Though the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution) guarantees that all citizens are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law, the might of the rich to mould the law to their favour seems to be an “exception” to this fundamental right in a country like Pakistan. Oliver Goldsmith, an Irish novelist, playwright, and poet of the 18th century, rightly wrote in his book ‘The Traveller’, “Laws grind the poor and rich men rule the law”. In power corridors, justice is lost at the demise of truth while the poor suffer at the hands of the law.

The context of the above quotation is concerning the law and how the law is different for those sitting in the corridors of power and those electing them to power. A recent example, prima facie, of such discrimination and demise of the truth is the acquittal of one of the most influential female leaders of the ruling party in a famous corruption case. Against the settled laws and Supreme Court judgements is the acquittal of PML-N leader Maryam Safdar and her spouse Mohammad Safdar in the Avenfield Reference as the Islamabad High Court set aside the conviction handed down by an accountability court four years ago. Now, it is expected that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) shall half-heartedly file an appeal against the acquittal of the PML-N leaders. It is admitted fact that in Hudabya’s case of the same family, NAB had not challenged the order of the Honourable Lahore High Court in appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court. Later on, while hearing the Panama Case, it was brought to the notice of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the appeal at the belated stage was filed which had to fail, on the point of limitation.

In July 2018, the Accountability Court sentenced Maryam and Safdar to prison besides imposing a fine of two million pounds on the former. Later, they were released on bail upon suspension of sentence, whilst their appeals were pending. A two-member bench, comprising Mr Justice Aamer Farooq and Mr Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani overturned the July 2018 verdict in the Avenfield properties corruption reference and declared: “For the reasons to be recorded later, the instant appeal is allowed,” and the judgement consisting of 173 Pages dated 06.07.2018 was set aside. On 06.07.2018, an Accountability Court announced the verdict in the Avenfield properties corruption reference (Reference No.20/2017 Avenfield Appeal No.16, 16A, 17, 17A) and handed Nawaz Sharif 10 years as jail time for owning assets beyond known income. His daughter, Maryam, was given 7 years for abetment after she was found “instrumental in concealment of the properties of her father”. Nawaz’s son-in-law, Safdar was given 1 year of jail time for aiding and abetting Nawaz and Maryam.

NAB had filed the reference regarding the high-end properties in London whilst acting upon the apex court’s directives in the Panamagate verdict that had disqualified Nawaz as the premier of Pakistan in terms of Articles 62(1(f) of the Constitution. In addition to Nawaz, Maryam, and Safdar, NAB had also nominated Hussain Nawaz and Hassan Nawaz as accused in all three corruption references. In October 2021, Maryam filed a new application before the Islamabad High Court seeking annulment of that verdict. She stated in the application that the proceedings that resulted in her conviction were a “classic example of outright violations of law and political engineering hitherto unheard of in the history of Pakistan”. Hearing the latter application, Honourable Mr Justice Kiyani declared that the opinion of the investigating officer could not be considered as evidence. The judge remarked, “The joint investigation team did not present any facts, it just collected information.” Mr Justice Farooq of the Islamabad High Court termed the NAB prosecutor “absolutely wrong” in saying that the determination of value was irrelevant.

The remarks made by Mr Justice, Farooq speak volumes about the rule of law by the rich in the country, “If they admit while standing in the rostrum that they owned the properties, even then the prosecution has to prove [the case against them]” But the fact is that a complete record of the Sharif family’s properties abroad has already been made part of the judicial record. As per the JIT report submitted in the Panamagate case, the Sharifs gave contradictory statements about their London flats. It was found that the flats belonged to the Sharif family since 1993. The report said Hassan Nawaz had contradicted the statement of his brother Hussain Nawaz regarding the Avenfield apartments. The former had earlier stated that only apartment No. 17 was in his possession in 1994, their statements are a part of the record. The Panamagate proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court on a constitutional petition filed by Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI) Chairman and deposed prime minister Imran Khan in October 2016. Imran had sought the disqualification of then-premier Nawaz Sharif on account of not disclosing his London properties. According to the PTI Chief, Nawaz was the real beneficiary of the London properties.

On 20.04.2017, in a judgement, reported as, PLD 2017 SC 265, a larger bench of the apex court formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to conduct an inquiry into the purchase of Avenfield apartments by the Sharif family. The petition sought the disqualification of then prime minister Nawaz Sharif for acquiring wealth and assets through corrupt and illegal practices and misuse of authority and indulging in money laundering. The Supreme Court Bench had sought fortnightly reports about its probe. On 10.07.2017, the JIT submitted its final report with new revelations related to the Sharif family’s business affairs. On 28.07.2017, the Court, after viewing the documents, disqualified Nawaz for a lifetime, in terms of Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution, and ordered NAB to file four references against the Sharif family. The Supreme Court ordered NAB to prepare and file before the Accountability Court references based on the material having any nexus with assets beyond means within six weeks. Against the judgment, dated 28.07.2017, passed by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, review petitions were filed by Nawaz Sharif and others. However, the larger bench headed by Mr Justice Asif Saeed Khosa dismissed the review petitions, on 15.09.2017 (PLD 2018 SC 1).