TERENCE J SIGAMONY
ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday disposed of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s petition seeking directions for Accountability Court (AC) to announce judgment simultaneously in all the three corruption references.
The IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani heard the case. The ex-PM filed the petition, claiming that the AC is deviating from an earlier understanding.
The bench noted, “As final arguments are being addressed, therefore, the prayer made and order passed on it have become immaterial.” The petition has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly,” the order said. During the hearing, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi argued before the court that Nawaz Sharif’s petition has become infructuous after the decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan in this matter.
According to the petition, the AC had rejected an application of Nawaz Sharif for postponement of the final arguments in the Avenfield apartments corruption reference as his counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmad intended to first complete statement and cross-examination on Wajid Zia in all the three references including Al-Azizia and Flagship reference. However, the AC had permitted the prosecution to forward final arguments in the Avenfield apartments corruption references by putting continued cross-examination in the Al-Azizia reference on halt. Rejecting Nawaz Sharif’s application, the AC noted in its June 5 order, “Accused has not produced any defense witness in this (Avenfield) reference. He has also not opted to be examined on oath under section 340(2) of CrPC. Therefore, the reason for rendering the decision simultaneously in the all the three references doe not exist at present.” With this order, the court has expressed its mind that it would decide in Avenfield apartment’s corruption reference first.
Petitioner Nawaz Sharif in his recent petition adopted before the court to set aside that AC decision. Earlier on November 8, 2017, the AC judge had observed in his judgment, “In order to avoid conflicting judgments, or any likelihood of ignoring any defense that will be produced by the applicant/accused in each reference, all the three references shall be decided simultaneously.” Mian Nawaz Sharif in his application before the IHC division bench nominated NAB through its chairman, AC judge and his co-accused Maryam, Hussain, Hassan and Captain Muhammad Safdar (retd) as respondents.
He argued that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he possess assets beyond means and under the law such a case should be tried in a single reference unlike the multiple references. His petition for one reference was twice dismissed by the Supreme Court on technical grounds and the petitioner is still of the view that under such an allegation only one reference could be filed.
He added that later the petitioner filed an application before the AC requesting the court to club the three references and conduct a joint trail for the reason that all the three references were based on a nine volumes JIT report and common witnesses. The AC, however, dismissed that application on November 8, 2017. Then, the petitioner challenged the same order before the IHC and his petition was dismissed on November 23, 2017. In the petition, the petitioner had also contended that in case there are common witnesses in all the three references, cross-examining them again and again would provide them a chance to improve their statements.
While dismissing the petition, the IHC division bench had observed, “The apprehension of the applicant that the defense shall be disclosed to the witnesses, has been taken into account by respondent # 2. The learned trial court observed that the decision in the three references shall be rendered simultaneously. Moreover, in order to overcome any prejudice, which the applicant apprehends may face regarding disclosure of defense, a request can be made to the learned trial court for cross-examination of joint witnesses i.e. witnesses which are common in three references on the same date or on the following day so that they have little or no chance for thinking and improving upon what is to be said.”
In the recent petition, Nawaz Sharif maintained that Wajid Zia was bound by the trial court to record his statement in all the three corruption references simultaneously. To the surprise of the petitioner when he (Wajid Zia) completed the cross-examination in the Avenfield apartments corruption reference, the prosecution filed an application for summoning DG NAB operation Zahir Shah to produce him as a witness.
He said that it was a clear-cut deviation by the AC judge from the representation held earlier. After this, the investigation officer was summoned to record his statement once again deviating from the understanding. The petitioner’s counsel had protested over it but ultimately yielded to the request of the prosecution.
The former prime minister also quoted other instances when the understanding was deviated from. He contended that all the references have at least 60 percent of propositions of fact and 90 percent of propositions of law which are common to them.
He further said that it does not suit the court to take up the reference for decision separately and independently of the other two references without recalling any of the earlier orders or recording any reason, whatsoever, for deviating from the same.
Therefore, he prayed to the court to set aside the AC order dated June 5 by declaring it illegal and without lawful authority.
