ahlam1399
11-29-2017, 02:00 PM
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned as to why the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) did not opt for proceeding against the Sharif family in Rs1.2 billion Hudaibya Paper Mills case when they were in the country for nine months during the reign of former military dictator Pervez Musharraf.
During the hearing, the NAB was unable to answer various questions asked the court, as the prosecutor himself admitted that he wasn?t fully prepared.
A three-member special bench headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprising Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel heard the appeal filed by NAB against the Lahore High Court judgment delivered in 2014, quashing the Hudaibya Paper Mills reference.
The court asked Imran-ul-Haq ? NAB special prosecutor ?to convince it as to how the respondents ? the Sharif family including Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif ? had influenced the proceedings by quashing the case.
?You have to convince us pertaining to the merit of this instant matter and how the respondents, the Sharif family, managed to influence the case by quashing the said reference. We will then be able to proceed in the matter,? Justice Mushir asked the prosecutor.
Justice Isa asked as to why the anti-graft body did not proceed in nine months against the Sharif family in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case as he said that the reference, according to the special prosecutor, was re-filed on March 27, 2000 whereas the Sharif family was sent in exile on December 10, 2000.
The court observed that as per NAB, the respondents were in the country on March 27, 2000 then why they were not proceeded against in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case. On court query, Imran submitted that the accused returned to the country on November 27, 2007.
The three-member bench also asked whether Nawaz sent abroad or he left the country willingly.
Justice Isa remarked sending some one abroad forcibly and escaping from the court were different things, adding that on whose orders Nawaz was sent abroad and the reference was prepared. The NAB prosecutor said Nawaz was sent abroad on the orders of the then chief executive Pervez Musharraf.
When asked when the accused left the country, Imran said they were exiled in December 2000 and returned to Pakistan in November 2007, adding that they influenced the case in 2014.
?Did you do anything against the respondents,? Justice Isa asked the special prosecutor. ?We filed an application on August 31, 2008,? he replied. Imran contended that the accused had used the Economic Reforms Act to get away with their money laundering, adding that fake forms were prepared for the purpose of money laundering into foreign accounts.
To another question, he said Asif Ali Zardari was the president at that time, saying that the Sharif family influenced the proceedings of Hudaibya Paper Mills case after 2014 and the LHC quashed the reference on different and technical footing.
He submitted that the documents would be produced before the court, if ordered, adding that the [referee judge of the] high court dismissed the reference and restrained the anti-graft body for re-filing it in 2014.
Justice Alam, however, observed that that the referee judge had to side with one of the judges? decisions in the case.
But the prosecutor contended that the referee judge had declared the decision of one of the judges as null and void. He submitted that as the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case was related to Panama Leaks, the anti-graft body filed an appeal against the LHC judgment after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on July 28.
At this, Justice Isa told the prosecutor that the court was hearing the Hudaibya reference, not Panama case. The judge, addressing Imran said, ?Three things are very much important in the matter: firstly, the nature of criminal offence, secondly which clause of Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance is applicable to this matter and thirdly, you did not allege the matter of beyond the source income of the accused?.
To a query, the court was informed that the matter relating to Hudaibya Paper Mills case was mentioned in Volume 8 of the JIT report in the Panama Leaks case. The court then sought the Volume 8 and asked the prosecutor to read Page 195 of it.
When the court asked for the original reference, the special prosecutor replied that he did not have it, to which the court observed that it was necessary for it to have that to proceed with.
Justice Alam remarked what the purpose of the hearing was in the absence of original reference.
The bench directed the Bureau to submit details pertaining to the terms of the NAB chairmen and the procedure of their appointments since the inception of the anti-graft body.
The NAB should also inform the court as to who exercised the influence at that time of appointing a chairman that could influence the proceedings of the Hudaibya case and quashing of reference as well against the accused persons, it added.
The court further directed NAB to inform it as to who was a complainant and what complaint was made in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case. It asked the special to provide copies of the accountability court Rawalpindi, particularly the order passed on August 21, 2008 wherein the case was adjourned sine-die.
Similarly, the court directed that the NAB should also submit a detailed report pertaining to the periods in which the accused remained in public office as well as details relating to the exile and returned of the accused persons.
The court further asked the NAB to inform it as to which provisions of Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance attracted the accused persons.
The court directed the NAB to submit all these details by December 11 and adjourned further proceedings.
The NAB on September 20 had filed an appeal, requesting the apex court to set aside the LHC judgment delivered in 2014, quashing the Hudaibya Paper Mills case through which Nawaz and his family members were acquitted.
Nawaz, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif (late), Hussain Nawaz, Hamza Shehbaz, Shamim Akhtar and Mrs Sabiha Abbas, Mrs Maryam Safdar, Federation and the Accountability Court No IV Rawalpindi judge had been made respondents in the appeal.
The NAB had requested the apex court to examine the legality, propriety and vires of the impugned judgment of March 11, 2014 and hence may be set aside in the interest of justice, fair play and equity, adding that the impugned judgment is not passed in consonance with the dictums laid down by the apex court.
It was contended that the LHC referee judge was not competent to set aside the findings of the high court, in which NAB had been allowed to re-initiate investigations against Sharif family members.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/QVQLcYJI75E
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/QVQLcYJI75E/250253-hudaibya-case-nab-speechless-before-supreme-court)
During the hearing, the NAB was unable to answer various questions asked the court, as the prosecutor himself admitted that he wasn?t fully prepared.
A three-member special bench headed by Justice Mushir Alam and comprising Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel heard the appeal filed by NAB against the Lahore High Court judgment delivered in 2014, quashing the Hudaibya Paper Mills reference.
The court asked Imran-ul-Haq ? NAB special prosecutor ?to convince it as to how the respondents ? the Sharif family including Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif ? had influenced the proceedings by quashing the case.
?You have to convince us pertaining to the merit of this instant matter and how the respondents, the Sharif family, managed to influence the case by quashing the said reference. We will then be able to proceed in the matter,? Justice Mushir asked the prosecutor.
Justice Isa asked as to why the anti-graft body did not proceed in nine months against the Sharif family in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case as he said that the reference, according to the special prosecutor, was re-filed on March 27, 2000 whereas the Sharif family was sent in exile on December 10, 2000.
The court observed that as per NAB, the respondents were in the country on March 27, 2000 then why they were not proceeded against in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case. On court query, Imran submitted that the accused returned to the country on November 27, 2007.
The three-member bench also asked whether Nawaz sent abroad or he left the country willingly.
Justice Isa remarked sending some one abroad forcibly and escaping from the court were different things, adding that on whose orders Nawaz was sent abroad and the reference was prepared. The NAB prosecutor said Nawaz was sent abroad on the orders of the then chief executive Pervez Musharraf.
When asked when the accused left the country, Imran said they were exiled in December 2000 and returned to Pakistan in November 2007, adding that they influenced the case in 2014.
?Did you do anything against the respondents,? Justice Isa asked the special prosecutor. ?We filed an application on August 31, 2008,? he replied. Imran contended that the accused had used the Economic Reforms Act to get away with their money laundering, adding that fake forms were prepared for the purpose of money laundering into foreign accounts.
To another question, he said Asif Ali Zardari was the president at that time, saying that the Sharif family influenced the proceedings of Hudaibya Paper Mills case after 2014 and the LHC quashed the reference on different and technical footing.
He submitted that the documents would be produced before the court, if ordered, adding that the [referee judge of the] high court dismissed the reference and restrained the anti-graft body for re-filing it in 2014.
Justice Alam, however, observed that that the referee judge had to side with one of the judges? decisions in the case.
But the prosecutor contended that the referee judge had declared the decision of one of the judges as null and void. He submitted that as the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case was related to Panama Leaks, the anti-graft body filed an appeal against the LHC judgment after the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on July 28.
At this, Justice Isa told the prosecutor that the court was hearing the Hudaibya reference, not Panama case. The judge, addressing Imran said, ?Three things are very much important in the matter: firstly, the nature of criminal offence, secondly which clause of Section 9 of the NAB Ordinance is applicable to this matter and thirdly, you did not allege the matter of beyond the source income of the accused?.
To a query, the court was informed that the matter relating to Hudaibya Paper Mills case was mentioned in Volume 8 of the JIT report in the Panama Leaks case. The court then sought the Volume 8 and asked the prosecutor to read Page 195 of it.
When the court asked for the original reference, the special prosecutor replied that he did not have it, to which the court observed that it was necessary for it to have that to proceed with.
Justice Alam remarked what the purpose of the hearing was in the absence of original reference.
The bench directed the Bureau to submit details pertaining to the terms of the NAB chairmen and the procedure of their appointments since the inception of the anti-graft body.
The NAB should also inform the court as to who exercised the influence at that time of appointing a chairman that could influence the proceedings of the Hudaibya case and quashing of reference as well against the accused persons, it added.
The court further directed NAB to inform it as to who was a complainant and what complaint was made in the Hudaibya Paper Mills case. It asked the special to provide copies of the accountability court Rawalpindi, particularly the order passed on August 21, 2008 wherein the case was adjourned sine-die.
Similarly, the court directed that the NAB should also submit a detailed report pertaining to the periods in which the accused remained in public office as well as details relating to the exile and returned of the accused persons.
The court further asked the NAB to inform it as to which provisions of Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance attracted the accused persons.
The court directed the NAB to submit all these details by December 11 and adjourned further proceedings.
The NAB on September 20 had filed an appeal, requesting the apex court to set aside the LHC judgment delivered in 2014, quashing the Hudaibya Paper Mills case through which Nawaz and his family members were acquitted.
Nawaz, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif (late), Hussain Nawaz, Hamza Shehbaz, Shamim Akhtar and Mrs Sabiha Abbas, Mrs Maryam Safdar, Federation and the Accountability Court No IV Rawalpindi judge had been made respondents in the appeal.
The NAB had requested the apex court to examine the legality, propriety and vires of the impugned judgment of March 11, 2014 and hence may be set aside in the interest of justice, fair play and equity, adding that the impugned judgment is not passed in consonance with the dictums laid down by the apex court.
It was contended that the LHC referee judge was not competent to set aside the findings of the high court, in which NAB had been allowed to re-initiate investigations against Sharif family members.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/com/cwEr/~4/QVQLcYJI75E
أكثر... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/com/cwEr/~3/QVQLcYJI75E/250253-hudaibya-case-nab-speechless-before-supreme-court)