NAB moves SC to block Sharifs’ suspension plea before IHC

Requests top court to set aside IHC’s September 10 order

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Saturday moved the top court against the Islamabad High Court’s (IHC) decision to accept an application of the Sharif family for hearing their petitions, seeking suspension of their sentences, before their appeals against an accountability court’s decision in the Avenfield flats case.

The NAB move might once again delay hearing of the petitions of former premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar seeking suspension of the July 6 judgment by the accountability court which found them guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines.



The anti-corruption watchdog has challenged the IHC’s order of September 10 before the Supreme Court and requested the apex court not only to set aside the order but also to direct the appellate court to take up the appeals for hearing.

The instant petition is drafted by Akram Qureshi and Jahanzaib Bharwana, the two NAB prosecutors who are currently arguing before the IHC on Sharifs’ suspension petitions.

Qureshi has partially presented arguments and challenged maintainability of the Sharifs’ petition before IHC judges – Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb – on Thursday. He was expected to conclude arguments on Monday but after filing of the petition, it might not happen.

In the petition, the prosecutors have raised several questions on the IHC’s order. They have asked whether a criminal application under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure can be filed in a writ petition which is necessarily civil proceedings and “whether it is just and reasonable to pass an order in the aforesaid application without issuing any notice to the state.”

The prosecutors have said if there was any justification for postponement of appeals and taking up petitions for suspension when the appeals were already fixed for arguments on September 10.

The other questions raised by them are: is it reasonable to postpone hearing of appeals because of the personal inability of the counsel for the convicts? Wasn’t it just and proper for the convicts to engage the services of some other counsel if their actual counsel is already busy?

Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris had maintained before the IHC bench that the Supreme Court had, on August 27, directed the trial court to conclude pending references – Al-Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment and Flagship & other companies – within six weeks.

He had argued that the trial is being conducted on day-to-day basis and, therefore, it would not be possible for him to simultaneously argue the appeals before the IHC. He had also stressed that since the appeals have a relationship with the trial, a decision would inevitably prejudice the right of the petitioner or the prosecution.



Qureshi had sought an adjournment so that written arguments could be filed in the suspension petitions and assured the court that he would conclude his arguments on Monday, Sept 17. Written arguments have already been submitted on previous hearing and he has partially argued on suspension petitions as well.

“We feel that the prayer sought by the applicant is reasonable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the application is allowed on the grounds mentioned therein. The applications seeking suspension of the sentences shall be heard and decided by this Court [IHC] on day-to-day basis,” the IHC’s Sept 10 order reads.

Subsequently, the appeals were adjourned with observation that they shall be taken up on their turn and as per the policy of the court. This is the second time the court has heard arguments on suspension petitions and the NAB has raised legal objections to the hearing of the writ petitions before appeals.

The IHC will resume hearing on Monday (tomorrow).