The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday accepted a plea from former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to revive his previous appeals against his conviction in the Al-Azizia and Avenfield references. This decision came after the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) informed the court that it had no objections to the revival of these appeals.
The IHC division bench, headed by Justice Amir Farooqui, announced the verdict, which had been reserved earlier. Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), had earlier surrendered before the IHC as part of this legal process.
During the hearing, Nawaz Sharif’s counsel, Amjad Parvez Advocate and Azam Nazir Tarar, appeared before the court, along with NAB Prosecutor General Ehtesham Qadir Shah.
NAB Prosecutor General Ehtesham Qadir Shah clarified that the anti-corruption watchdog had no intention of arresting Nawaz Sharif and emphasized that there was no objection to reviving the appeals. He pointed out that the references against Nawaz Sharif were initiated following the orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had also directed NAB to file these references and established a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to investigate the cases.
Shah further explained that while references could be withdrawn either before or after an individual had been convicted, they could not be withdrawn after a sentence had been passed. Appeals, on the other hand, could only be heard after a decision had been made, and once an appeal is admitted for hearing, it cannot be withdrawn.
Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb questioned Nawaz Sharif’s counsel, asking why they were concerned when NAB had no intention of arresting the former prime minister. NAB’s position was made clear by the chief justice, who stated that there was no court order to arrest Nawaz Sharif. He added that at most, the court could demand new sureties from Nawaz Sharif.
In response, Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer, Amjad Parvez, stated that if the appeals were reinstated, the suspension of the sentence would be considered in that context, and the request for protective bail would become irrelevant.
