AGL 40.74 Increased By ▲ 0.71 (1.77%)
AIRLINK 128.34 Increased By ▲ 0.64 (0.5%)
BOP 6.68 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.06%)
CNERGY 4.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.3%)
DCL 9.18 Increased By ▲ 0.39 (4.44%)
DFML 41.70 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.29%)
DGKC 87.00 Increased By ▲ 1.21 (1.41%)
FCCL 32.68 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (0.58%)
FFBL 64.56 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (0.83%)
FFL 11.61 Increased By ▲ 1.06 (10.05%)
HUBC 112.49 Increased By ▲ 1.72 (1.55%)
HUMNL 14.95 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.8%)
KEL 5.03 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (3.07%)
KOSM 7.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-2.01%)
MLCF 40.70 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.44%)
NBP 61.60 Increased By ▲ 0.55 (0.9%)
OGDC 196.50 Increased By ▲ 1.63 (0.84%)
PAEL 27.56 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.18%)
PIBTL 7.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.28%)
PPL 154.20 Increased By ▲ 1.67 (1.09%)
PRL 26.87 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (1.09%)
PTC 16.40 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.86%)
SEARL 83.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.31%)
TELE 7.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.51%)
TOMCL 36.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.41%)
TPLP 8.93 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (3.12%)
TREET 17.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-3.17%)
TRG 59.20 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (0.99%)
UNITY 27.90 Increased By ▲ 1.04 (3.87%)
WTL 1.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-3.62%)
BR100 10,131 Increased By 131.1 (1.31%)
BR30 31,316 Increased By 313.5 (1.01%)
KSE100 95,182 Increased By 990 (1.05%)
KSE30 29,536 Increased By 335.1 (1.15%)

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed National Accountability Bureau's (NAB's) review petition against its judgment in the Hudaibiya Papers Mills case. Despite repeated questions by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Mushir Alam that heard the NAB review petition, the Special Prosecutor General (SPG) NAB failed to point out specifically the errors in the apex court's judgement in the Hudaibiya Mills case.
The short order said: "We heard the arguments of the NAB prosecutor extensively. However no ground was made for review and, therefore, it is dismissed." Justice Qazi Faez Isa, a member of the bench, questioned if there is anything wrong factually which requires the correction. He said if the charge is not framed by the NAB against an accused then he (accused) would wait for it for 30 years. Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel asked SPG Imranul Haq what had debarred the NAB to frame the charge against the accused [Sharif family].
Justice Faez said the offence took place in 1992, while the NAB woke up in 2000 and filed a reference, but the charges could not be framed though the country was ruled by military dictator and the then NAB chief was also a retired general. Justice Mazhar noted that the reference was filed in Accountability Court in 2000 and till 2001, there was no proceeding of the case, adding the NAB sought adjournment for an indefinite time and the case was restored in 2007 and again there were no proceeding of the case till the time Nawaz Sharif filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court in 2012.
The SPG said allegations against the accused were of corruption, dishonesty and unlawful use of the authority. Justice Faez said: "You [NAB] can make any allegation under the sun but you have to specifically provide the evidence of the allegations." The prosecutor then read paras 29 to 31 of the impugned judgement.
NAB Prosecutor Imranul Haq also sought from the court to expunge paras 6, 23 and 26 of the judgment. Justice Mushir Alam said the NAB instead of seeking to review the paras is praying the court to expunge them. Justice Faez remarked; "You [NAB] are fighting someone else's battle."
Justice Faez observed: "The NAB is seeking expungement of those paras in which former Army Chief Pervez Musharraf has been mentioned." These are just the factual narration and there is no insinuation against the NAB," remarked Justice Mushir Alam.
The prosecutor then argued that the judgement in the Panama Leaks case had directed the NAB regarding the Hudaibiya Mills case. However, the bench noted if the apex court had ordered the NAB to proceed against the persons nominated in the Hudaibiya case then why it took no action so far. Justice Faez questioned if it was self-executing order then why NAB filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The NAB in its appeal had cited the management of Hudaibiya Mills Ltd, Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif, Abbas Sharif, Hussain Nawaz, Hamza Shahbaz, Shahmim Akhtar, Sabiha Abbas and Maryam Nawaz as respondents. It had made federation, through law secretary, and judge of Rawalpindi Accountability Court No IV as pro forma respondents.
In the judgement, the court noted with grave concern the lack of commitment and earnestness on part of NAB at the relevant time. "NAB did not produce the accused in court; NAB did not seek to have charges framed against them; NAB did not examine a single witness, and tender evidence; NAB sought innumerable adjournments; NAB sought the reference to be indefinitely (sine die) adjourned," the judgment read. It further said that for over four years NAB chairman did not submit an application for the restoration/revival of the reference. And when the chairman did submit such an application, it was not pursued.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2018

Comments

Comments are closed.