Remaining corruption cases against Nawaz Sharif moved to different court

The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday approved the transfer of the two remaining corruption cases against Nawaz Sharif and his family to another court. (AFP/file photo)

• Lawyers for the former prime minister and PML-N leader asked for two corruption cases against him to be transferred to another court since the judge had already convicted him in a similar case
• The accountability court on July 6 sentenced Sharif to 10 years in prison for corruption over the Avenfield properties case

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday approved the transfer of the two remaining corruption cases against former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family to another court. The two-member bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, gave the ruling in response to a petition filed by Sharif’s lawyers calling for the change.
Khawaja Haris, Sharif’s legal counsel, had requested the transfer of the Al-Azizia and Flagship Investment cases from Judge Mohammad Bashir’s court, given the judge’s verdict in the Avenfield case relating to property deals in London. The accountability court in Lahore on July 6 sentenced Sharif and his daughter, Maryam, to 10 and seven years in prison, respectively, over the Avenfield case and imposed hefty fines. Sharif’s son-in-law was sentenced to one year in jail. The former prime minister, and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, was arrested with his daughter at Lahore airport on July 13 when they returned from a visit to Londonn.
The Sharifs have challenged their convictions in the Avenfield case, claiming that there were legal flaws in the verdict. They have asked for it to be overturned and all three family members to be released on bail.
During earlier hearings, Haris argued that all three cases filed by the National Accountability Bureau against his clients had a common witness, Wajid Zia, head of the police joint investigation team, and that Justice Bashir had already disclosed his opinions on crucial aspects of all of the cases. He said that the judge therefore should not hear the remaining cases, in line with directives issued by the Supreme Court.