–NAB prosecutor says reference against Sharifs is in final stages, therefore, IHC should decide issue on priority
ISLAMABAD: National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi on Monday submitted in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s petition of trial transfer to another accountability court could not be entertained because if an accused has been indicted by a court then the trial cannot be transferred to another judge.
“The reference is in its last stages henceforth the high court will have to decide on this matter now,” Abbasi argued.
As the two-member bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb began the hearing, Abbasi opposed the demand regarding change of judge in the case.
“A judge cannot be removed from a case because they have given a verdict on previous one,” argued Abbasi, adding if this precedent is set a new judge will have to be appointed for every other case.
The NAB prosecutor further remarked that Judge Muhammad Bashir has been hearing the case for the last 10 months. “A good lawyer can change the mind of the judge through strong arguments,” he said.
Judge Aurangzeb observed that evidence was interlinked in all three references. “How can all these interlinked pieces of evidence be separated,” the judge asked, adding this case is not ordinary in nature as it cannot be compared to the cases being heard everyday.
The hearing was adjourned till Wednesday.
Last week, Nawaz Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris concluded his arguments in the petition to transfer the Al-Azizia and Flagship references against his client to another accountability court, submitting that there were similarities in the three references due to which the cases should be heard by any other judge except Muhammad Bashir.
He pleaded that for an impartial and fair trial, a fresh judge needs to be assigned to hear the remaining corruption cases against his client.
With regards to the impartiality of judges, Justice Farooq wondered if a judge who has remained an anti-smoking advocate can preside over a case involving smoking.
Presenting his arguments, Haris claimed that Nawaz has nothing to do with any properties mentioned in the corruption references, adding that Nawaz’s children were dependents of their grandfather and not Nawaz.
During the hearing, the court directed Haris to present the similarities of the three cases, including common witnesses and defence, by laying it out in a chart form.
Laying out the similarities, Haris contended that Nawaz’s speech in Parliament and address to the nation is a common piece of evidence in all three cases.
On July 6, an accountability court had sentenced Nawaz to a total of 11 years in prison and slapped a £8 million fine (Rs1.3 billion) in the corruption reference, while his daughter Maryam was sentenced to eight years with a £2 million fine (Rs335 million). Nawaz’s son-in-law Capt (retd) Safdar was also given a one-year sentence without any fine.
The Sharifs had challenged their convictions in the IHC, highlighting the legal flaws in the Avenfield judgment and asking for the accountability court’s verdict to be declared null and void and the three convicts to be released on bail.