The Islamabad High Court acquitted Maryam Nawaz, vice president of Muslim League (N) in the Avenfield reference. Islamabad High Court Justi...
The Islamabad High Court acquitted Maryam Nawaz, vice president of Muslim League (N) in the Avenfield reference.
Islamabad High Court Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani reserved the verdict after the arguments of the parties were completed, which was pronounced later.
In a short written decision by the court, it was said that the reasons for the decision will be issued later, however, the appeal is allowed and the decision pronounced on July 6, 2018, on the appeal filed by Maryam Nawaz, has been declared null and void.
The judgment said that "the sentence given to the petitioner has been declared null and void and he has been acquitted of the crime".
Justice Aamir Farooq wrote a short judgment in which the judgment pronounced on July 6, 2018 against Maryam Nawaz's husband Muhammad Safdar was also nullified and acquitted of the charges.
The Accountability Court of Islamabad had sentenced Maryam Nawaz to 7 years, 2 million pounds fine in addition to her husband Captain (Rtd) Safdar's one year sentence in the Avenfield reference.
Also Read: Avenfield Case: NAB's request to postpone the hearing by 2 weeks rejected
In July 2018, the Islamabad High Court suspended the sentence of Maryam Nawaz and Captain retired Safdar.
Talking to the media outside the Islamabad High Court, the Muslim League (N) leader praised the decision and said that Nawaz Sharif was proud today.
Talking to his father, he said that thanks be to Allah, He has made you the leader today and defeated your opponents.
He started his media talk by talking to his father former prime minister on the phone while his uncle Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also called him to congratulate him on the decision given by the court, later Maryam Nawaz. He also met Shahbaz Sharif.
On the other hand, while reacting to the decision, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said that the building of lies, slander and character assassination has collapsed.
In his statement on Twitter, Shahbaz Sharif said that the acquittal of Maryam Nawaz in the Avenfield reference is a slap on the face of the so-called accountability system that was used to target the Sharif family. Congratulations to Maryam Betti and Safdar.
Expressing happiness over the decision, Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Maryam Aurangzeb said that Allah has given great grace, Allah has given great honor.
Maryam Aurangzeb also shared a video on social media website Twitter in which Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz, Federal Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, senior leader Pervez Rasheed could be seen eating sweets.
Based on the decision issued by the court today, Maryam Nawaz is now eligible to participate in the election.
Lawyer Mirza Moeez Baig while talking to Dawn.com said that a person convicted of corruption or moral turpitude is disqualified from contesting elections for 5 years.
Read more: Avenfield reference: NAB filed an application to cancel the bail of Maryam Nawaz
He explained that the Supreme Court has declared that disqualification under Article 62 (1) (f) is lifelong but disqualification can be terminated under Article 63 (1) (g).
After the conviction was annulled by the Islamabad High Court, the way for Maryam Nawaz to contest the election and come to the assembly has been paved.
During his interview with the media, on the question about participating in the elections, he said that when and from where I will contest the elections will be decided by party chiefs Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif.
He further said that the party will take a decision in this regard.
Summary of today's hearing
Islamabad High Court heard the appeals of Maryam Nawaz and Captain retired Safdar, Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani heard the appeals against the sentence.
Also read: Nawaz Sharif 10 years, Maryam Nawaz 7 years in prison with hard labor
During the hearing, the court directed Deputy Prosecutor General Sardar Muzaffar to present arguments, Maryam Nawaz's lawyer Amjad Parvez and NAB Prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi came to the rostrum.
Prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar said that Usman Cheema gave arguments in the previous hearing, today his health is not good, Usman Cheema cannot come, if the court permits, I will give arguments, Amjad Pervez said that who else is better than Sardar Sahib Can give arguments.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani remarked that the inquiry officer's opinion cannot be taken as evidence, the JIT did not state any facts, only the information gathered.
Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said that Wajid Zia himself saw these documents and expressed his opinion on it, I will show from the documents that these properties were purchased in 1999. paid? You show the document regarding this, don't speak verbally, all these things have to come in judgment tomorrow.
Justice Amir Farooq said that how much did the offshore companies buy the apartment? In appeal, the task is simple to look at what is on record.
Read more: Avenfield reference: NAB filed an application to cancel the bail of Maryam Nawaz
Sardar Muzaffarbasi said that Hasan and Hussain Nawaz filed a separate application in the Supreme Court, this application was filed on January 26, 2017, the statement of Tariq Shafi was placed on the affidavit record, the sale of Gulf Steel Mills was mentioned in the affidavit. .
Deputy Prosecutor General NAB said that the Supreme Court had raised a clear question: How was the Gulf Steel Mill built? Tariq Shafi had failed to show that he was a business partner, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said, what documents has the prosecution produced apart from oral statements? What is the position of Nawaz Sharif regarding this case?
It is necessary to determine the value in the reference of assets in excess of income, Justice Amir Farooq
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that Nawaz Sharif's position was that he is not related to this property, the court remarked that when Nawaz Sharif says that he is not related, then you have to prove it from the record, you are speaking contradictory. At the last hearing, the NAB prosecutor had said that Maryam had no role in buying the properties, if the CMA file was not filed in the Supreme Court, her case would have been nothing.
Meanwhile, Sardar Muzaffar read the statement of Wajid Zia in court, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that Wajid Zia's role was that of an investigator in JIT, Wajid Zia has given all his opinion in the statement. I have never seen such a statement from an investigator.
Read more: Avenfield reference: Maryam Nawaz's plea to annul verdict set for hearing
Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said that Wajid Zia had come to the court as a NAB witness and not as an investigator. Justice Amir Farooq said that it is necessary to determine the value of assets in excess of income. Applications filed.
Justice Amir Farooq said that according to NAB, the role of Hussain Nawaz and Maryam is not in the purchase of properties, Hassan and Hussain Nawaz have nothing to do with the ownership of the property. There was no relation to the properties.
Justice Amir Farooq said that now you are saying that the relationship of Maryam Nawaz was there from the beginning, first clarify it yourself and then tell the court.
Sardar Muzaffar said that I will tell the entire NAB case to the court in three sentences, Nawaz Sharif bought London properties in the name of Maryam Nawaz while being a public office holder, Justice Amir Farooq said that the four sentences you have told are the evidence. Prove it, end of the matter, apart from the various applications filed, NAB has no case.
The case starts from 2006, you take it to 1993, Justice Mohsin Akhtar
Justice Amir Farooq said that Wajid Zia had known that the value of the properties was 5 million dollars, then the details could have been taken. It was not difficult at all to get the details of the properties. Prosecutor NAB Sardar Muzaffar said that the determination of the value of the properties is relevant. was not.
Read more: Maryam Nawaz's plea to annul the Avenfield reference decision
Justice Amir Farooq said that you are completely wrong saying that the determination of the value was irrelevant. Meanwhile, the NAB prosecutor showed the registration documents of Nielsen and Niscole companies, on which Justice Amir Farooq inquired if these are certified documents.
Maryam Nawaz's lawyer Amjad Parvez said that this is a copy of the certified certificate. Justice Amir Farooq said that it is an accepted fact that the properties are owned by companies. Where is the connection?
Justice Amir Farooq said that even if the grandfather built everything for the grandchild, still Nawaz Sharif is nowhere. Show them.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani remarked that the case is almost complete, NAB has only to show the hidden document, the Sharif family is of the opinion that the grandfather gave the properties to the grandson, Wajid Zia has included their miscellaneous request as part of his report. Made, the investigator had to prove his position wrong.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that the prosecution had to prove that the real ownership belongs to Nawaz Sharif, the investigation agency had to investigate and bring out the facts, show the documents from which the property trail is proven wrong.
Also Read: NAB orders sale of Nawaz Sharif's assets to collect fine in Avenfield case
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that this case starts from 2006 and then you take it to 1993. According to the admission of the Sharif family, the case against them starts in 2006. As was the case, in 1993 the Sharif families had nothing to do with the properties.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that writing a beneficial owner to Maryam Nawaz is an opinion, there is no evidence, the case that NAB has made is against Maryam Nawaz and not against Nawaz Sharif. How is this case not a public office holder?
Deputy Prosecutor General NAB Sardar Muzaffar said that Maryam Nawaz helped Nawaz Sharif, Justice Amir Farooq said that tell us from the evidence how the relationship of Nawaz Sharif is proved. Talks will not do it, please show some evidence, this is what they are saying again and again.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that the real ownership of the properties belongs to the companies, this has become clear, now show the relationship of the companies to Nawaz Sharif or Maryam Nawaz, then you say that Maryam Nawaz is the beneficial owner of both the companies? Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani remarked that then where is Nawaz Sharif, not anywhere? To which NAB prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar replied that no.
Also Read: Petitions filed in Accountability Court to stop the auction of Nawaz Sharif's properties are rejected
Justice Amir Farooq inquired that no, does it mean the case is over? It is true that Nelson and Niscole bought properties, Nielsen and Niscole bought properties for the Qatari family.
NAB has failed to prove its case'
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that there is any document that would clarify when Maryam's relationship with these properties started? How to find out whether the properties were owned by these companies between 2006 and 2012.
Justice Amir Farooq said that Maryam Nawaz is the beneficial owner of these properties on the basis of this letter in today's history. Prosecutor NAB Sardar Muzaffar said that yes, even today, how are you the owner, show me any document, this is also talking about the beneficial owner and not the legal owner.
Sardar Muzaffar said that according to BVIFIA document in 2017, he is still the beneficial owner, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that NAB is presenting two documents from London as evidence, on this document. So the claim is not a degree, how can a criminal case be made?
Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi said that the case of NAB is different, we do not accept the position of the Sharif family as correct. Show somewhere.
Read more: Avenfield reference: NAB's plea to dismiss Sharif family's appeals rejected
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani remarked that if the central case is proved, then NAB will be involved. Justice Amir Farooq said that if Nawaz Sharif is not involved, then NAB case will not be made against Maryam Nawaz. Sardar Muzaffar said that Maryam Nawaz was the benami owner of Nawaz Sharif's properties.
Justice Amir Farooq said that don't go for benami, you will be trapped in it again, NAB has failed to prove its case, Nawaz Sharif is not related despite Sharif family's admission.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that NAB is making the whole case on Maryam Nawaz based on these documents, Nawaz Sharif is not coming anywhere in the whole case of NAB. It belongs to the father.
Sardar Muzaffar said that the Sharif family itself did not present any document in its defense, Justice Amir Farooq remarked that why should they have presented the documents, it was not their job, NAB had to prove it.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said that he should have stood quietly and should not have said anything at all. Justice Amir Farooq said that if he stands on the rostrum and says that the properties are ours, still the prosecution has to prove that NAB's The case may be right but NAB has failed to prove it.
Also read: Supreme Court: NAB's appeal against suspension of sentence of Sharif family in Avenfield reference dismissed
Justice Amir Farooq inquired whether there was punishment on the basis of trust deed? Justice Amir Farooq said that Captain retired Safdar was punished on the testimony of the trust deed, admitting that it is a fake document but all the parties are admitting, the document may be wrong, it may have been prepared later.
Justice Amir Farooq said that the witness has to testify that this signature belongs to the same servant, can Captain Retired Safdar be punished as a witness?
Justice Amir Farooq said that Captain Retired Safdar was punished on the basis of trust deed, is the original trust deed present? Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani said, were Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz or captain retired Safdar ever arrested? To which the prosecutor NAB Sardar Muzaffar replied that no, none of the three were arrested.
Today, after hearing the arguments of the parties, the court had reserved its decision on Maryam Nawaz's acquittal appeal, according to which the punishment awarded to her by the accountability court was annulled.
No comments
Thanks