Supreme Court of Pakistan. PHOTO: AFP
The NAB had challenged an IHC order through which it had accepted to hear former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s suspension petitions before the appeals challenging Avenfield Apartments judgment.
While dismissing NAB’s petition and imposing Rs20,000 fine on it, the top court’s three-member bench led by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar remarked that, “Justice should not only be done but it should also be visible to have taken place.”
For the second time in just over a month’s time, the corruption watchdog has drawn ire of the apex court and the Islamabad High Court for wasting court’s time.
On August 16, the IHC had imposed a fine of Rs10,000 on the bureau after being irked by its failure to present arguments and seeking adjournment in petitions seeking suspension of sentences awarded to Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son in-law Captain (retd) Safdar in the Avenfield Apartments reference.
NAB moves SC to block Sharifs’ suspension plea before IHC
During today’s hearing at the Supreme Court, NAB’s prosecutor Akram Qureshi said that IHC’s bench has changed its mind as Sharifs’ suspension petitions were previously adjourned because the appeals against the judgment were fixed for hearing on September 10.
However on September 10, he said, the high court accepted an application of Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris wherein he maintained that the SC had directed the trial court on August 27 to conclude pending references – Al-Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment and Flagship & other companies – within six weeks and simultaneously arguing before the trial court and IHC would not be possible for him.
He had also stressed that since the appeals are connected with the trial, a decision would inevitably prejudice the right of the petitioner or the prosecution.
The CJP remarked that it’s the high court’s prerogative to hear whatever petitions it deems fit and enquired from the prosecutor to point out any illegality in IHC’s order. When dissatisfied, the CJP observed that “no substance has been found therefore petition is dismissed.”
When first elected, Sharif also made faux pas
NAB surprises IHC judges
Meanwhile, a division bench of the Islamabad High Court was surprised on Monday to hear that NAB challenged bench’s order of September 10 which was passed with NAB’s consent during the hearing of Sharif family’s suspension petitions.
IHC’s division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb wondered that not only the order was passed with anti-graft watchdog’s consent but also carried NAB’s commitment to conclude arguments on the suspension petitions of the imprisoned former premier and his family members by September 17.
Justice Minallah remarked that NAB did not even oppose it when the court decided to hear arguments on suspension petitions and adjourned the appeals requesting court to set aside the judgment in the Avenfield Apartments’ reference. In fact, the judge said, NAB prosecutors Akram Qureshi and Jahanzeb Bharwana had made a commitment that they would conclude arguments on Monday in an hour’s time. Justice Minallah remarked that the bench has yet to decide maintainability of the petitions after Qureshi had challenged maintainability during last hearing.
The remarks came after NAB's prosecutor Sardar Muzaffar Abbasi informed the bench that NAB's senior prosecutors were in the apex court for arguments on the petition. Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Hairs said that no stay order was granted on NAB’s plea in the top court and court should take up the petitions later in the day. He said that the court had, at least, asked NAB about the future course of proceedings on suspension petitions four times and yet they filed petition in SC. However, Justice Minallah relisted the case for September 18 and stated in the order that “we expect NAB will conclude arguments tomorrow.”
The court will resume hearing on Tuesday and if the court accepts Sharifs’ petition, it would lead to their release from Adiala Jail, where they are serving out sentences awarded to them in London flats’ reference by an accountability court on July 6.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ