LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Monday ordered the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to submit a response by August 29 over a petition seeking nullification of the sentences handed out to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members in the Avenfield properties corruption case.
On July 6, an accountability court had sentenced Nawaz to a total of 10 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). Additionally, Nawaz’s son-in-law Captain (r) Safdar was given a one-year sentence without any fine.
The three-member bench of the LHC led by Justice Shahid Waheed further announced that the petition would be heard daily. Justices Atir Mehmood and Shahid Jameel Khan were the other two members of the bench.
NAB’s prosecutor was directed to appear before the court during the next hearing and file a response on behalf of the organisation as the anti-graft body’s legal counsel was absent on Monday.
“NAB is being given the final chance to submit its reply,” the bench warned.
While hearing of the case has been adjourned till August 29, three different applications filed by lawyers hoping to become a party to the case were rejected by the court.
Renowned lawyer AK Dogar had filed a petition challenging the Sharif family’s conviction and the existence of National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999. Dogar said that the court which handed the sentence to the Sharif’s operated under a dead law and as such had no jurisdiction. He further challenged NAO’s validity, arguing that it was promulgated by former military dictator general (R) Pervez Musharraf under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) No 1 of 1999 and Order No 9 of 1999.
He added that order no 9 was promulgated solely for the amendment to order No 1 of 1999 and that both lost their legal value after the passing of the 18th Amendment. He concluded his argument by saying that 18th Amendment therefore rendered the NAO invalid and that the court should declare this to be so.
