ISLAMABAD -UNS:The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday acquitted former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the Al-Azizia reference.
Now, as the three-time prime minister contemplates another bid for the same position, the only remaining legal obstacle preventing the PML-N supremo from participating in the upcoming general elections on February 8 next year is his lifetime disqualification as a parliamentarian by the Supreme Court in the Panama Papers case.
A two-member division bench, led by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq announced the verdict it reserved briefly after both defence and prosecution lawyers completed their arguments. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb was the other judge on the bench.
Earlier on Nov 29, the same bench acquitted Nawaz Sharif in the Avenfield reference. It also dismissed the plea filed by the National Accountability Bureau in the Flagship reference against the PML-N leader’s acquittal after the accountability watchdog withdrew it.
In December 2018, an accountability court awarded seven years imprisonment to PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference, in addition to imposing a fine of 2.5 million pounds. Nawaz challenged the court’s decision, seeking to overturn both the imprisonment and fine imposed as part of the conviction.
The Al-Azizia reference was one of the two graft references which Nawaz Sharif was convicted in.
The PML-N supremo still cannot hold a public office due to his lifetime disqualification in the Panama Papers case.
In July 2017, the Supreme Court disqualified Nawaz Sharif as the prime minister for failing to declare a receivable salary [from his son]. The court directed the NAB to initiate proceedings in two corruption cases and the Flagship case, prompted by revelations in the Panama Papers.
The Panama Papers released in April 2016 revealed that three of Nawaz Sharif’s children owned offshore companies and assets not shown on his family’s wealth statement. The insinuation that the companies were meant to hide or launder ill-gotten wealth or to avoid taxes called the then prime minister’s credentials into question.
Following the leaks, the opposition led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) intensified its protests to mount pressure, seeking disqualification of Nawaz Sharif as the prime minister. The Supreme Court took up the Panama case against Sharif and formed a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the corruption allegations.
The apex court, on the basis of the JIT findings, disqualified Nawaz Sharif as Pakistan’s prime minister on July 28, 2017.
Subsequently, the supreme leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) had to face the Al-Azizia Steel Mills, Avenfield and Flagship references brought against him by the accountability watchdog.
HEARING
The PML-N supremo appeared before the court in person to attend today’s hearing.
During the hearing, Amjad Pervaiz, the counsel for Nawaz Sharif, who had already completed his arguments in the case, requested that he be allowed to argue on the matter of Nawaz’s dependents.
IHC CJ Farooq however did not grant his request.
When the court asked whether the NAB had proven anything related to Nawaz’s dependents, NAB prosecutor Azhar Maqbool Shah maintained that one of the witnesses, Wajid Zia, had admitted that there was no evidence.
While wrapping up his arguments, the counsel for Nawaz Sharif stated that an accused was innocent until proven guilty, adding that the onus was on the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused.
In his arguments, NAB prosecutor told the bench that the references had been filed in accountability courts on the directives of the SC. He said that a joint investigation team (JIT) was formed to probe the NAB references.
When the NAB prosecutor said that according to the JIT, the assets in question were acquired through corrupt practices, the IHC CJ pointed out that the JIT’s lead witness, Wajid Zia, had no evidence to prove this.
The CJ observed that this was all based on conjecture, and no one could be convicted on the basis of conjecture.
Later, the court announced its verdict which was reserved upon completion of the arguments of both defence and prosecution lawyers.
