Justice in the dock
Findings of guilt came from an accountability court in the matter of the Avenfield apartments case
As the dust settles after the findings of guilt by an accountability court in the matter of the Avenfield apartments case a number of things have become clear — several of them being that there is much that is not clear. The author of the 174-page judgment admits as much, and a careful reading of it would leave the average man in the street little the wiser as to why Nawaz Sharif has been found guilty and what he has been found guilty of. Maryam Nawaz and her husband, Captain (retd) Safdar, are convicted rather more convincingly, and the forensic explanations relating to the forged documents, fonts and other details have a ring of truth about them.
Where the question of whether justice was done or not arises from the absence of a conviction on any charge relating to money laundering, looting of state assets or corruption, three areas which those that pushed for the prosecution of the Sharifs promoted as their primary target. Instead the Sharifs and Safdar to a lesser extent find themselves convicted not on the basis of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence, but on the basis of their inability to prove their innocence. Aside from the details relating to forged documents referenced above there is little of substance, and the conviction rests on a swathe of assumptions that are going to be seized upon by the Sharif family lawyers in their inevitable appeal against the sentence. In normal circumstances an assumption has no evidential value. One might be led to wonder whether jurisprudence has been upended, and the burden of proof placed upon the accused instead of the prosecution. It will be for the appellate court to unpick the intricacies of this.
Moving to the political fallout Sharif is between a rock and a hard place. His wife remains seriously ill in London from a cancer that leaves her longevity uncertain. If he and Maryam leave her and return to Pakistan then they will be arrested. Arguments are circulating to the effect that jail time can create political advantage, triggering a sympathy vote and uniting a political party that is distinctly frayed at the edges. Possibly, but the optics are running in the direction of the opposition parties that have a grip of the narrative which says that Sharif has been found guilty of the aforementioned looting and corruption; despite the fact that he has not and large segments of the population believe that. Perceptual distortions such as that are hard to fight from a jail cell.
Further difficulty for the judgment lies in the fines it imposes and the sequestration of the Avenfield properties, presumably with the intent of returning any monies generated by their sale to the national exchequer. Simply put, Pakistan would have to satisfy the requirements of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002 and prove that the properties were purchased with ill-gotten gains, and as the judgment has clearly failed to do that the chances of the properties being translated into revenue for the Pakistan government are remote indeed. Further, the properties are legally owned by Sharif’s two sons who have not been convicted of anything thus far. In the matter of fines, the prospects are equally unlikely to produce a result as desired by the judgment. There is no unilateral ‘reading across’ between UK law and Pakistan law, and there is no indication as to where the millions of pounds in fines are to be paid from.
Momentous as the judgment is and with far-reaching consequences it is riddled with contradictions and is already being described as ‘flawed’ and a miscarriage of justice. There is now a pause, with all hinging on the movements of the Sharifs. Justice seen to be done? That remains an open question.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 8th, 2018.
Where the question of whether justice was done or not arises from the absence of a conviction on any charge relating to money laundering, looting of state assets or corruption, three areas which those that pushed for the prosecution of the Sharifs promoted as their primary target. Instead the Sharifs and Safdar to a lesser extent find themselves convicted not on the basis of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence, but on the basis of their inability to prove their innocence. Aside from the details relating to forged documents referenced above there is little of substance, and the conviction rests on a swathe of assumptions that are going to be seized upon by the Sharif family lawyers in their inevitable appeal against the sentence. In normal circumstances an assumption has no evidential value. One might be led to wonder whether jurisprudence has been upended, and the burden of proof placed upon the accused instead of the prosecution. It will be for the appellate court to unpick the intricacies of this.
Moving to the political fallout Sharif is between a rock and a hard place. His wife remains seriously ill in London from a cancer that leaves her longevity uncertain. If he and Maryam leave her and return to Pakistan then they will be arrested. Arguments are circulating to the effect that jail time can create political advantage, triggering a sympathy vote and uniting a political party that is distinctly frayed at the edges. Possibly, but the optics are running in the direction of the opposition parties that have a grip of the narrative which says that Sharif has been found guilty of the aforementioned looting and corruption; despite the fact that he has not and large segments of the population believe that. Perceptual distortions such as that are hard to fight from a jail cell.
Further difficulty for the judgment lies in the fines it imposes and the sequestration of the Avenfield properties, presumably with the intent of returning any monies generated by their sale to the national exchequer. Simply put, Pakistan would have to satisfy the requirements of the UK Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002 and prove that the properties were purchased with ill-gotten gains, and as the judgment has clearly failed to do that the chances of the properties being translated into revenue for the Pakistan government are remote indeed. Further, the properties are legally owned by Sharif’s two sons who have not been convicted of anything thus far. In the matter of fines, the prospects are equally unlikely to produce a result as desired by the judgment. There is no unilateral ‘reading across’ between UK law and Pakistan law, and there is no indication as to where the millions of pounds in fines are to be paid from.
Momentous as the judgment is and with far-reaching consequences it is riddled with contradictions and is already being described as ‘flawed’ and a miscarriage of justice. There is now a pause, with all hinging on the movements of the Sharifs. Justice seen to be done? That remains an open question.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 8th, 2018.