If Nawaz Sharif is acquitted today, he has already been wronged, Faisal Vawda

If Nawaz Sharif is acquitted today, he has already been wronged, Faisal Vawda

If a bad thing was done then, who decides the punishment of the guilty, and if the act was done well today, who decides the punishment of the previous one?

KARACHI: Former PTI leader Faisal Vawda says if Nawaz Sharif is acquitted today, he has already been wronged. He said during a broadcast on the private TV channel Ham News that if fraud was committed, who would decide the punishment of the culprit, and if it was done correctly today, who would decide the punishment of previous offenders.

Young politician and former People's Party leader Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar said in the program that his impression of our country's justice system was incorrect. It is noteworthy that the Islamabad High Court has acquitted former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the Al-Azizia case. According to details, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Aamir Farooq and Justice Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb, Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court, disposed of the PML-N leader's appeal against the judgment in In addition, just seven minutes after the verdict was delivered, Nawaz Sharif's appeal was accepted and he was acquitted by Al-Azizia's references.

As the hearing of PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif's appeal against the reference to Al-Azizia began today, the PML-N leader's lawyer Amjad Pervez opened the argument and said the NAB had filed the Panama case with the Supreme Court. Regarding various petitions, the various petitions filed in the Supreme Court have not been filed by Nawaz Sharif and the NAB cannot rely on anyone's various petitions filed in the Supreme Court. , he attached copies of various requests as well as the files. The prosecution's main witness admitted there was no evidence relating to sponsorship.

In his argument, he said: "Prosecutors must prove that there is a public official, prosecutors must reveal income and the value of assets, and prosecutors must prove that a person with assets in their name is a dependent. "We had to prove it, and the prosecution had to do it." It is said that benami property has been created, but if no proof is presented in this regard, it will not be a case of property in excess of income, and such a case will be such that the accused will be punished without clear and logical reason. No evidence has been found in this case, which does not exist, and forensic evidence cannot be transferred to the accused. »

During the hearing, the NAB prosecutor requested that the referral of Al-Azizia be returned again to the competent court and, following the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding the same judge and his judge, the decision of the responsible court against Al-Azizia's dismissal said she was biased. The Supreme Court, in its July 28 judgment, did not order the NAB to prepare and submit the reference documents it investigated, which also contain 161 statements.