Sharif challenges imprisonment in Al-Azizia case third time

ISLAMABAD: The counsel of deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Saturday re-submitted an appeal at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the accountability court verdict sentencing Sharif in the Al-Azizia Steel Mills case, ARY News reported.

The appeal was first filed by the legal team of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo on January 1, but it was returned by the registrar office after it marked a few objections on it.

The first appeal, filed on Jan 1 by the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) supremo was returned by the IHC registrar office after objecting to a few irregularities.

Counsel of Sharif, Munawar Iqbal, addressed all the objections on the appeal and re-filed it. The registrar office will examine the plea again before forwarding it to the court for hearing.

On Dec 24, the accountability court announced its verdict in two National Accountability Bureau’s references and punished Sharif to seven years in prison apart from imposing a fine of $25million. However, he was acquitted of all charges in the Flagship Investment case.

On Jan 3, NAB moved two appeals in the IHC, challenging the accountability court verdict in the Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment references against Sharif.

The anti-graft watchdog pleaded to increase the sentence awarded to Sharif in the Al-Azizia case and overturn his acquittal in the Flagship reference.

“The accountability court passed the impugned judgment in slipshod and a cursory manner without adverting to evidence available on record,” reads the petition. “There is absolute misreading and non-reading of the evidence tendered by the prosecution so much so that the prosecution witnesses stood the test of being sagacious and tendered unimplacable deposition despite lengthy cross examination.”

In another appeal challenging the Al-Azizia case verdict, NAB stated that the prosecution had presented ample evidence beyond any shadow of doubt to prove its case. “No mitigating circumstances were available in the case justifying the sentence of 7 years instead of a maximum of 15 years.”