ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam Nawaz on the appeals filed by National Accountability Bureau, wherein it challenged Islamabad High Court’s orders pertaining to suspension of sentences in Avenfield Reference.

Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar while referring to the IHC judgment observed that if there was any precedent in the country that a judgment on bail comprised 43 pages.

The IHC judgment suspending Sharifs’ terms was authored by Justice Athar Minallah, whose name has been proposed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar in his capacity of Chairman Judicial Commission of Pakistan for appointment on the post of IHC Chief Justice.

In Avenfield Reference, known as UK Flats case, Nawaz Sharif, Maryam and Safdar were awarded imprisonment of 10 years, 7 years and 1 year respectively.

The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel observed that the matter of Nawaz’s son-in-law Muhammad Safdar will be decided on next date of hearing scheduled for November 6.

During the course of hearing, NAB prosecutor Akram Qureshi contended that the IHC had erred in not appreciating the specific provision of Section 9(b) of National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 as enacted in the Special Statute (NAO, 1999) wherein specifically it is promulgated that all offences falling within the ambit of the Ordinance shall be non-bailable.

He contended that no court had jurisdiction to grant bail to any accused convicted under NAO 1999 adding that a full bench of top court in a 2014 case had held that the court could grant bail by exercise its powers only in the cases of extreme hardship.

He added that even in the case of extreme hardship like severe health issues, the superior court could not discuss the merits of the case and could only confine itself to suspension of sentence matter.

Qureshi further contended before the bench that IHC in its judgment on suspension of sentences discussed merits and admissibility.

He next argued that the IHC while suspending the sentence was not required discussing the merits adding that unfortunately this glaring error was committed in the judgment.

Further, he added, not only the writ petitions, the high court in fact had virtually decided fate of the main appeal by observing that convictions in Avenfield Reference may not be sustained.

The Chief Justice asked if there was any precedent in the country that a judgment on suspension of sentence comprised 43 pages. On this query, NAB prosecutor responded that there was no such precedent in his knowledge.

Before the appeal, the bench heard the notice on running false and concocted news regarding recusal of Justice Umar Ata Bandial from the bench. At least 20 news channels had aired the news that Justice Bandial refused to hear the case but later the top court’s spokesperson clarified that the bench was reconstituted because Justice Bandial was not feeling well.

When the hearing commenced, the chief justice asked the reporters of news channels covering Supreme Court as to who told them that Justice Bandial recused to sit in the bench.

He said that he asked Justice Bandial to go home to take rest but he chose to stay in the court to hear the cases so that no inconvenience should be caused to litigants. “Who is the first person responsible for spreading the false information,” the chief justice asked.

Two reporters of news channels appeared before the court representing all the electronic media reporters, who are assigned with the duty of covering the Supreme Court.

Both the reporters of news channels submitted that their news casts a false aspersion for which they express remorse. They further informed the bench that later a clarification had been widely covered by all the news channels.

Waqt News Channel adopting its professional approach did not air the news which created controversy casting an impression among general public as if Justice Bandial wilfully refused from the bench hearing NAB’s appeal against IHC judgment.

When the reporters requested the bench to show magnanimity by graciously accepting their apology, the chief justice grilled the reporters and remarked: “Is this the way to derogate this court and then later tender apology.”

“You people should be more careful acknowledging this Court’s steps regarding media workers’ salaries and their job security,” chief justice further remarked. 

Justice Miankhel told the reporters that they on-aired a baseless news in the race of competition.  The bench then accepted the apology with warning and dropped the notice against the reporters. On request, the bench also directed PEMRA to drop the notices the Authority had issued to news channels, who on-aired the false news.