ahlam1399
08-28-2017, 05:10 AM
ISLAMABAD: Hardly any reference to be filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his children Maryam, Hussain and Hassan, son-in-law Capt. (retd) Safdar and Finance Minister Senator Ishaq Dar, is likely to stand strict legal scrutiny if the just announced decision of a Rawalpindi accountability court is any guide.
Judge Khalid Mehmood Ranjha quashed the reference, which had accused former president and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chief Asif Ali Zardari of having assets beyond known means, holding that it was not maintainable as the evidence submitted by NAB was in the form of photostat copies only, which had no legal value and lacked the legal basis.
The fundamental and underlying reason behind trashing the reference is the submission of photostat copies by the anti-graft watchdog. Had the NAB provided original and genuine documents to back up its allegations against Zardari, the accountability court judgment would obviously have been different.
Under the established law, the evidence brought before the court have to be impeccable, beyond an iota of doubt and above reproach to enable the presiding judge to convict the accused. If there are any loopholes, their benefit will go to the arraigned person.The voluminous Panama Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report comprises photostat copies of innumerable unauthenticated, dubious documents, and assumptions, presumptions and allegations without any back up material to prove them.
There is no denying that if the JIT had discovered unimpeachable and flawless documents in support of the charges against the Sharif family, the five judges of the Supreme Court, which formed the bench to hear the Panama case, would have disqualified Nawaz Sharif on their basis.
But it is abundantly evident that none of the four judgments of these justices considered the stuff produced by the JIT as absolutely credible and reliable to declare Nawaz Sharif ineligible as a member of the National Assembly and prime minister. They rather based their July 28 verdict, disqualifying the former premier for not showing in his 2013 general elections nomination papers the un-withdrawn salary from his son’s Dubai-based Capital FZE company.
Importantly, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed, who had ousted Nawaz Sharif through their April 20 dissenting judgments, had done this on the basis of contradictions in the speeches and stances of Nawaz Sharif. By that time, the JIT had not been formed.The other three judges – Justice Ejaz Afzal, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejazul Ahsan – in their majority verdict, also handed on April 20, had created a five-member JIT. However, when this team submitted its report after 60-day long feverish investigations, the judges did not find anything substantial, conclusive or having proved beyond a shadow of doubt, on the basis of which they could penalize Nawaz Sharif or any other respondent. They ordered filing of at least four references against the deposed premier, his children and others on the basis of the material collected and the findings prepared by the JIT, which had already left much to be desired.
Before the accountability court that will be seized with these references, each and every document the JIT included in its report will require absolute verification and corroboration from those who prepared, signed and issued them. Mere photostat copies will be of no consequence and will meet the same fate like those against Zardari. Originals will have to be presented to the court to prove the allegations.The JIT stuff may look excellent to some for propaganda purposes against the Sharif family, but before the accountability court mere hearsay, unverified papers and hurling of accusations will be of no help to the cause to be advanced by the NAB.
The unprecedentedly lengthy time – 19 years – frittered away in reaching the quashment order in the last reference against Zardari is also a dismal reflection on the part of the judicial system particularly the accountability courts, which, under the NAB law, need to decide a case within thirty days. This and other references against Zardari could not be heard for five years – 2008-2013 – as he, being president of Pakistan during this period, was immune from prosecution.
While this reference took fourteen years to be concluded only at the trial stage, it does not include the time to be consumed by appeals, if filed by the NAB, first in the high court and then in the Supreme Court, the highest judicial forum has directed the accountability court to decide all the references against the Sharif family in six months.
The Supreme Court registrar has written a letter to JIT head Wajid Zia, conveying him the order of monitoring judge Justice Ejazul Ahsan that the team members should record their statements before NAB in order to ensure that all legal requirements and formalities are fulfilled.
“I am directed to state that while considering the request of NAB dated August 19, the Hon’able monitoring judge of this court has been pleased to direct that in order to ensure that all legal requirements and formalities are fulfilled and to avoid any possible lacunae that may damage the case, let the head of the JIT and any other concerned members who had collected the relevant evidence … record their statements before NAB,” reads the letter. The words “to avoid any possible lacunae that may damage the case,” occurring in it are very, very important.
In his review petitions, the ousted prime minister raised serious objections to the designation of the Supreme Court judge as the supervising, monitoring and overseeing justice, and claimed that it “is tantamount to arrogating to the” apex court “the role of the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and the court of ultimate appeal all at once, which is repugnant to the very basis of the criminal justice system in Pakistan and a brazen violation of” his and his family members’ fundamental rights to fair trial, equality, life, principle of due process and dignity of man and even the constitutional norm of separation of powers as sanctified by the top court’s innumerable judgments.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/txLR2yLNAJU
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/txLR2yLNAJU/226464-References-based-on-JIT-record-unlikely-to-stand-legal-scrutiny)
Judge Khalid Mehmood Ranjha quashed the reference, which had accused former president and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chief Asif Ali Zardari of having assets beyond known means, holding that it was not maintainable as the evidence submitted by NAB was in the form of photostat copies only, which had no legal value and lacked the legal basis.
The fundamental and underlying reason behind trashing the reference is the submission of photostat copies by the anti-graft watchdog. Had the NAB provided original and genuine documents to back up its allegations against Zardari, the accountability court judgment would obviously have been different.
Under the established law, the evidence brought before the court have to be impeccable, beyond an iota of doubt and above reproach to enable the presiding judge to convict the accused. If there are any loopholes, their benefit will go to the arraigned person.The voluminous Panama Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report comprises photostat copies of innumerable unauthenticated, dubious documents, and assumptions, presumptions and allegations without any back up material to prove them.
There is no denying that if the JIT had discovered unimpeachable and flawless documents in support of the charges against the Sharif family, the five judges of the Supreme Court, which formed the bench to hear the Panama case, would have disqualified Nawaz Sharif on their basis.
But it is abundantly evident that none of the four judgments of these justices considered the stuff produced by the JIT as absolutely credible and reliable to declare Nawaz Sharif ineligible as a member of the National Assembly and prime minister. They rather based their July 28 verdict, disqualifying the former premier for not showing in his 2013 general elections nomination papers the un-withdrawn salary from his son’s Dubai-based Capital FZE company.
Importantly, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Gulzar Ahmed, who had ousted Nawaz Sharif through their April 20 dissenting judgments, had done this on the basis of contradictions in the speeches and stances of Nawaz Sharif. By that time, the JIT had not been formed.The other three judges – Justice Ejaz Afzal, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejazul Ahsan – in their majority verdict, also handed on April 20, had created a five-member JIT. However, when this team submitted its report after 60-day long feverish investigations, the judges did not find anything substantial, conclusive or having proved beyond a shadow of doubt, on the basis of which they could penalize Nawaz Sharif or any other respondent. They ordered filing of at least four references against the deposed premier, his children and others on the basis of the material collected and the findings prepared by the JIT, which had already left much to be desired.
Before the accountability court that will be seized with these references, each and every document the JIT included in its report will require absolute verification and corroboration from those who prepared, signed and issued them. Mere photostat copies will be of no consequence and will meet the same fate like those against Zardari. Originals will have to be presented to the court to prove the allegations.The JIT stuff may look excellent to some for propaganda purposes against the Sharif family, but before the accountability court mere hearsay, unverified papers and hurling of accusations will be of no help to the cause to be advanced by the NAB.
The unprecedentedly lengthy time – 19 years – frittered away in reaching the quashment order in the last reference against Zardari is also a dismal reflection on the part of the judicial system particularly the accountability courts, which, under the NAB law, need to decide a case within thirty days. This and other references against Zardari could not be heard for five years – 2008-2013 – as he, being president of Pakistan during this period, was immune from prosecution.
While this reference took fourteen years to be concluded only at the trial stage, it does not include the time to be consumed by appeals, if filed by the NAB, first in the high court and then in the Supreme Court, the highest judicial forum has directed the accountability court to decide all the references against the Sharif family in six months.
The Supreme Court registrar has written a letter to JIT head Wajid Zia, conveying him the order of monitoring judge Justice Ejazul Ahsan that the team members should record their statements before NAB in order to ensure that all legal requirements and formalities are fulfilled.
“I am directed to state that while considering the request of NAB dated August 19, the Hon’able monitoring judge of this court has been pleased to direct that in order to ensure that all legal requirements and formalities are fulfilled and to avoid any possible lacunae that may damage the case, let the head of the JIT and any other concerned members who had collected the relevant evidence … record their statements before NAB,” reads the letter. The words “to avoid any possible lacunae that may damage the case,” occurring in it are very, very important.
In his review petitions, the ousted prime minister raised serious objections to the designation of the Supreme Court judge as the supervising, monitoring and overseeing justice, and claimed that it “is tantamount to arrogating to the” apex court “the role of the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and the court of ultimate appeal all at once, which is repugnant to the very basis of the criminal justice system in Pakistan and a brazen violation of” his and his family members’ fundamental rights to fair trial, equality, life, principle of due process and dignity of man and even the constitutional norm of separation of powers as sanctified by the top court’s innumerable judgments.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/txLR2yLNAJU
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/txLR2yLNAJU/226464-References-based-on-JIT-record-unlikely-to-stand-legal-scrutiny)