Sharif references: SC extends deadline for NAB cases till June 9
Defence request for three-month extension denied
PHOTO: AFP/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has extended till June 9 the deadline for an accountability court to conclude proceedings in graft references against Sharif family members.
The references have been filed by NAB in view of the Supreme Court’s July 28, 2017 judgment in the Panama Papers case.
A two-judge special bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, however, declined former prime minister Nawaz Sharif lawyer’s contentions to extend the deadline by three months.
“We are confident that both sides namely the prosecution and the defence will cooperate. In any event, miscarriage of justice will not be allowed,” says the order.
Accountability court requests SC for second extension in Sharif trial
After the dictation of the order, Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris said it would not be possible for him to complete the proceedings in a month. “It would also be embarrassing for the accountability judge and the lawyers to appear repeatedly before the apex court to request extensions,” he further stated.
The bench on Wednesday initiated proceedings on the request of Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir, who sought an extension of the deadline to conclude the trial in the three references against the Sharifs.
The bench had previously extended the probe deadline by two months, but proceedings are still not complete. The court had also extended by three months the deadline for the separate reference against former finance minister Ishaq Dar, but he has yet to return to Pakistan.
Interestingly, the accountability court judge, while submitting the fresh request, sought no specific time extension, and neither did NAB. When the bench asked NAB Additional Prosecutor General Akbar Tarar how much further time would be required, he could not offer a specific answer.
He stated that the statement of the accused, i.e. Sharif under section 342 CrPc would be recorded soon and later they would have to move on to witnesses Wajid Zia and a NAB investigation officer (IO) in two of the references. Tarar said that they spent almost 21 days to record statements in one reference.
Haris appeared before the bench and stated that he had moved an application that accused should be charged in all references at once, but the trial court declined his plea, saying that proceedings in each reference would be conducted separately but the judgment would be issued together.
The bench asked Haris if he would provide a list of defence witnesses. The counsel replied that the names would be decided later. The judge, in a lighter vein, told Haris that he was free to share any grievances he had before the bench, to which the lawyer replied that he had no grievances to share, only the facts.
When Haris requested a three-month extension, Justice Ahsan countered by saying that they might direct the accountability court to work on Saturday and Sunday, while reminding that the Supreme Court was already working on weekends.
When Haris stated that it would not be possible to appear before accountability court for more than five days in Ramazan, Justice Ahsan remarked that, “Our ancestors fought battles in Ramazan. We have lots of confidence in your ability.”
Sharif asks why Rangers gave money to TLP protestors
Justice Sheikh then observed that they did not mean to say that he was being non-cooperative or spending too much time in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. “Our interest is to ensure a fair trial and that the due rights of the accused are protected,” said Justice Ahsan.
Haris, however, stated, “There is no fundamental right of prosecution but it is a right of the accused that he should be given a fair opportunity to prove his case.”
The counsel also referred to the United Nations Charter, which says that defence should be given fair opportunity to present their case. He said there are more than 30 law points where arguments would be given after the recording of statements.
The bench then assured that nothing would be done arbitrarily.
Later, PML-N lawyers were critical of the bench’s decision not to grant a three-month extension. They alleged that the party’s opponents did not want Sharif to be able to play a role in campaigning for the upcoming elections.
The Supreme Court has extended till June 9 the deadline for an accountability court to conclude proceedings in graft references against Sharif family members.
The references have been filed by NAB in view of the Supreme Court’s July 28, 2017 judgment in the Panama Papers case.
A two-judge special bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, however, declined former prime minister Nawaz Sharif lawyer’s contentions to extend the deadline by three months.
“We are confident that both sides namely the prosecution and the defence will cooperate. In any event, miscarriage of justice will not be allowed,” says the order.
Accountability court requests SC for second extension in Sharif trial
After the dictation of the order, Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris said it would not be possible for him to complete the proceedings in a month. “It would also be embarrassing for the accountability judge and the lawyers to appear repeatedly before the apex court to request extensions,” he further stated.
The bench on Wednesday initiated proceedings on the request of Accountability Court Judge Muhammad Bashir, who sought an extension of the deadline to conclude the trial in the three references against the Sharifs.
The bench had previously extended the probe deadline by two months, but proceedings are still not complete. The court had also extended by three months the deadline for the separate reference against former finance minister Ishaq Dar, but he has yet to return to Pakistan.
Interestingly, the accountability court judge, while submitting the fresh request, sought no specific time extension, and neither did NAB. When the bench asked NAB Additional Prosecutor General Akbar Tarar how much further time would be required, he could not offer a specific answer.
He stated that the statement of the accused, i.e. Sharif under section 342 CrPc would be recorded soon and later they would have to move on to witnesses Wajid Zia and a NAB investigation officer (IO) in two of the references. Tarar said that they spent almost 21 days to record statements in one reference.
Haris appeared before the bench and stated that he had moved an application that accused should be charged in all references at once, but the trial court declined his plea, saying that proceedings in each reference would be conducted separately but the judgment would be issued together.
The bench asked Haris if he would provide a list of defence witnesses. The counsel replied that the names would be decided later. The judge, in a lighter vein, told Haris that he was free to share any grievances he had before the bench, to which the lawyer replied that he had no grievances to share, only the facts.
When Haris requested a three-month extension, Justice Ahsan countered by saying that they might direct the accountability court to work on Saturday and Sunday, while reminding that the Supreme Court was already working on weekends.
When Haris stated that it would not be possible to appear before accountability court for more than five days in Ramazan, Justice Ahsan remarked that, “Our ancestors fought battles in Ramazan. We have lots of confidence in your ability.”
Sharif asks why Rangers gave money to TLP protestors
Justice Sheikh then observed that they did not mean to say that he was being non-cooperative or spending too much time in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. “Our interest is to ensure a fair trial and that the due rights of the accused are protected,” said Justice Ahsan.
Haris, however, stated, “There is no fundamental right of prosecution but it is a right of the accused that he should be given a fair opportunity to prove his case.”
The counsel also referred to the United Nations Charter, which says that defence should be given fair opportunity to present their case. He said there are more than 30 law points where arguments would be given after the recording of statements.
The bench then assured that nothing would be done arbitrarily.
Later, PML-N lawyers were critical of the bench’s decision not to grant a three-month extension. They alleged that the party’s opponents did not want Sharif to be able to play a role in campaigning for the upcoming elections.