ISLAMABAD: An accountability court on Tuesday has directed the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) to forward details of the shares owned by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s sons — Hussain and Hassan Nawaz — in several companies they own in Pakistan, with that evidence, the shares owned by Sharif sons will be forwarded as part of case record and will remain in the court’s custody.
In the situation where the court announces a ruling against the accused in the references filed against them by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) the shares reportedly of six companies will be auctioned off.
Earlier this month, Hussain and Hassan Nawaz were declared as offenders by court for not showing up regularly in reference to their hearings.
NAB prosecutor Afzal Qureshi submitted before court a report listing assets held by Hassan and Hussain in Pakistan. The Bureau has previously frozen the assets of the two brothers.
According to the report, the duo holds shares in six companies in Pakistan, as per SECP records.
The court directed SECP to attach shares held by both accused after seizing them. The proceedings concerning assets of Hassan and Hussain were subsequently adjourned until November 14.
While declaring the former premier’s sons proclaimed offenders, the accountability court had also issued perpetual warrants for their arrest and separated their trial from other members of the family.
Maryam Nawaz had said that her brothers Hassan and Hussain, would appear before the court when they take their decisions themselves.
“My brothers live abroad… the laws of here [Pakistan] don’t apply to them.”
Corruption references
The children of ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif – Hussain, Hasan and Maryam, and son-in-law MNA Captain (r) Safdar, had prayed the court that their review pleas be heard by a five-judge bench, instead of three-judge bench, and that the hearing was delayed till the formation of the five-judge larger bench.
The court accepted their request and referred the matter to the CJP Mian Saqib Nisar for the formation of five-judge larger bench, besides adjourning the matter for today (Wednesday). During the brief hearing, the judges hinted that the consequences of the July 28 verdict would remain same whether the review pleas were heard by a three-judge or a five-judge bench. They said it’s just an academic contention that only the five-judge larger bench should hear the case.
