The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday decided to hear Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) leader Nawaz Sharif’s appeal against his conviction in the Al-Azizia reference on merit, i.e. by considering the substance of the case rather than matters of procedure or jurisdiction.
Announcing the order, a division bench comprising IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb rejected a plea from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to have the case sent back to the accountability court.
The Al-Azizia Steel Mills corruption reference pertains to a case in which the former prime minister was sentenced to seven years in jail and fined Rs. 1.5 billion and $25 million. The reference alleges Sharif was unable to justify the source of funds used to set up the Al-Azizia Steel Mills and Hill Metal Establishment in Saudi Arabia. In 2020, the IHC had declared Sharif a proclaimed offender in the Al-Azizia and Avenfield references for failing to appear in court for appeals against his conviction. After reviving both appeals on Oct. 24, the two-member bench had acquitted the PMLN leader in the Avenfield reference on Nov. 29.
During today’s hearing, Sharif reached the IHC with several senior PMLN leaders. After PMLN lawyer Amjad Pervaiz took the rostrum, Justice Farooq questioned if the case was linked to the Panama Papers scandal, to which the counsel replied in the affirmative. Noting three references were filed in the Panama cases—Al-Azizia, Avenfield and Flagship Investment—he said Sharif had already been acquitted in two and added that as all three alleged assets-beyond-means, they should have been considered a single case.
Referring to the Al-Azizia reference, Pervaiz said there were 22 witnesses, of which 13 had already recorded their testimonies. “In this case, only Wajid Zia and Mehboob Alam are lead witnesses,” he said, while noting the Hill Metal Establishment was set up after the Al-Azizia company and was owned by Sharif’s son, Hussain Nawaz. In its arguments, he said, NAB had alleged these were Sharif’s proxy companies despite the PMLN leader having nothing to do with their bank accounts or operations.
None of the lead witnesses, he maintained, were able to prove that Hussain was dependent on his father at the time of the company’s establishment. Additionally, he argued, the Al-Azizia company was established in 2001, when Sharif had not been a public office-holder for two years.
The NAB prosecutor, meanwhile, urged the court to resolve a petition pertaining to former accountability judge Arshad Malik—who appeared in a video claiming he was pressured to convict Sharif—before proceeding with this appeal. To this, Justice Aurangzeb said it was up to the petitioner whether he wished to pursue the matter, warning this could negatively impact NAB’s case.
In response, Sharif’s lawyer said his client did not wish to pursue the case, as Malik had passed away in 2020. After he read out the Supreme Court judgement in the Panama Papers case, the IHC CJ said the court had two options: either it could decide the case on merit on send it back to the accountability court. To this, Justice Aurangzeb observed that even if the case were sent back to the accountability court, Sharif would be considered an accused, not a convict. “Trial court will have to again decide the case,” he remarked, adding the PMLN could benefit if NAB’s arguments remained the same.
Former law minister Azam Nazeer Tarar—another of Sharif’s lawyers—however pleaded that the IHC should decide the appeal on merit. On the IHC’s approval, the PMLN’s counsel began presenting arguments on the merit of the appeal.
According to Pervaiz, Hussain had sent a sum of money to his father in 2017 via a banking channel four years after the Hill Metal Establishment was established. This sum, he emphasized, was shown in tax returns. He then argued that Sharif had no connection to either the Al-Azizia company or the Hill Metal Establishment. “It not a crime for a son to send his father money from abroad,” he contended. “They [NAB] say that you [Nawaz] are the real owner of the company because money was sent to you from abroad,” he said, adding the anti-graft body’s case relied on the copy of a report prepared against Sharif by a Saudi Arabian audit firm. He maintained the prosecution had failed to establish Nawaz’s ownership of the companies. The hearing was then adjourned till next week, Dec. 12.