Islamabad, July 8: It is a verdict that has the potential of changing Pakistan's political course but what is glaring that the 174-page verdict on the Avenfield corruption case against former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam is full of glaring mistakes - typos, grammatical and spelling, a report in Pakistan's Express Tribune daily said on Sunday, July 8.
To give an example, while rejecting the argument of the Sharifs' defence that certain mutual legal assistance responses were not admissible, the daily cited the judge Muhammad Bashi as writing: "Response of MLA cannot be brushacite simply on technical grounds ..."
It said the judge perhaps wanted to write "brushed aside".
The Express Tribune report also said that the judge wrote in the judgment "guild" instead of "guilt" and also referred to Maryam's father as "his father".
"While acquitting former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam, and her husband Captain (retd) Safdar of the charge of obtaining the London flats through 'corrupt, dishonest, or illegal means' under Section 9(a)(iv) of the National Accountability Ordinance, the judge left everybody guessing what he actually wanted to say," the report added.
Citing the judge's English errors, the report cited him as writing "The trust deeds are filed to mislead the court and does not prepared on date noted in this deed."
The Avenfield reference was filed by the National Accountability Bureau on September 8 last year and the court started hearing it from September 14.
After proceedings covering almost 10 months and roughly 80 plus appearances made by Sharif, Maryam and her husband Captain Safdar, the defence concluded their final argument in the case on July 3, the Express Tribune report said.
Just two minutes after the defence counsel concluded his argument, the judge said that he would pronounce the judgment on July 6, the report added.
"The abrupt announcement had surprised many as the judge was supposed to sift through thousands of pages produced by the two sides to reach and write down his verdict, which was expected to run in hundreds of pages," the report said.
"And when the day arrived, the judge had to delay the announcement for uncountable times."
"On Friday, it was expected that the verdict would be announced in the morning if the judge was going to dismiss the plea by the Sharifs to delay it for a week."
"When he dismissed that application shortly before 11am, he announced that the judgement would be out at 12:30pm. But at 12:30, the court officials gave the new time of 2:30 and at 2:30 they announced the delay of another half an hour."
"At 3pm, the judge himself explained to the lawyers and the reporters that the judgement was being given final touches and it would take some more time to finalise and print it. It was obvious that the judge and his staff were struggling to meet the timeframe they had set themselves," the Tribune report said.