ISLAMABAD - A division bench of the Islamabad High Court is likely to start hearing in Sharif family’s appeals challenging their conviction in Avenfield reference from the next week.
On July 6 Judge Mohammad Bashir had announced a 10-year imprisonment for Sharif, seven for his daughter Maryam Nawaz and one year for his son-in-law (Retd) Capt Muhammad Safdar in the Avenfield reference.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, and Capt (Retd) Muhammad Safdar filed the appeals in the IHC challenging the Accountability Court (AC)’s verdict in the Avenfield property reference and made the state through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) as respondent. In the appeals, Sharif family’s legal team prayed to the court to nullify the judgment of the accountability court regarding their sentence, disqualification and property confiscation.
The appellants contended that from a comparison of the allegations made in the initially filed Interim Reference dated 08.09.2017 and the allegations made and formulated in the Supplementary Reference dated 12.01.2018, it is abundantly clear that the same are radically different from each other. As such, it was incumbent on the learned Trial Judge to have re-framed the Charge after the receipt of Supplementary Reference, and his failure to do so too vitiates the trial, especially since, as is evident from the record of the case, the learned trial Court has proceeded to record the conviction of the accused on the basis of the allegations as contained in the Supplementary Reference, and not on basis of the allegations to which he was put to notice as per the Charge framed against him on 08.11.2017.
It may also be pertinent to add here that qua the filing of the Supplementary Reference dated 12.01.2018, a number of objections were taken and submission made by the respective counsel for the defence on the basis of the divergent allegations between the initially filed Interim Reference and the Supplementary Reference, including the necessity for amendment of the Charge as framed on 08.11.2017, but the learned trial Judge did not accede to the request of the accused, and the proceedings of trial continued on the basis of the Charge already framed in the case. They were of the view that the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence are based on no evidence.
“That none of the ingredients constituting the offence falling under Section 9(a)(v) of NAO, 1999, or under Serial No. 2 of the Schedule thereto, stand proved in the instant case, and, as such, the Appellant is entitled to acquittal from the said two Charges as well,” said the appeal moved by Nawaz Sharif.
It maintained that the judgment purports to convict the appellant for acquiring assets described as Flats No.16, 16A, 17 and 17A, Park Lane, London (known asAvenfield Properties) that are allegedly beyond his known sources of income, but nowhere in the judgment or, for that matter, in the evidence brought on the record by the prosecution is there any indication of the value of the Avenfield Properties at the time it is alleged to have been purchased by the appellant.
It 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.
“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,” said the appeal.
Maryam in her appeal argued that the prosecution failed to furnish any oral account in support of its case whereas the entire documentary evidence produced by it was inadmissible for want of formal proof or being attestation of copies or being photocopies.
The appellant adopted that the only evidence regarding beneficial ownership of the London apartments was letter of financial investigation agency of British Virgin Island (FIA-BVI) that it wrote to Mossack Fonseca and received a reply in 2012. However, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence worth name to vouch safe the contents of the disputed letters.
She termed the allegations regarding trust deed being concocted by the JIT with the mala fide intention to implicate the whole family. She said that the trust deeds were before the Supreme Court as well and the apex court did not raise any question regarding their authenticity, genuineness or otherwise in its April 20, 2017 judgment.
Therefore, it was prayed that this court may be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence dated awarded to the appellants by the accountability court Islamabad and they may be acquitted of all the charges framed against them in the reference.