IHC dismisses Nawaz’s appeals against Avenfield, Al-Azizia verdicts

Court says Nawaz has ‘lost his right of audience’ due to his ‘fugitive’ status

The Islamabad High Court on Thursday dismissed Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz supreme leader and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s appeals against the accountability court’s verdicts in Avenfield and Al-Azizia references.

The three-time prime minister was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2018 for owning assets beyond known income and one year for not cooperating with the National Accountability Bureau in the Avenfield reference while his daughter, Maryam Nawaz, was handed seven years imprisonment for abetment.

In the same year, he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills corruption reference with two fines — Rs1.5 billion and $25 million.

The former prime minister flew to London in November 2019 after the incumbent Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf government removed his name from the Exit Control List. He has remained in London since.

The decision was reserved by an IHC division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani a day earlier after the court heard the NAB’s Additional Prosecutor General Jahanzeb Khan Bharwana and amici Azam Nazir Tarrar and Makhdoom Hussain.

On Thursday, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani announced the verdict.

According to Dawn, during Wednesday’s hearing, Bharwana had cited the Supreme Court’s 1985 judgement on Hayat Khan in which the bench observed that an absconder loses rights guaranteed in the Constitution including the right of audience.

In its nine-page judgement released on Thursday, the IHC stated that since Nawaz was a “fugitive from law hence has lost his right of audience before this court and we are left with no choice except to dismiss his appeal”.

“There is nothing in the Constitution or the Rules to compel the court to decide on merits an appeal filed by an accused person who has chosen to be fugitive from justice and while remaining so decides to disobey or frustrate the orders, directions and process of the court from which he seeks justice,” it added.

The judgement noted that Nawaz had been provided with a “fair trial” and he was convicted only after the trial court had provided him with the opportunity to plead his case and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

“[Nawaz] proceeded abroad and did not appear before this court despite [being] on bail and without any justification or basis, remained absent on a number of dates of hearing, hence this court was left with no option but to follow the procedure … and declared him as fugitive from law,” the judgement further said.

On Wednesday, the hearing on Sharif, his daughter and PML-N Vice President Maryam and her husband Capt (r) Safdar Awan’s pleas was conducted by the IHC, The Express Tribune reported.

During the proceedings, Senator Barrister Azam Nazir Tarar, who was assisting the court, argued that the right to a hearing was protected under the Constitution.

“As per my experience, pleas of people, who were not present for their hearing, were rejected without arguing the case’s merits,” he added.

Tarar further contended that a window was left open for the accused so that in case they surrendered before the court, their plea could be taken up again.

To this, Justice Kayani responded that an accused’s rights were not affected even if their plea was rejected.

“Pleas rejected on the basis of merit can still be moved in the apex court,” the judge maintained.

ustice Farooq reminded Tarar that he was not representing Sharif but assisting the court so he should “strike a balance”.

Tarar replied that he was assisting the court with arguments.

The bench told Tarar that it did not matter who the appellant was as it had to follow the law.

The NAB, on the other hand, called for rejecting Sharif’s plea against the Avenfield and Al-Azizia references.

However, NAB prosecutor Jahanzeb Bharwana argued that hearing of Maryam and Safdar’s pleas was up to the court.

The IHC, after hearing the arguments reserved its ruling on whether or not it should hear the former premier’s plea in his absence.

On June 9, the IHC had given more time to Tarar to assist it in how to proceed further with Sharif’s appeal against the Avenfield case judgment as he was abroad.

The court inquired as to how could it proceed further in the case in the absence of the appellant.

Tarar contended that the case could be heard by the court if the required documents were available.

He requested the bench to see him, the lawyer representing Maryam and Safdar and his client in the same way.

He added that as per the spirit of the Constitution and the law, the court could make a decision that opened “a clear window”.

Must Read

Pakistan’s Transforming Defence Landscape

In the ever-evolving landscape of global security, the role of advanced missile systems in shaping military capabilities and postures cannot be overstated. Recently, the...

The nulls take over

Epaper_24-03-29 LHR