Assets, bank accounts: Seeking details does not find basis in law, Zardari tells SC

Former President Asif Ali Zardari has told the apex court that seeking details of assets and bank accounts of his late wife and children is arbitrary and ad hoc and does not find basis in law. A three-member bench on August 29, 2018 directed former President Asif Ali Zardari, former Chief of Army Staff Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd) and former Attorney General for Pakistan Malik Abdul Qayyum to file comprehensive statements about their assets and bank accounts as well as of their spouses in the last 10 years.
The court is requested to recall and review the impugned order dated 29-08-2018. The former president in response to the order filed a statement wherein he contended that seeking details of his late wife Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto's assets and bank accounts equates to aiding the petitioner, Syed Feroze Shah Gillani, to conduct "trial of the martyr's grave".
Asif Ali Zardari, who filed his reply through Farooq H Naek, said that seeking an affidavit detailing his assets as well as his deceased wife's and his dependant children's and other persons' has got nothing to do with the case before the apex and the requirement to furnish the same is out of context and against his fundamental rights.
President of Lawyers Foundation for Justice, Feroze Shah Gillani has filed a constitution petition under Article 184(3) of Constitution, regarding recovery of losses suffered by the national exchequer due to the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO).
The former president maintained that the impugned order erroneously shifted the burden of proof to him to prove that he is innocent, which is something that he has done time and again and has been acquitted multiple time on merit. The burden of proof is on the petitioner, which the court has ignored.
The date set by the impugned order 05-10-2007 as the start date for furnishing of financial information of him, his late wife and his dependant children is arbitrary and ad hoc and does not find basis in law.
Asif Zardari stated that time and again false and frivolous cases have been registered against him on account of political inclinations. He stated that in 2007 it was realized by certain political elements that politically motivated cases existed against politicians and it was in no one's benefit to continue with their prosecution.
Therefore, the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), 2007, was promulgated which allowed the withdrawal of cases initiated and instigated on political grounds. In view of that, the cases against him were closed.
However, the Supreme Court set aside the NRO and as a result, the cases against him and other were reopened and proceeded. The eight cases which were prosecuted by the NAB were concluded on merit and the petitioner was acquitted in all the pending cases.
Regarding the case in Swiss Courts, he said that that was closed by Attorney General for Geneva on merit. The Ministry of Law and Justice on the direction of the apex court wrote a letter to Attorney General of Geneva for reopening of the case against him. However, the case remained closed even upon the consideration of the letter of Law Ministry by Swiss authorities.
The former president said that it is evident that no case of causing loss to the public exchequer or looting and plundering national wealth has ever been proved against him in Pakistan or abroad; therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with punitive cost forthwith.
Despite the evident and apparent frivolous nature of the petition, the apex court not only entertained it but sought comprehensive details and information of his assets. He stated that the impugned order runs contrary to the established jurisprudence of Pakistan, adding there is no provision in law which requires a person to disclose all his assets and business activities that he may have conducted over the past decade.
"Even under income tax law, the limitation prescribed for assessments by Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is five years and anything before the same is exempt from assessment," he argued.
According to the section 60 of Election Act, 2017, a candidate is only to furnish a statement of his assets and liabilities for the preceding year, whereas under the impugned order the court directed to file affidavit of his assets covering period from 05-10-2007 till date which is unheard of.
He stated that under the Election law, a candidate is only supposed to furnish details of his spouse and dependent children, while the impugned order is seeking details of his children's assets who are no more dependants. Such practice is unprecedented and does not find basis in any law of land, he stated.