A shot in the arm for ex-PM

The acquittal of PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif in the Avenfield case has not only come as a shot in the arm for the former premier but has also cast a shadow of embarrassment over the Supreme Court, which had monitored the trial and investigation during the tenure of ex-CJP Mian Saqib Nisar.

Senior legal experts are calling for introspection within the judiciary, urging a shift away from perceptions of political bias or manipulation against any specific party or leader, and asking the superior courts to learn from “mistakes”.

Meanwhile, observers are keen to assess whether Nawaz Sharif's exoneration will have implications for ongoing cases involving Imran Khan, his successor and main rival. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) is set to review a petition on Thursday (today) seeking Imran’s acquittal in the Toshakhana case.

The written order, authored by ex-judge Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan in the Panama case, had urged the chief justice of Pakistan to nominate a judge to oversee the judgment's implementation and monitor NAB proceedings.

Notably, in the Panama case, ex-premier Imran Khan was the petitioner against the Sharif family members.

"The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan is requested to nominate an Hon’ble Judge of this Court to supervise and monitor implementation of this judgment in letter and spirit and oversee the proceedings conducted by NAB and the Accountability Court,” the court order read.

Following the directive, former CJP Saqib Nisar designated Justice Ijazul Ahsan, a member of the larger bench, as the monitoring judge. Nonetheless, the order was silent over the delineation of the supervision's parameters.

In a review petition, Sharif’s counsel, Khawaja Haris, had argued that the oversight would compromise a fair trial, given the SC had itself become the complainant, prosecutor, as well as judge.

The apex court while rejecting Nawaz Sharif's review petition against the Panama verdict said that the argument that the power to superintend the proceedings of the accountability court has not been conferred on the  SC.

Therefore, it noted, the nomination of one of the judges of SC to superintend them would be violative of Article 175(2) and (3) of the  Constitution is also misconceived “as this practice has been in vogue since long and the purpose behind it is to guard against the intrusion of casualness in the proceedings before the trial court”.
 
Read Nawaz gets closer to premiership

"Such practice, by no stretch of imagination, implies that the monitoring Judge would in any way influence or interfere with the decision-making process of the Trial Court. It is completely innocuous to either of the parties would not tend to harm any", said the judgement issued on September 15, 2017.”

In November 2017, the Islamabad Accountability Court-I judge denied Nawaz’s application to club all three references against him for a joint trial. But in June next year, the SC allowed the accountability court an unrealistic four-week extension when it sought permission for the move.

The extension ended just two weeks before the general election in 2018 and when the judgment came out, Nawaz, his daughter Maryam and her husband Captain Safdar were convicted and put behind bars just before the polls.

At the time when these references were filed against the Sharif family at the direction of the apex court, Qamar Zaman Chaudhry held the position of NAB chairman.

After the general elections in 2018, a division bench of IHC led by Justice Athar Minallah suspended the Avenfield reference judgment and granted bail to Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Captain Safdar. However, SC judges and the establishment were upset about the high court's observations against the trial court order.

It is learnt that a former chief justice desired for the Islamabad High Court to swiftly address the appeals of the Sharif family, leading to the matter reaching the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution during his tenure.

However, the Islamabad High Court delayed the disposition of these appeals. Presently, except one, all judges from the Panama bench have retired.

Similarly, the judges who are in the driving seat in SC have already voiced serious concerns regarding the Panama judgment. Moreover, the dynamics of ‘powerful circles’ have undergone a shift, now seemingly adopting a role as facilitators for Nawaz Sharif.

Senior lawyers hold the view that the Panama jurisprudence significantly tarnished the reputation of certain judges who were previously highly regarded in society.

Moreover, there are serious allegations suggesting that intelligence agencies manipulated judicial proceedings against the Sharif family during the Panama trial. Former IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had made grave accusations concerning the manipulation of judicial proceedings in the matter.