Clubbing of references: IHC issues detailed judgement on Nawaz’ petitions
ByFaisal Kamal Pasha
December 07, 2017
ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday issued detailed judgment in a matter where former prime minister Nawaz Sharif had been seeking joint trial and joint framing of charges in three corruption references pending against him at an accountability court (AC). The IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani on December 4 through a short order had dismissed the petition. Nawaz Sharif had been seeking joinder of the charge under Section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 while the court said that it is not mandatory rather a discretionary clause. Joinder of charge will create ambiguities and confusions, the bench said. To the apprehension of the petitioner that cross-examination on same prosecution witness again and again will expose defence of the petitioner, the IHC division bench said that the petitioner could file an application in this regard before the AC seeking joint cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses those are common in the three corruption references. The bench said that this court as court of appeal has limited jurisdiction. The court noted in the judgment “this court while hearing a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, is not sitting as a court of appeal and the scope, on the basis of which a challenge can be made, is very restricted. In this behalf, it is trite law that a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, does not lie against an interlocutory order unless the same is patently illegal or suffers from jurisdictional defect”. It is to mention here that the AC of Islamabad on October 19 had dismissed Nawaz Sharif’s application for joinder of the charge. Nawaz Sharif then challenged the AC order before IHC. An IHC bench on November 2 directed the AC to decide this matter in the light of Section 17(d). The AC however on November 8 once again dismissed the three applications in three corruption references. The AC in its order had said “Section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999 provides a mechanism which may be adopted or not depending on the circumstances of each case”.