Apex court ought to have decided case itself: CJP

TERENCE J SIGAMONY

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar Tuesday said that the apex court instead of remanding the Avenfield Apartments case to Accountability Court should have decided it itself as it has inquisitorial jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

“Four versions were adopted [by the Sharifs] in this case and a Qatari letter was produced to prove the source of funds for purchasing the flats,” the CJP said while heading a three-judge bench, which heard NAB’s appeal against Islamabad High Court (IHC) order that suspended Accountability Court’s verdict and granted bail to ex-PM Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Safdar and son-in-law Capt Muhammad Safdar (retd).

The Supreme Court directed the counsel for National Accountability Bureau and Nawaz Sharif to submit their written propositions by Nov 12.

At the start of the hearing, Special Prosecutor General (SPG) NAB Akram Qureshi contended that the IHC in the constitution petition should not have discussed the merits of the case. He said under the NAB law, bail could be granted only in the case of hardship, which is severe ailment or non-fixation of appeal for hearing despite many years of sentence. The Islamabad High Court should have kept these aspects in mind before passing the judgement, he added.

The Chief Justice said the IHC should not have discussed the merits of the case, adding while granting the bail the High Court went into the deeper appreciation of the case.

The counsel for the Sharif family, Khawaja Haris, wished the Chief Justice good health and suggested that he should have taken rest. The Chief Justice replied that heart specialist in Rawalpindi Institute of Cardiology Lt Gen Kiyani had advised him to take rest but due to the sensitivity of this case, he is sitting in the bench as it is not the case of one person but the jurisprudence of law is involved and there are inconsistencies which should not prevail.

Khawaja Haris contended that the IHC had narrowed down the judgement of the Accountability Court as the temporary assessment. The Chief Justice remarked that the bail is granted only in the case of hardship. The High Court gave findings about the evidence and spoiled the jurisprudence in granting the bail. The IHC should not have declared ‘glaring defects and infirmities and that the Accountability Court judgement may ultimately not be sustainable.’ The bail is always of tentative nature.

The Chief Justice inquired from Khawaja Haris if this kind of judgment has ever been rendered where the court has commented glaring defects in the trial court judgement. The apex court has kept the bail as window of remedy to the convict in the case of hardship.

The Chief Justice asked from the ex-PM’s counsel to show glaring defects that became the basis for suspension of the judgement.

Khawaja Haris contended that the offence against his client was of assets beyond known resources. When he further wanted to speak, the Chief Justice told him, “This is not trial court or high court and you should first listen to the court’s queries before answering. Don’t lose tamper; you can do this in the lower court.”

“Show me the infirmities in the trial court judgement,” asked the Chief Justice.

Haris after seeking permission to reply said the allegation against Nawaz Sharif is that he has assets beyond the known resources. The resources and the assets have to be quantified. In the entire judgement of the Accountability Court, there is nothing about the value of the assets. The assets (Avenfield Apartments) are not of his client, he said.

Upon that the Chief Justice questioned in whose name the apartments are. Haris replied those are in the name of Hussain Nawaz. The Chief Justice inquired from where Hussain got money to purchase flats, adding the money was not growing on trees.

The Chief Justice said it was the responsibility of the accused to establish the means.

Khawaja Haris said the onus would be on Nawaz Sharif once the NAB establishes that these Apartments are of the former premier and were disproportionate to the known source of his income. He said where the deeper appreciation ends, the strict appreciation begins.

The case was adjourned until Nov 12.