office for life, in light of Supreme Court’s April verdict in the Panama Papers case.

The apex court had ruled that he had lied on a parliamentary wealth declaration and that the disqualification from that crime would last for an indefinite period.

Wednesday’s high court ruling may however entail a legal advantage to the Sharif family, which face at least two other cases in the accountability court.

 

Senator Javed Faisal, a close aide of Prime Minister Khan, said the court only suspended Sharif’s sentence and those of his family members, and did not acquit them.

“Their supporters should not celebrate so much as they will likely have to go again to Adiala prison,” said PTI leader.

Nawaz Sharif had been serving as prime minister for a record third time when a Supreme Court decision made him step down last year.

Earlier, he held the top office from November 1990 to July 1993 and from February 1997 until he was toppled in a bloodless coup in October 1999 by Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf.

 

 

Legal battle

After their conviction by Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir, the Sharifs had filed separate petitions through counsels Khawaja Haris and Amjad Pervez – requesting the high court to suspend sentences and set aside the verdict.

The petitions moved the onus of proof from the accused to the prosecution. In the course of court proceedings, the IHC mulled whether the conviction can be based on presumption as NAB [National Accountability Bureau] continued to raise objections over the maintainability of the petitions.

The defence counsel had adopted before the court that no one could be put behind bars only on the basis of suspicion. He added that it is court’s discretion to grant bail while he also mentioned various decisions of higher judiciary on bail pleas.

Khawaja Haris had argued that a high court has the authority to suspend sentence under Article 199. He mentioned that in 2016, Supreme Court of Pakistan had given its verdict regarding sections of 426 and in trial of this case the real documents of wealth tax were not produced.

Haris contended that it was the case of assets but they [prosecution] neither told the known resources nor the real value of the assets [of the accused]. He added that nothing was proved in the investigation [by the NAB or the JIT].

Haris and Amjad Pervez requested the court to suspend their clients’ sentence as they were of the view that the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence were not based on any evidence.

They argued that under the law as laid down by the honourable Supreme Court, the onus is on the prosecution to prove, in the first instance, the essential ingredients of the offence falling under Section 9(a)(v) of the NAO, 1999, establishing that the assets in question belong to the accused.

And, the maintained, that it is only after the prosecution has discharged this onus, and proved that the accused person or any other person on his behalf is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, that a presumption can be drawn in terms of Section 14(c) of the NAO, 1999, thereby shifting the onus on the accused to explain the sources from which he may have acquired the assets in questions.

“It is submitted that the prosecution [NAB] having miserably failed to discharge its onus as regards proof of the ingredients of the offence as detailed hereinabove, the learned trial court erred in invoking the provisions of Section 14(c) of NAO, 1999 to raise a presumption against the Appellant.

“And, as such, the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant (for allegedly failing to explain the sources from which he purchased the assets, which in any case never belonged to him, nor stand proved as such), are manifestly illegal and liable to be set aside as such,” maintained the petitioners.”

The defence lawyers continued that as a matter of fact there is not an iota of evidence produced by the prosecution that any of the children of the appellant were dependent on the appellant at any time since they came to be in possession of Avenfield Properties, but this aspect of the record is also not taken note of by the learned trial court.

They said in their appeal, “That it stands established on the record that the Prosecution has miserably failed to lead any evidence whatsoever showing that the Appellant was the actual owner of Avenfield Properties and / or that his children were holding the Property as his benamidars.

“Thus it is admitted by both Wajid Zia, Head of JIT (PW-16) and / or Imran Dogar, Investigating Officer NAB (PW 18), that neither the documents of title of Avenfield Properties, nor the control of Nescoll Limited and Nielsen Enterprises (the off-shore companies in whose name Avenfield Properties stand) ever remained with the Appellant, nor did they come across any evidence, documentary or oral, that the Appellant paid or contributed any money for the purchase of Avenfield Properties.

“It may be added that these admitted facts do not find any mention whatsoever in the impugned judgment.”

 

 

Sharifs’ sentence suspended