ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Aamir Farooq Tuesday remarked that the proceedings of the hearing on PML-N Vice President Maryam Nawaz’s appeal against the sentence in Avenfield Apartments refer-ence “cannot move further on the basis of assumptions”.
“National Accountability Bureau (NAB) should prove through evidence that these properties were acquired by [former prime minister] Nawaz Sharif in 1990s,” he said during the hearing yesterday.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Farooq and Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani heard the appeals against the conviction of Maryam and Captain (retd) Safdar. The bench inquired about the nexus between the two offshore companies and
Nawaz, through documentary evi-dence, urging the NAB counsel to explain how Maryam “aided and abetted” her father in acquiring properties in London in 1993 or 2006 when the trust deed was signed.
To support his arguments, NAB special prosecutor Usman Cheema read the court’s decision declaring Nawaz an offender, and in response to that, Justice Farooq clarified that Nawaz’s appeal was dismissed because of his absen-teeism and not on the basis of merit.
Justice Farooq also made it clear that any Supreme Court observation in the Panamagate judgment was not rele-vant to the decision regarding Maryam Nawaz’s appeal against her conviction.
He said that the NAB has to prove whether the prosecution proved the case against Maryam before the accounta-bility court.
“We have to see how she helped acquire these properties,” Justice Farooq said, asking the NAB counsel how the apartments were acquired in 1993.
The prosecutor claimed that Maryam “aided, abetted and assisted” her father in acquiring the properties in 2006.
The judge asked: “You said that Nawaz bought the properties in 1993, then how did she assist him in 2006?”
Justice Kayani observed that Maryam has not said on any occassion that the property belonged to her, or that she owned it. “Minus the trust deed and Calibri font issue, and move on to the actual case regarding the properties ac-quired in 1993,” he added.
He said that it was “basic criminal law” that the prosecution must establish its case using evidence even if the ac-cused has admitted to committing the crime.
The judge inquired what evidence the prosecution had to prove the case against Nawaz. “The prosecution has to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.
“Who made the payment to acquire the properties in 1993?” the IHC judge asked, adding that “NAB has to prove that the payment to acquire these properties came from Nawaz.” The hearing of the case has been adjourned until September 29. –Agencies
