Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday raised questions over the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) failure to probe confessional statement of incumbent Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.

The NAB had filed a reference in the accountability court against alleged money laundering by the Sharif family. The matter was challenged in the Lahore High Court (LHC) but due to difference of opinion in the divisional bench, the matter was sent to referee judge Sardar Shameem who subsequently quashed the reference.

In the same case, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar had stated before a magistrate in 2000 that the Sharif brothers had laundered money in the cover of Hudaibiya Paper Mills in the 90s.

Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, heading the five-judge larger bench hearing the Panamagate case, observed that the top court may have a precedent, like it accepted the appeal assuming jurisdiction of Article 184 (3) after the NAB failed to file an appeal against LHC’s order in former Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) chairman Tauqeer Sadiq’s case.

He further observed that the reference of Hudaibiya Paper Mills was quashed by the LHC because there was no proper investigation, but the ‘worth’ of Dar’s statement still holds.

“We can call the NAB chairman and ask him why he did not fulfil his responsibilities,” Justice Khosa observed.

He also remarked that the responsibility was upon the counsel for the petitioner (PTI) to either separate the two cases or let them be heard simultaneously.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that if the two cases were clubbed then the Panamagate case would become unclear.

These observations came when Naeem Bukhari, the counsel for the PTI, cited the confessional statement of now Finance Minister Ishaq Dar in Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, saying that the NAB chairman should be summoned and asked as to why he had not challenged the decision of the LHC. He said that the chairman wilfully restrained himself from exercising his powers of filing an appeal. He further argued that a reference must be filed against the chairman in the Supreme Judicial Council. “There should have been an appeal against the decision… the NAB chairman showed connivance,” observed Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, another member of the bench.

However, Justice Khan told the counsel for the PTI that this court would not be able to hear Panamagate case under Article 184 (3) if the reference or appeal was filed to reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case, because the instant case would be subject to the outcome of that matter.

The larger bench expressed its displeasure over the counsel for the PTI for not substantially establishing the London flats’ ownership before 2006 and diverting the attention of the larger bench. “First, you spoke about London flats and now, you have jumped towards the confessional statement of Ishaq Dar on the mills,” observed Justice Khosa. Justice Sh Azmat Saeed told Bukhari that he did not have a single scrap of paper to establish the Sharif family’s ownership of the London flats in the 90s. The court observed that it would look into legal implications rising in view of contradictory statements made by the Sharif family before the nation, parliament and the Supreme Court.