Nawaz, daughter, son-in-law appeal to high court | 2018-07-17 | daily-sun.com

Avenfield Verdict

Nawaz, daughter, son-in-law appeal to high court

    17 July, 2018 12:00 AM printer

Nawaz, daughter, son-in-law appeal to high court

Islamabad: Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz, and son-in-law retired Captain Mohammad Safdar challenged their convictions by an accountability court in the Avenfield corruption reference in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday, reports Dawn.    

The court on July 6 had sentenced Nawaz to 10 years in prison for owning assets beyond known income, along with a fine of £8 million. Maryam was given seven years of jail time and slapped with a fine of £2 million, as the court found her guilty of being “instrumental in concealment of the properties of her father”. Capt Safdar was handed one year in jail for failure to cooperate with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and for aiding and abetting Nawaz and Maryam.

Seven separate appeals were filed by the three convicts’ lawyers ─ three on behalf of Nawaz, and two each on behalf of Maryam and Safdar ─ pertaining to the corruption references against them.

Advocate Khawaja Haris filed the appeals on behalf of Nawaz; one urging the IHC to set aside the accountability court’s verdict in the Avenfield reference, another to suspend the said verdict until the IHC adjudicated on the main appeals, and a third requesting the court to transfer the Al-Azizia and Flagship corruption references against Nawaz from the court of accountability judge Mohammad Bashir to another accountability court in Islamabad.

Amjad Pervaiz filed two appeals each on behalf of Maryam and Safdar. One of the petitions urged the IHC to set aside the accountability court’s verdict in the Avenfield corruption reference, while the second requested the suspension of the NAB court’s verdict until the IHC adjudicates on the appeals.

The appeals stated that accountability judge Mohammad Bashir had passed the Avenfield verdict on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, without fulfilling the “requirements of justice”.


Top