ISLAMABAD: Top
legal brains of the country are unanimous that once the Accountability Court (AC) has given its verdict in Avenfield Reference
case and sentenced the accused, it has no jurisdiction to reopen the
case especially if the appeal is in high court and the judgment has been suspended.The Accountability Court has
already given seven years rigorous imprisonment based on the ‘Trust Deed’ then how could it again reopen the
case or send a
notice to the
accused on same point (Trust Deed), question the experts.The Accountability Court’s July 2018 verdict in Avenfield Reference says, “The trust deeds produced by the
accused Maryam Nawaz were also found bogus. She (accused Maryam Nawaz) was instrumental in concealment of the properties of his father
accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. This
accused Maryam Nawaz aided, assisted, abetted, attempted and acted in conspiracy with her father
accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif who was holder of Public Office. Therefore, prosecution has succeeded to establish her guilt within the meaning of Section 9 (a)(v)(xii) NAO 1999 READ WITH SERIAL No.2 of the schedule and punishable u.s.10 and schedule attached therewith. In view of the role of this
accused Mst Maryam Nawaz, she is convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of two million pounds under section u/s 9(a)(v)(xii) NAO 1999/ read with section 10 of NAO 1999 and simple imprisonment for one year under serial No2 of the schedule. Both the sentences shall run concurrently”.According to some experts, this is not a
legal matter as the
case has
already been decided by the accountability court and its judgment has
already been suspended by Islamabad High Court. The
experts believe that the counsel for
accused will press this
issue before the accountability court judge. While understanding this
legal view the accountability court judge will withdraw the notification during the first hearing, the
experts believe.“Legally speaking, the judge should have avoided sending the
notice to the
accused as he has
already given his judgment on this case. Under these circumstance, especially when the
accused has shown some videos of an accountability judge the court should have avoided this”, said the expert.Justice (retd) Nasir Aslam Zahid while talking to The News said if the accountability court has
already decided the
case and gave its judgment then it cannot summon the
accused or reopen the
case unless something very important related to the judgment arises.“The courts should follow the
legal procedure and once the
case has been concluded and the
accused has been penalized then the same court should avoid reopening the case. If some new angle or fresh evidence arises in the
already concluded
case then the court can reopen the
case but there are very rare cases when the courts have reopened the cases especially in lower judiciary”, commented Justice (retd) Nasir Aslam Zahid.If some fresh and new
legal point has been raised by the prosecution in an
already concluded
case then the court can
issue notice to the
accused otherwise the court should avoid this practice especially if the appeal against this
case is in high court, said Justice (retd) Nasir Aslam Zahid.Abid Hassan Minto — One of the senior most lawyers of the country while talking to The News said it is useless to give
legal opinion on this issue.“No one is following the constitution in this country. Everything seems to be political these days. I don’t want to waste my words or opinion under these circumstance. Nothing is being done as per the law. When the accountability court has given its verdict and high court has
already suspended the judgment then issuing the
notice to the
accused in the same
case is beyond his comprehension”, commented Abid Hassan Minto.The council for defendant will raise this point during the hearing of this
case that once the
case has
already been concluded then how the court could
issue the
notice in
already concluded case. The court will decided after hearing the arguments of the defendant, he said.Former President Supreme Court Bar Association and senior lawyer Kamran Murtaza while talking to The News said the court has
already given its verdict and awarded seven years imprisonment sentence based on the ‘Trust Deed’. When the court has
already given its verdict on it then how could it
issue the
notice to the
accused on same point for second time?“Accountability Court’s judge’s jurisdiction has ended once he has given his verdict now the
case is in Islamabad High Court. It is beyond my understanding that how could lower court reopen the
case which is pending in higher court”, commented Kamran Murtaza.“I believe this is frivolous application and the accountability court should have rejected it instead of issuing the
notice to the accused. Particularly under the present circumstance when the
accused has shown a video of one of the accountability court, the court should have avoided sending
notice to the
accused in an
already concluded case”, said Kamran Murtaza.“The judgment has
already been suspended by Islamabad High Court since last ten months. Why the National Accountability Court did not raise this
issue before? Why it filed the application just a day or two after the
accused has shown video of the accountability judge”, he commented.Meanwhile, former judge Shah Khawar, while talking to Anchorperson Shahzeb Khanzada in his Geo’s programme Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath on Tuesday, said that it is surprising to see that
notice has been issued again to Maryam Nawaz by Accountability Court. He said that the Supreme Court had ordered Accountability Court to decide about fake documents in Panama case. He said the Accountability Court had
already awarded sentence to Maryam Nawaz on bogus trust deed and this sentence had been suspended by the Islamabad High Court during hearing appeal and now there is no justification to summon her in the court in the same
case under Section 30 of NAB Ordinance.Shah Khawar said that Section 30 of NAB Ordinance says summary trial of anyone can be conducted against a person even after judgment, if Accountability Court finds that someone has recorded false witness. He said that Section 30 also tells that Accountability Court itself can initiate this action. He said that under Section 30 the prosecution or
accused can also move application for action within 30 days.Shah Khawar said that the appeal of Maryam Nawaz is still pending in Avenfield references and Article 13 of the Constitution says that neither anyone can be prosecuted nor awarded punishment more than once in one case. He said that it is very surprising that the Accountability Court had
already punished Maryam Nawaz in the same offence and now under what law this action is being taken against her.
أكثر...