Nawaz plea in NAB reference: IHC reserves decision on petitions

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday reserved its judgment on maintainability of appeals in Al-Azizia Steel Mills, Flagship Investment and Avenfield Property references, after the accused Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was declared absconder.

A division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhter Kiyani heard the appeals. Maryam Nawaz, Capt (retd) Safdar and others appeared before the court. During the hearing, the court instructed the amicus curiae to assist the court on legal points instead of arguing on behalf of the accused.

Giving arguments, amicus curiae, Azam Nazir Tarar said that the court had the authority to dismiss the case as there were several examples. Tarar said that as the trial could not be conducted in absence of the accused and in the same way the appeals could also not be heard. He said that he would give balanced arguments to assist the court. Tarar said that the appeal was also the continuity of the proceedings of the trial court. He, however, said that it was fact that one loses his legal rights after being declared absconder. On the occasion, he also quoted the references of various court decisions. He argued that if a case was decided on merit in absentia then the accused would have no choice except to file the appeal against the decision. He has a forum and he can raise his points there. Azam Tarar said that it was also important to save valuable time because all this practice would be of no use.

The court observed that the appeals of Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Captain Safdar would be heard together and added that if the present accused gets any relief, then the former prime minister would get too. Tarar said that another appeal of NAB against the acquittal of Nawaz Sharif was also lying before the court. Justice Aamer Farooq said that no notice had been issued so far in the NAB appeal to Nawaz Sharif.

On this occasion, various judicial decisions were read out by another amicus curiae Makhdoom Hussain. Nazir Tarar said that if we look at all the decisions, then those were of pre-2010 period, except the Ikramullah case that was given after 2010. The Supreme Court had given a clear decision in the Hayat Bakhsh case after rejecting the appeals of the accused that were not present. He said that the Dhaka High Court had also decided to close the case of an accused in his absence. He said that when an accused does not surrender, his case is not taken up.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani asked if the petitioner was a court absconder, then how would he surrender. Tarar said in that situation, his appeal would also be rejected. The Supreme Court had rejected an appeal when an absconder did not surrender. Justice Kiani said that we have two appeals, one has three people and one has a single person. Whether we would not hear the case of those present in the court, he asked. Tarar said that the court could hear the case of the present appellant. In some cases the appeals were rejected while in others they were sent to store rooms.

Justice Aamer Farooq asked Tarar to assist the bench on legal points as he was not a political activist rather he was an amicus curiae. The bench asked him to assist as to how the case could proceed in absence of the accused. This was a court of law and it would not care who was the appellant, Justice Farooq said.

Additional Prosecutor General Jahanzeb Bharwana also cited references of different courts' decisions. He said that the same court had granted the opportunity to the accused to surrender. The same court suspended the decision of the trial court and accepted the bail of the former prime minister.

Justice Kiyani observed that the petitioner would have a choice whether to go to Supreme Court or High Court. To a query, the NAB prosecutor said there were three appeals in Avenfiled property reference while two appeals were related to Al-Azizia Steel Mills reference. He said that Nawaz Sharif had lost all legal rights after being declared absconder, adding that one could get relief only on appearance before court under Article 10A of the constitution. Bharwana said that the court could hear the appeals of those accused who were present before the court. After hearing the arguments, the court reserved its judgment.