IHC says convictions handed in Avenfield verdict ‘may not be sustainable’

–IHC’s detailed ruling says accountability court did not state evidence regarding how Maryam assisted her father Nawaz Sharif in buying London flats

–NAB failed to prove corruption allegation and also refrained from challenging Sharifs’ acquittal under Section 9 of NAO

ISLAMABAD: A two-judge bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) — in its detailed judgement released on Wednesday regarding the bail granted to former premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam and son-in-law Captain (r) Muhammad Safdar — has found that the conviction and sentences handed to the ousted prime minister and others in the Avenfield corruption reference “may not be ultimately sustainable”.

“In hindsight, the sentences awarded to the suspects cannot hold for a long time,” the 41-page judgement read.

However, the verdict — written by Justice Athar Minallah — immediately added that the observation was based on a “prima facie, tentative opinion” that the bench formed after a “plain reading of the [Avenfield] Judgement and tentative assessment of evidence permissible while considering a case for suspension of sentence in terms of section 426 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure)”.

The bench, comprising Justice Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, had granted bail to Nawaz, Maryam and Safdar last month, after which they were released from Adiala jail where they were serving sentences awarded to them by an accountability court.

The detailed judgement points to the fact that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was unable to prove the corruption charges, saying: “The petitioners were alleged to have acquired Avenfield Apartments by corrupt, dishonest or illegal means.” Yet, the accountability court in its judgement held that “Prosecution have not brought evidence in respect of [section9(a)(iv) NAO, 1999][4]. So the accused are acquitted under that section of law”.

“The bureau, in its wisdom, has not challenged the said acquittal,” observes the IHC.

“There is yet another important question which has been raised by the learned counsel for Nawaz Sharif to the effect that there has been no determination of the value of the Avenfield Apartments at the time when they were alleged to have been acquired,” reads the judgement, adding: “There is no mention of this aspect in the judgement.”

The bench notes that when the judges asked the bureau regarding the value, they stated “values could be obtained through ‘Google'”.

“This answer was not expected from learned counsels who have enviable professional experience and competence,” writes Justice Minallah.

The verdict also pointed out that though the prosecution had told the accountability court that Maryam was her father’s dependent, the accountability court’s judgement did not “refer to any evidence which would connect Petitioner No. 2 (Maryam) to have aided, assisted or conspired with Petitioner No. 1 (Nawaz) at the time when Avenfield Apartments were said to have been acquired between 1993 and 1996”.

Further, the judgement stated, “The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) mostly relied on Panama Papers case to argue their points against suspension in sentences.”

Regarding Sadfar’s conviction, the bench noted that he had been convicted for lack of cooperation. However, the verdict declared that “the convictions of both these Petitioners [Maryam and Safdar] depend on whether the conviction handed down to Petitioner No. 1 would remain sustainable under the Ordinance of 1999”.

The accountability court on July 6 had announced the verdict in the Avenfield properties corruption reference filed by NAB, handing Nawaz 10 years imprisonment for owning assets beyond known income and 1 year for not cooperating with the bureau.

His daughter was given seven years for abettment after she was found “instrumental in concealment of the properties of her father” and one year for non-cooperation with the bureau.

On July 13, Nawaz and Maryam were arrested upon arrival in Lahore from London. Following which, the Sharifs had filed appeals for the Avenfield verdict to be overturned.

Further, the Supreme Court rejected a petition filed by the NAB challenging the IHC’s decision to hear Sharifs’ petitions against the Avenfield verdict.

On September 15, the anti-graft body had moved the Supreme Court in an effort to keep the IHC from ruling on an application from the Sharif family seeking the suspension of the Avenfield verdict. However, imposing a Rs20,000 fine on the bureau, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar noted that justice should be served to petitioners.