IHC overturns conviction, clearing path for Nawaz Sharif’s potential prime ministerial bid
Earlier, Nawaz Sharif had also been acquitted in the Avenfield Apartments reference.
ISLAMABAD: In a significant turn of events, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has overturned the conviction of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo Nawaz Sharif in the Al-Azizia reference. This ruling marks a major boost for the veteran politician’s aspirations to become the next Prime Minister of the country.
Nawaz Sharif, who returned to Pakistan in October after four years of self-imposed exile in London, is eyeing a historic fourth term as Prime Minister, as indicated by his party. To qualify for the upcoming elections scheduled for February 8, 2024, Sharif needed the removal of another seven-year sentence and a lifelong ban on holding any public office.
The 2018 conviction stemmed from corruption charges related to the establishment of Al-Azizia Steel Mills and Hill Metal Establishment (HME) in Saudi Arabia, with allegations of failure to justify the source of funds. The high court’s verdict, announced after considering arguments from both defense and prosecution lawyers, has now cleared the way for Sharif’s political ambitions.
Senior lawyer Irfan Qadir expressed disappointment over what he called “sham cases” against a former prime minister and called on the judges who convicted Nawaz to apologize to the nation. Qadir noted that it was the Supreme Court that instructed the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to file references against Nawaz in the aftermath of the controversial Panama verdict.
Despite the case lingering since 2017, the NAB prosecutor reportedly failed to provide any evidence against Nawaz for allegedly possessing assets beyond means. It was highlighted that the reference was filed based on directions from the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), formed on the Supreme Court’s direction.
In the Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference, an accountability court had sentenced Nawaz Sharif to seven years in jail and imposed a fine of 2.5 million pounds on December 24, 2018. Nawaz promptly submitted an appeal against the decision, seeking the annulment of the imprisonment, fine, and conviction.
It’s noteworthy that Nawaz Sharif had also been acquitted in the Avenfield Apartments reference, with the high court accepting his appeal last month. As the legal hurdles gradually clear for the seasoned politician, his potential return to the political forefront could reshape the dynamics of the upcoming elections and the country’s political landscape.
The hearing
A two-member divisional bench — comprising IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justic Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb — heard Nawaz’s appeal against his conviction in the Al-Azizia reference and NAB’s plea seeking extension of imprisonment awarded to the politician in the case, clubbing both the petitions together.
Nawaz, accompanied by his lawyers appeared before the court.
During the hearing, when asked whether NAB had proved that the former prime minister was a dependant, Wajid Zia, the prosecution’s primary witness, acknowledged that there is no evidence in this regard.
The court inquired on what basis was the burden of proof shifted on Nawaz.
At this, the former prime minister’s legal counsel Advocate Amjad Pervez apprised the bench that the trial court relied on the three miscellaneous applications along with Nawaz’s speech in the National Assembly and his son Hussain Nawaz’s TV interview.
The lawyer contended that the evidence from one case cannot be used in another, especially when both cases vary in nature.
He further underscored that it was the prosecution’s responsibility to assess the value of [Nawaz’s] income and assets and that the former prime minister was “dependent” on his sons.
“It was to be proved by the prosecution that benami assets were established [by Nawaz].”
“If [the prosecution] has not provided any evidence [in this regard], then the said case doesn’t fall in the category of ‘assets beyond means’,” the lawyer noted adding, “There is no such case where the accused was sentenced on accounts of lack of clear and logical proof regarding the ownership [of the assets].”
Responding to Pervez’s arguments, the NAB prosecutor apprised the court that the references were filed in the accountability court on the directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) which also constituted a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the references.
The NAB official further maintained that the anti-graft body investigated the issue of benami assets following the SC decision.
He informed the court that charges against Nawaz were framed under the allegations of corrupt practices. He said that the decision of the accountability court of Al-Azizia reference is “biased”.
Justice Hassan remarked that NAB can give the arguments on merit and have the conviction upheld.
Meanwhile, Justice Farooq directed the NAB prosecutor to state the facts and then link them with the case in his arguments based on merit
More From Daily The Destination: Not Imran or Nawaz, PPP to form government: Bilawal
The court, however, turned down NAB’s request to remand the case back to the trial court once again and approved Nawaz’s appeal against the conviction.
Al-Azizia reference
Hussain, who is the elder son of the former prime minister, claimed that he had received a sum of $5.4 million from his grandfather to establish the steel conglomerate in Saudi Arabia. The payment was made by a Qatari royal on the request of Nawaz. Thereafter, scrap machinery was transported from their Ahli Steel Mills in Dubai to Jeddah to establish Al-Azizia in 2001.
Meanwhile, the JIT constituted to investigate the graft allegations insisted that the real owner of the mills was Nawaz, and it was being operated by his son on his behalf. At that time, Hussain was 29-years-old. The JIT also held that Nawaz received 97% profit as ‘gifts’ from Hill Metals Establishment, another company established by Hussain in 2005, in Saudi Arabia.
Nawaz transferred 77% of the said amount to his daughter, Maryam Nawaz Sharif. Here as well, the NAB claimed that since Nawaz received a large profit from Hussain’s companies, he is the real owner and not his son.
However, during the proceedings, the NAB could not substantiate its claim through documentary evidence and instead placed the burden of proof on the accused.
