The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the review petitions of former President Asif Ali Zardari and others in the fake bank accounts case and said the apprehensions and presumptions of parties have no connection with the court order dated 07-01-19. Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, heading a three-judge bench which heard the review petitions, said: "Today whatever has been argued [by the counsels] is not stated in the order [07-01-19] but is mere apprehension."
The Chief Justice observed that still the investigation have not been started and even the call notices are not issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) but the petitioners, albeit they claim they have nothing to do with the billion of rupees recovered from the fake accounts, have challenged the order dated January 7, 2019. "When you deny that the accounts are not yours then what is the problem? Let the NAB probe the matter," he asked the lawyers of the petitioners.
Former President of Pakistan and Co-Chairperson PPP Asif Ali Zardari, his sister Faryal Talpur, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah, Sindh government through Advocate General, Chairman Omni Groups Kh Anver Majeed and his son Abdul Ghani Majeed, Tahir Rasheed and Nadeem had challenged the apex court 7th January order.
The main objections of almost all the parties were why the matter is referred to NAB, why it is transferred from Sindh to Islamabad and why the Supreme Court is controlling the investigation. They prayed to constitute the larger bench. However, after hearing the arguments, all the review petitions were dismissed.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, a member of bench said the matter is now referred to the NAB and if it considers e appropriate to conduct any further or additional probe, inquiry or investigation involving the matter, it shall be free to do so at Islamabad. "How can we interfere in the NAB investigation?" he added.
The Chief Justice noted, "Under Article 190 of Constitution, all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court," adding the matter is referred to the NAB for further investigation.
Advocate Sardar Latif Khan Khosa, representing Asif Ali Zardari, contended if the references are filed in Islamabad then the accused would have to come to Karachi and it would cause many hardships for them.
Justice Khosa said in the previous order, the director general FIA informed the court that the investigations officers are being harassed in Sindh therefore the investigation should be transferred to Islamabad, adding nothing happened without the background of the case.
Justice Ijaz stated billions of rupees were transferred in the accounts of 'qulfiwala' (ice cream seller) and the courier. He said a lady from Karachi in whose account millions of rupees were transferred told this court when she informed the FIA about it, she was picked up by Karachi police and was unlawfully kept in police station and harassed. Therefore, the Rangers were directed to provide protection to the investigators.
The Chief Justice noted that under Section 16(d) National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 the chairman NAB in view of the facts and circumstance may file a reference before any court anywhere in Pakistan. He said the petitioners have remedy to move an application before the competent forum (chairman NAB) for transfer of case as they have not directed NAB to conduct investigation in Islamabad.
Justice Ijaz pointed out that during the proceedings of the case, all the parties had conceded that the apex court has jurisdiction under Article 184 (3) of Constitution, and no one objected to the constitution of Joint Investigation Team, and after the filing of JIT report consented that the matter should be referred to the NAB. "We have been very careful in dictating this order," he maintained.
Advocate Khosa contended when the FIA after investigation had filed the challan in the banking court why the matter is being referred to NAB as it has no jurisdiction in this case. He said that it was not the ISI job to conduct investigation of the financial matters besides that the officials of ISI were included in the JIT.
Justice Ijaz said it is white-collar crime and entire network needs to be investigated. He asked Sardar Khosa to point out the errors floating on the surface of the judgement as there is limited scope in review and they can't reopen or re-hear the whole case.
All the counsels pleaded this case is of Sindh and the entire record and the witnesses are in Sindh then why it was asked that references be filed in Islamabad/Rawalpind. Justice Ijaz said that the DG FIA had told the court the record was deliberately held from the investigation team. Zardari's counsel, however, denied this and said the Sindh government had provided all the material relating to case to the JIT.
Farooq H Naek, appearing on behalf of Faryal Talpur, argued that the directions in para 35 of the order dated 07-01-19 are in excess of the jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of Constitution. He said the court has endorsed the acts of the JIT. He also objected to the transfer of investigation to the NAB and denied that money in the fake accounts is of his client. "I am not asking that I (Faryal) should not be probed, but should be done within the parameters of the law."
Naek argued that even if it was necessary to transfer the investigation then it could held in Sukkur or any other city of Sindh why it has to be held in Islamabad. Justice Khosa responded that the NAB has jurisdiction all over the country then why couldn't the investigation be held in Islamabad.
Advocate Munir Bhatti, representing Omni Group, said an FIR was lodged by FIA for the same case and inquiry was made then it was closed. He questioned why then in July 2018 the court took suo motu notice of the same matter and when FIA submitted challan in the banking court, the apex court decided to refer the case to NAB.
Advocate General Sindh Talib Hussain said that the Sindh government has cooperated with the JIT and provided it all the relevant material regarding the case. Justice Khosa said there is no observation against the Sindh government then why it has filed review against the order.
The advocate general said in para 35 of 7th January the Chief Minister's name is removed from the ECL, but not from the JIT report. The court observed that the JIT finding is not binding on the Sindh government and NAB if it deemed to probe and if the case is made out then proceed. The court gave same observation about the Bilawal Bhutto Zardari case. After hearing all the parties, the court dismissed the appeals.
Comments
Comments are closed.