The court ordered NAB to demonstrate how Maryam’s signing of the trust deed in 2006 constituted her participation in the 1993 property purchases.
Islamabad High Court:
Maryam and her husband Captain (Ret.) Mohammad Safdar’s appeals against their sentencing in the Avenfield case were considered by a two-judge panel consisting of Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani.
Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the PML-N and Maryam’s father, was named a proclaimed offender in the court decision read aloud by NAB Prosecutor Usman Rashid Cheema.
Ex-PM Nawaz’s appeal was not rejected on the basis of merits, but rather because he failed to show up in court, Justice Aamer Farooq said.
He continued by saying that just because Nawaz’s appeal was dismissed by the court did not necessarily mean that the allegations against him were true.
These cases were brought under the Supreme Court’s directions, the NAB prosecutor informed the jury. The IHC noted that the trial was held and the referral was submitted following the Supreme Court’s directive.
It also stated that NAB was required to independently substantiate each claim. The judges of the IHC stated that they needed to watch the trial processes.
Furthermore, they pointed out that the Supreme Court’s findings from before the trial were useless at this point.
To give a brief summary of the matter to the court, Justice Aamer Farooq requested an attorney. In response, the NAB prosecutor said Maryam had assisted her father in amassing more wealth than his salary.
According to Justice Kayani, if assets had in fact been formed, the court need to disregard the valid contract and the Calibri typeface and instead consider the 1993 case.
The anti-graft authority would start looking into this issue in 2006 with the trust deed, the NAB prosecutor retorted.
In that case, Maryam played no part in the 1993 case, Justice Aamer Farooq said. He further explained how Maryam may have betrayed Nawaz in 2006 if NAB had alleged that he had purchased the homes in 1993.
Then, he continued, “you should present the records connecting Nawaz Sharif to the assets.
The judge pointed out that the accusation of abetment would be applicable if the houses were purchased.
We must look at the facts rather than make assumptions. Has Nawaz Sharif ever claimed that these properties are his? Judge Aamer Farooq asked a question.
Nawaz had not claimed ownership of the assets in any venue, Maryam’s attorney informed the court.
The court ordered NAB to respond to four inquiries: Did Nawaz pay to purchase the Avenfield apartments? Show the relationship between Maryam and these properties, then show the relationship between the PML-N leader and the businesses and how they relate to the apartments.
Nawaz had resided in one of the same flats in London, the NAB prosecutor informed the bench. In Pakistan, half of the population, according to Justice Kayani, reside in other people’s homes. He said, “You should show Nawaz Sharif owns the land.”
The court said, “Even if he [Nawaz] is residing there, the prosecution still has to prove the ownership. The NAB prosecutor informed the bench that the anti-graft body had finished its work for the day.
The hearing was postponed by the court until September 29, giving NAB time to make more submissions.
