ISLAMABAD: Having presided over a meeting of the PML-N leaders at the Punjab House on Thursday, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif said, “I will not take dictation. We have not pursued any path of confrontation. A clash has been started with us.”
He flew to Islamabad via PIA flight No Pk-786 from London and was greeted by a large number of PML-N leaders and workers at the Benazir International Airport. He would appear before the Accountability Court (AC) today (Friday).
He said, “We believe in politics of values and not power. I have come here to face the cases. I am not afraid of cases,” he said. A five-member team of the National Accountability Bureau, headed by Deputy Director Mehboob Ahmed, reached the Punjab House and met with the lawyers of the former prime minister. It served on Nawaz the summons issued by the Accountability Court and completed the paperwork.
According to sources, PML-N leader Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry had submitted surety bonds worth Rs1 million to secure bail for Sharif. The Accountability Court had issued bailable arrest warrants for the former premier after he failed to appear before it on October 26 in corruption references of Azizia Steel Company/Hill Metal Establishment and Flagship Investments while in the Avenfield corruption reference, notices were issued to personal guarantors.
The NAB officials were to serve the summons as soon as Nawaz landed at the airport but it was reported that DG NAB, Rawalpindi, Nasir Iqbal, instructed his team not to go to the airport and instead serve the summons on the former premier at the Punjab House.
Railways Minister Khawaja Saad Rafiq, Asif Kirmani, PML-N Information Secretary Pervez Rashid and other party leaders also accompanied Nawaz to the Punjab House. A PML-N consultative meeting held in the Punjab House under Nawaz was attended by Raja Zafarul Haq, Mushahidullah, Chaudhry Tanvir, Saad Rafiq, Pervez Rashid, Zahid Hamid, Anosha Rehman, Tariq Fazal Chaudhry, Talal Chaudhry and Amir Muqam.
Matters of NAB references against Nawaz and his appearance in the Accountability Court came under discussion in the meeting.
Meanwhile, a division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) set aside an Accountability Court order dated October 19 through which theAC had dismissed Nawaz Sharif's application seeking merger of the three corruption references into one and joint framing of charges.
The IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani directed the AC to hear this application afresh and decide the matter in accordance with Section 17-D of the NAB Ordinance.
The trial at the accountability court has been halted for the previous two hearings due to non-appearance of Nawaz Sharif as he submitted applications for exemption from personal appearance due to the treatment of his wife in London. He, however, will appear before the AC today after arriving back home. Indictment to the extent of Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar has already been done and now the prosecution has to produce witnesses before the court for recording of statements.
The IHC has set aside the AC order dated October 19 to the extent of joint framing of charges only. On October 19, the AC had dismissed applications of the Sharif family one after another. An application was regarding provision of volume 10 and statements of the three prosecution witnesses also seeking postponement/deferment of the indictment till provision of the same. The second application sought to start indictment process after seven days time. The third application was filed to stay the trial proceedings as the accused filed an application before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking to merge the three corruption references as the allegations in all the three references were the same. An application seeking to stay the proceedings till detailed judgment in Nawaz Sharif's review application in the Panama case was also issued.
The IHC division bench first reserved its judgment after counsels from Nawaz Sharif and the NAB concluded their arguments and after sometime the decision was announced.
Legal counsels for Nawaz Sharif, Azam Nazir Tarrar and Amjad Pervez, advocates, requested the court for joint framing of charges and single trial as the allegations in all the three corruption references were the same, set of accused is the same and evidence in the form of JIT report is also the same.
The NAB prosecution objected over the maintainability of the petitions and said that three separate references were filed under the directions of the Supreme Court in Panama case dated July 28.
NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said that Nawaz Sharif had filed a review petition against the July 28 judgment but that was dismissed and hence the decision had attained finality.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani then asked NAB's prosecutor to explain that even if the Supreme Court issued an order, joint framing of charges was the prerogative of trial court. At this, the NAB prosecutor said that Nawaz Sharif had also filed a petition for joint framing of charges before the Supreme Court and he did not raise this question in that petition.
Sharif's counsels then told the court that the said petition was not fixed for hearing yet. The NAB prosecutor argued that the methods regarding acquisition of assets are different, sets of accused in three corruption references are different and prosecution witnesses are different with a few exceptions, then how come joint framing of charges was possible.
Advocate Azam Nazir Tarar reading from the Panama judgment dated July 28 said that it was mentioned there the law shall take its own course, and it was not stated anywhere in the order that the trial court shall proceed in haste. He said that under the law, NAB should decide any reference in a month’s time whereas the SC has extended it to six months.
Legal counsels for Nawaz Sharif argued before the court that the main allegation in all the three references is regarding the assets beyond known sources of income. Defence counsels also quoted several judgments in this matter and in one particular case of the Sindh High Court whereby 49 NAB references against dozens of accused were merged into one. Justice Aamir Farooq remarked that, “Court’s favourite child is the accused”.
Advocate Tarar said that the accountability court judge indicted the accused separately for his own convenience. He further argued that the SC has stated nowhere that the procedures of the trial court should be dispensed with but the trial court has not given any reasons in the indictment order and ignored all the contentions raised before the court.
The IHC bench remarked, “NAB can do whatever it wants but we do not expect the same from the trial court.”
In the petition, Nawaz Sharif said that he is a former prime minister of Pakistan and through these petitions seeks protection of his fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 4, 9, 10-A and 25. The petitioner submitted before the IHC that he was aggrieved by the AC order where he had been seeking indictment only after merging the three corruption references into one.
In corruption reference regarding the Avenfield apartments, it is alleged that the petitioner acquired properties in the name of his benamdars Hassan Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz that actually belongs to him and he could not justify sources for the acquisition of these. Similarly, the same allegation is leveled in other two references of Azizia Steel Company/Hill Metal Establishment, Jeddah, and Flagship Investments regarding offshore companies, the petitioner said.
"That from bare perusal of the contents of each of three references, it is evident that the same pertains to the allegation of commission by the petitioner of an offence of his or any of his dependents or benamdars owning, possessing or having acquired right or title in assets and/or pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income, for which he cannot reasonably account for," the petitioner said in the petition.
That similarly, each of the three references are supplemented by the same nine volumes constituting Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report while six out of nine witnesses in reference number 18 are the same as six out of 13 in reference number 19 and 2 out of 10 witnesses in reference number 20. Moreover, the petitioner's defence in each of the three references is substantially the same.
The petitioner said that in the context of above said submissions, it was evident that only one reference could be filed against him.
The petitioner said that his application for a joint trail was disallowed by the AC on October 19, that is illegal. Observations of the AC while dismissing these applications were based on misreading or non-reading of the facts. The petitioner contended that the AC passed this order in an unholy haste. The petitioner had prayed to the court to direct the AC to jointly frame the charges against the petitioner and till then proceedings at the AC may be stayed.