ISLAMABAD   -  The Islamabad High Court Tuesday accepted former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s application seeking exemption from appearance before the court during hearing of his appeal against Al-Azizia Steel Mill verdict.

A dual bench of IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Moshin Akhtar Kayani conducted hearing of 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.

Besides accepting his exemption plea, the IHC bench also directed to provide complete paper box of the case as Nawaz Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris had mentioned some mistakes in it.

Then, the bench deferred hearing in this matter till May 9 for further proceedings after issuing aforementioned directions.

In the exemption application, Sharif’s counsel stated that Nawaz is undergoing multiple medical tests and examination for treatment of various ailments including chronic kidney disease and coronary heart disease.

It mentioned his medical report which said that he has been suffering from cardiac issues, irregularity in blood sugar levels and third-grade kidney disease and his health is being monitored thoroughly. Therefore, the appellant maintained that he could not attend the hearing in current situation.

An accountability court in Islamabad convicted him in Al-Azizia/Hill Metals Establishment corruption references filed by National Accountability Bureau.

Sharif had moved the appeal 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 Rs 1.5 billion and US 25 million dollar.

“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.

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.

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.