Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz’s lawyer on Wednesday apprised the Islamabad High Court (IHC) bench that there was no proof proving that his shopper was a “beneficial owner” of the Avenfield Apartments.
The counsel, Irfan Qadir, made this argument because the IHC particular bench comprising Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani took up the appeals in opposition to the choice of an accountability courtroom within the Avenfield case.
Qadir mentioned the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) couldn’t produce paperwork linking the previous prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, and his daughter to the flats in London. He mentioned the PML-N VP “inherited” the sentence. “If there was no case to be made against Nawaz then how can Maryam’s case go to trial,” the counsel added.
According to Irfan, the due technique of the regulation was violated within the case. He mentioned it was out of the query for the NAB courtroom to take up the case as rules weren’t adopted.
He added that the case in opposition to Maryam was of “political engineering” and that his shopper must be given a advantage of the doubt as there was no conclusive proof in opposition to her.
Qadir additional argued that the NAB has its personal arrest coverage that was made 18 years in the past by itself. He mentioned the anti-graft watchdog wished to ship Maryam again to jail however there was no motive to imprison an accused suspected of a white-collar crime.
“The accused is provided benefit if there is a reason [to doubt evidence] in criminal cases,” he mentioned.
At this, Justice Amir Farooq remarked that the NAB wished to ship each accused to jail. He added NAB officers had been behaving like an SHO as they wished to arrest everybody with none regard for proof.
Maryam’s counsel additionally alluded to the Arsalan Iftikhar case through the listening to. He mentioned: “I don’t want to malign any state institution, but there shouldn’t be any hurdle in the pursuit of justice.”
He mentioned the courtroom ought to ask NAB in opposition to what number of households references pertaining to public workplace holders have been filed? He mentioned the Supreme Court mentioned that references in opposition to the Sharif household must be filed.
He mentioned solely the NAB chief can approve references beneath the NAB regulation, including that the apex courtroom can not use the authority granted to the NAB chief.
“If the formation of a JIT [joint investigation team] was a necessity, it could have been formed by the NAB chairman,” he added.
Qadir additionally questioned three references in opposition to Sharifs filed by the NAB, saying the watchdog might have added “100 properties in a single reference”, however there ought to have been one reference solely. “It is such a massive irregularity that my client can be exonerated on the basis of it today,” he added.
He mentioned Nawaz Sharif might come again to Pakistan on the peace of mind of the courtroom that he won’t be arrested and will probably be heard.
NAB prosecutor, Muzzaffar Abbasi, submitted the registration of Avenfield flats. He mentioned as per UK authorities, Maryam Nawaz was the helpful proprietor of the flats owned by means of offshore firms, Neilsen and Nascol. He termed these properties “hidden”.
Following the completion of the arguments of Maryam Nawaz’s lawyer, the apex courtroom directed the NAB to provide arguments on the subsequent listening to on November 17.