Not challenging acquittal means Nawaz is not corrupt: IHC

ISLAMABAD: Justice Athar Minallah of Islamabad High Court on Monday remarked that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had not challenged ex-PM Nawaz Sharif acquittal under Section 9 (a) (4) which was equal to accepting that he was not corrupt.

“In true sense, the NAB is saying “man is not corrupt but made properties through corruption. When the NAB has ‘open-heartedly’ admitted that Sharif is not corrupt and did not challenge his acquittal in one section then what is left to say.”

The judge made these remarks when a division bench of the same court, comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, started hearing of suspension of sentence petition.

When the hearing started, Justice Athar Minallah rejected the objection of NAB prosecutor that the court shouldn’t hear suspension petitions at this stage because appeals against the July 16 judgment were already fixed for hearing after 26 days.

Justice Minallah remarked that the bench did not agree with the NAB’s objections that ‘we have to treat every appellant equally and appeals would be heard on their turn’.

Justice Athar said the NAB didn’t challenge Nawaz Sharif’s acquittal under Section 9 (a) (4).

“This means the NAB has accepted that Sharif is not corrupt. The whole trial was conducted and Sharifs were given a clean chit under this section,” he said.

The NAB prosecutor read Section 9(a)(4) before the bench.

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb asked if Maryam was benami or dependent.” He asked could a daughter be convicted under Section 9(a)(5) because she was not a public office-holder.

The prosecutor replied that she was the beneficial owner of properties and accused of producing bogus documents in the case.

At this, giving an example Justice Minallah asked if a public office-holder made a property in the name of a three-year-old child, would that child be convicted. The prosecutor replied that in the instant case the child was 18-year-old.

Justice Athar said the trial court in its decision had clearly stated that Maryam was not the owner but only assisted her father.

The prosecutor said this case had a certain background, as officials of six institutions had a role in investigation and ‘we should look at it as well.’

The judge said, “We can’t see the matter on assumptions and one can’t be convicted on assumptions.”

The prosecutor said, “We have proved our case.” On this, Justice Minullah said “You have proved it but the court has not stated it in the judgment and now you can’t say that the court has given a wrong decision”.

Justice Minallah asked Sharif’s counsel that there must be something on record which connects Sharif with the properties.

To this, Khawaja Haris said “nothing” and read several portions of NAB’s key prosecution witness Wajid Zia’s statement wherein he clearly admitted that Sharif had no connection with the acquisition or any other correspondence with any institution.

Justice Aurangzeb said nothing had been decided and the bench had only asked all these questions for their understanding. The judge cautioned that the media should be very careful while reporting the case.