Sharif’s suspension petitions not maintainable: NAB
IHC bench likely to issue order in the case on Monday
IHC bench likely to issue order in the case on Monday. Sharif family. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has once again challenged maintainability of Sharif family’s petitions seeking suspension of the sentences awarded to them in the Avenfield Apartments reference on ground that writ petitions cannot be heard when appeals are fixed for hearing.
On Thursday, while arguing before the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, NAB’s Special Prosecutor Akram Qureshi said delay in hearing of the appeals filed by the former premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam and son-in-law Captain (retd) Safdar was because of the petitioners and not because of NAB and the IHC.
NAB prosecutor said when adequate remedy is available in the shape of appeals the court cannot hear suspension petitions. “Give your consent that trial shall remain suspended before accountability court and we can start hearing appeals. We have to treat everybody equally,” Justice Minallah remarked.
He said because of the petitioners’ practical difficulty that they cannot simultaneously continue trial in accountability court and present arguments in appeals against the judgement it is not a viable solution that neither the court should hear petitions nor the appeals.
NAB court rejects Sharif family's plea for exemption from hearing
Why appeals can’t be heard like the court is hearing petitions, Qureshi said, adding that currently the trial as well as suspension petitions were being heard and the petitioners are appearing before both the courts. “For the past week, they are here as well as before the accountability court,” Qureshi said.
Subsequently, he said, the petitions are not maintainable.
Justice Minallah asked if there is any case of NAB which is being heard on day-to-day basis. Qureshi replied he could give a history of such cases. “There are peculiar circumstances in this case,” the judge said. “No, there aren’t any peculiar circumstances,” the prosecutor replied. “He needs not to cut himself into two,” Justice Aurangzeb said, and, the bench asked the prosecutor to move to other grounds.
Next, Qureshi argued that the power to suspend sentences is not available to a high court after the inclusion of section 426 (Suspension of sentence pending appeal: Release of appellant on bail) and 497 (when bail may be taken in cases of non-bailable offence) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in the NAB Ordinance of 1999.
He maintained that the high court cannot exercise writ under section 426 of CrPC as the scope of the section is to the extent of giving tentative assessment only. In addition, he said, high courts cannot decide writ petitions if there is no hardship.
NAB opposes transferring pending references against Sharifs
Also, he said, primarily the petitioners have sought tentative assessment but in reality they have asked the court to give deeper appreciation to the evidence. He said the petitioners have sought court’s indulgence on a document [chart of income, assets, tax and wealth of Sharif] which is not signed by anyone but any finding on the document would be a deeper appreciation of the evidence.
Moreover, Qureshi reiterated an earlier objection of NAB that the IHC cannot pass an order on writ petitions because the accountability court was not made a party in the petitions.
Meanwhile, the accountability court hearing Al-Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment reference adjourned the reference till Monday after Haris briefly cross examined the Joint Investigation Team head Wajid Zia.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has once again challenged maintainability of Sharif family’s petitions seeking suspension of the sentences awarded to them in the Avenfield Apartments reference on ground that writ petitions cannot be heard when appeals are fixed for hearing.
On Thursday, while arguing before the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, NAB’s Special Prosecutor Akram Qureshi said delay in hearing of the appeals filed by the former premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam and son-in-law Captain (retd) Safdar was because of the petitioners and not because of NAB and the IHC.
NAB prosecutor said when adequate remedy is available in the shape of appeals the court cannot hear suspension petitions. “Give your consent that trial shall remain suspended before accountability court and we can start hearing appeals. We have to treat everybody equally,” Justice Minallah remarked.
He said because of the petitioners’ practical difficulty that they cannot simultaneously continue trial in accountability court and present arguments in appeals against the judgement it is not a viable solution that neither the court should hear petitions nor the appeals.
NAB court rejects Sharif family's plea for exemption from hearing
Why appeals can’t be heard like the court is hearing petitions, Qureshi said, adding that currently the trial as well as suspension petitions were being heard and the petitioners are appearing before both the courts. “For the past week, they are here as well as before the accountability court,” Qureshi said.
Subsequently, he said, the petitions are not maintainable.
Justice Minallah asked if there is any case of NAB which is being heard on day-to-day basis. Qureshi replied he could give a history of such cases. “There are peculiar circumstances in this case,” the judge said. “No, there aren’t any peculiar circumstances,” the prosecutor replied. “He needs not to cut himself into two,” Justice Aurangzeb said, and, the bench asked the prosecutor to move to other grounds.
Next, Qureshi argued that the power to suspend sentences is not available to a high court after the inclusion of section 426 (Suspension of sentence pending appeal: Release of appellant on bail) and 497 (when bail may be taken in cases of non-bailable offence) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in the NAB Ordinance of 1999.
He maintained that the high court cannot exercise writ under section 426 of CrPC as the scope of the section is to the extent of giving tentative assessment only. In addition, he said, high courts cannot decide writ petitions if there is no hardship.
NAB opposes transferring pending references against Sharifs
Also, he said, primarily the petitioners have sought tentative assessment but in reality they have asked the court to give deeper appreciation to the evidence. He said the petitioners have sought court’s indulgence on a document [chart of income, assets, tax and wealth of Sharif] which is not signed by anyone but any finding on the document would be a deeper appreciation of the evidence.
Moreover, Qureshi reiterated an earlier objection of NAB that the IHC cannot pass an order on writ petitions because the accountability court was not made a party in the petitions.
Meanwhile, the accountability court hearing Al-Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment reference adjourned the reference till Monday after Haris briefly cross examined the Joint Investigation Team head Wajid Zia.