Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on Monday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case involving allegations of Rs 1.2 billion money laundering against ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his family members.

The review petition filed by NAB’s special prosecutor Imranul Haq requested the court to review its December 15, 2017, verdict as several materials provided by the bureau were overlooked by the court.

Earlier on December 15, 2017, a three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Mushir Alam, Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Mazhar Alam Minakhel had dismissed NAB’s appeal against the Lahore High Court’s 2014 verdict of quashing the Hudaibiya reference against members of the Sharif family.

The review plea argues that the reinvestigation of the Hudaibiya case cannot be stopped, adding that the court ruled on its appeal in three days which was a ‘hasty’ decision. The plea stated that in paragraph 23 of its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court held that former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shehbaz Sharif were “subjected to intensive investigation and by those who would be considered inimical to them”, thus the verdict required to be reviewed in the best interest of justice.

The petition requested the court to review paragraphs 6, 23, 27 and 32 of its judgment and issue notices to the members of the Sharif family who were impleaded as respondents in the case.

It stated that two judges of the apex court had disqualified Nawaz Sharif on April 20, 2017, in the Panama Papers case, whereas three judges had supported formation of a joint investigation team (JIT) which presented its report on July 10, 2017, in the apex court and recommended reopening of the Hudaibiya case.

With regard to former finance minister Ishaq Dar, the plea stated that the court has discarded the statement of Ishaq Dar on wrong premise that it was recorded by a magistrate instead of NAB chairman.

The plea states that it was correctly recorded before the magistrate after grant of pardon by the NAB chairman. It says as per requirement of section 26 of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, and as per prevailing practice of recording of statement of an approver, the statement was correctly recorded before a magistrate, adding that even in ordinary criminal cases, such statement is recorded before a magistrate although it is not required by any specific provision of the CrPC.

“The reference to section 26(e) of NAO 1999 in paragraph No 29 of the judgment under review may be reconsidered for the reasons that: section 26 of NAO 1999 contains two parts. The first part of section 26 (a) (b) of NAO 1999 pertains to tender of the pardon by NAB chairman and recording the statement before him. The second part ie section 26 (d) (e) of NAO 1999 pertains to examination of approver during trial and in case of resiling from conditions of pardon, the proceeding against approver at subsequent trial,” the review plea reads.

It reads that in the original text of Ordinance XVIII of NAO 1999, pardon was/is completed within section 26(a) of NAO 1999, whereas after the amendment made on July 5, 2000 by virtue of Ordinance XXIV of 2000 pardon is/was completed within section 26(a)(b) of NAO 1999.(Clause (c) would not be relevant in the instant case.

It said that the rest of the clauses of Section 26 (d) (e) have no nexus with the grant of pardon and would come into play only if a witness resiles from his disclosure made to the NAB chairman, hence this important provision of law has been overlooked in the judgment under review and on the contrary the wrong interpretation on the subject has been endorsed and approved by the apex court which is an error floating on the surface of the judgment which needs to be rectified.

The plea states that keeping the Hudaibiya reference 2000 adjourned sine die was a collusive arrangement of PPP, PML-N and regime of General Pervez Musharraf and this was the reason that the NAB authorities did not show interest in prosecution of the reference of 2000. “Due to these circumstances it could not be said that after 2007, the regime of General Pervez Musharraf or of the PPP are inimical towards PML-N rather they were instrumental in bringing back Sharif family into the political arena,” the petition argues.

Meanwhile, the NAB took back on Monday its plea in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) challenging the removal of clauses related to submitting false documents from the charge-sheets of Mayram Nawaz and her husband in the Avenfield corruption reference.

Maryam and MNA Capt (r) Safdar are accused, along with other family members, in the Avenfield properties reference filed by NAB in light of the Supreme Court’s Panama Papers case judgment.

As the IHC bench took up the case, NAB counsel informed the court that the bureau was filing a sub-reference in the case. During a hearing of the reference on November 8, 2017, the accountability court had approved Maryam and Safdar’s plea regarding removal of the ‘Calibri font’ reference in their indictment.

Published in Daily Times, January 16^th 2018.