Al-Azizia, Avenfield references: IHC expresses displeasure over late arrival of Maryam

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday expressed displeasure over the late arrival of Maryam Nawaz Sharif for court proceedings regarding her appeals in Al-Azizia and Avenfield references.

A two-member bench of the IHC comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, which heard the appeals of Maryam and her husband Captain (retd) Muhammad Safdar against their conviction.

The Court reprimanded the PML-N vice president, Maryam, for not observing court decorum.

When Maryam reached the courtroom, party workers greeted her by shouting slogans. The court snubbed her for speaking loudly in the courtroom during the hearing.

Justice Farooq said that the accused who does not care about the sanctity of the court is not entitled to bail.

Justice Farooq, while addressing Azam Nazir Tarar, counsel for Maryam, remarked that this time his client’s bail should be cancelled, if not earlier.

He remarked that your client does not have any idea about the decorum of the court. Maryam’s counsel Amjad Pervaiz yesterday (August 31) had filed the application, saying that the applicant is on general adjournment from August 16 to September 3.

Therefore, he prayed before the court that hearing in the appeal of Maryam may be adjourned for other date in the interest of justice.

Accepting his plea for adjournment, the court deferred further hearing in the case till September 8.

Maryam and her husband Captain (retd) Safdar had filed appeals against their conviction in the Avenfield Apartment reference.

The IHC had previously separated the appeals of Nawaz Sharif from the appeals of Maryam and Safdar and declared the former premier a proclaimed offender over his perpetual absence from the hearing.

On July 6, 2018, Accountability Judge Mohammad Bashir had convicted Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam and Captain (retd) Safdar in the Avenfield Apartment reference and awarded them prison terms of 10 years, seven years, and one year, respectively.

The court had later suspended their respective sentences.

In her appeal, Maryam stated she was convicted under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) of the NAO, 1999 and for the offence at Serial No2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of two million pounds under Section 10 of the NAO, 1999 for the offence under Section 9 (a)(v) and (xii) ibid, and to one year simple imprisonment for offence at Serial No2 of the Schedule to the NAO, 1999, with stipulation that both sentences shall run concurrently.

Maryam in her appeal argued that the prosecution failed to furnish any oral account in support of its case, whereas, the entire documentary evidence produced by it was inadmissible for want of formal proof or being attestation of copies or being photocopies.

She added that the AC judge convicted them under section 9(a)(v) of the NAO, 1999. The conviction is based on the testimony of JIT head Wajid Zia who was an investigation officer of the case and did not have any personal knowledge regarding the facts deposed by him, his deposition was both inadmissible and irrelevant, he was not competent to play proxy to any witness not produced nor could have he proved any document of which he was neither author nor privy.