ISLAMABAD: The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) will challenge the accountability court (AC)’s latest decision of acquitting Asif Ali Zardari in SGS and Cotecna cases in the high court as the Bureau finds the judgment flawed and unfair. Top sources in NAB expressed their surprise that how the accountability court could give such a decision in a situation where an inquiry into the earlier acquittals of co-accused of Asif Ali Zardari is already pending before the Lahore High Court (LHC). These sources are also surprised that one of the reasons given for acquittal of PPP’s Co-Chairpersons is the non-availability of the original record of evidence, which, the NAB officials claim, has been misplaced from the custody of the court and not from Bureau’s record. It may be recalled that the record of the Swiss cases was collected by an official who kept it at his home for some time and then reportedly handed it over to NAB. Where has that record disappeared and who was responsible is the key question. Did the trial court ask for that record and if it is not there, then its judgment would have been based on missing data which may be available with other institutions and places. An LHC letter, dated May 6, 2014, which was submitted to the accountability court as well by NAB had confirmed that an inquiry into the acquittal of Asif Ali Zardari’s co-accused by the Rawalpindi Accountability Court was being conducted by Justice Muhammad Anwarul Haq under orders of the LHC’s Administrative Committee. It had added that the inquiry report was still awaited. On April 14, 2014, NAB had approached the LHC registrar to get updated about reported inquiry, ordered by the LHC into these acquittals so that the Accountability Court, Islamabad, could be apprised of this development. It was The News that had reported in 2011 the scandalous nature of judgments passed by the Rawalpindi accountability courts following which the LHC had initiated inquiry against two accountability court judges after an LHC inspection team had endorsed The News report. However, last year letter of the LHC administration to NAB was the first formal confirmation of the inquiry. The News had unearthed the unbelievable fact that in two different NRO corruption cases — SGS and Cotecna — the two judges used similar words, expressions and even paras to acquit all the influential accused. The News report was referred to the inspection team of the LHC, which found “impressions of déjà vu” in the two judgments following which the high court ordered a formal inquiry against the two judges. The two controversial judgments had acquitted Zardari’s co-accused. Although Asif Zardari was not acquitted because he was not facing the trial for being the president, he was otherwise cleared. In para 46 of the SGS judgment, the judge of AC No II ruled, “From statement of PW8, PW16 and PW17, it is quite clear that prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the accused had abused their authority as holder of public office and from statement of these witnesses, it has also been proved that all these three accused had no collusion with M/s SGS. It has also been proved that all these three accused had not received any illegal gratification and under pecuniary advantage in the form of kickbacks/ commission, and they have not caused any loss to public exchequer. Throughout evidence produced by the prosecution, including oral statement of PW1 and PW17, documentary evidence available on record not an iota of reliable and admissible evidence had come on record to prove allegation that M/s SGS had given kickbacks/ commission to the accused and PW13 the IO has also admitted that the accused had no concern with bank account in Geneva relating to the offshore companies. Alleged relationship of Jens Scliglimilch with the accused as his agent has not been proved and relationship of the accused with offshore companies as claimed by the prosecution has also not been proved...” Compare this to para 37 of Cotecna judgment: “From the statements of PW-13 Hafiz Muhammad Jamil Awaisi, PW-10 Khalid Ahmed and PW-14 Javed Talat, it is quite clear that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the accused and AR Siddiqui, in collusion with each other, had abused their authority as holder of public office and from the statement of these witnesses, it has also been proved that all these four accused had no collusion with M/s Cotecna. It is also been proved that all these 4 accused had not received any illegal gratification undue pecuniary benefit in the form of kickback/ commissions and they have not caused any loss to the public exchequer. Throughout evidence produced by the prosecution on record, there is not an iota of trustworthy and admissible evidence has come on record to prove the allegation that M/s Cotecna had given kickbacks/ commissions to the accused, and IO PW-13 has also admitted that the accused had no concern with bank account... offshore company Mariston Securities Inc and Nassam Overseas Inc. The alleged relationship of Jens Scliglimilch with the accused as their agent has also not been proved and relationship of the accused with offshore companies as claimed by the prosecution has also not been proved...” The scandalous similarities and some other controversies relating to the judgements of the Rawalpindi accountability courts had raised many eyebrows. Handed down by the Accountability Court No III of Rawalpindi in 2011, the Cotecna judgment was almost a replica of the SGS case order issued by the Accountability Court No II, Rawalpindi. Not only did both the judgments conclude in the same way but surprisingly contained innumerable similar words, expressions and even paras. In academic terms, this may be considered as a perfect case of plagiarism. Similarities apart, the two judgments on the SGS case and Cotecna case were signed by two different judges of two different courts — the SGS judgment was issued by Accountability Court No II and signed by Judge Mian Altaf Hussain Mahar, whereas the Cotecna case judgment was issued by Accountability Court No III and signed by Judge Jahandar Khan Banth. The SGS case judgment was handed down on July 30, 2011, whereas the Cotecna case order was handed down on September 16, 2011. The similarities between the two judgments were surprising and unbelievable despite the fact that these two references remained separate from the very beginning. Meanwhile, a study of the ARY Gold reference and SGS reference cases’ judgments authored by Mian Altaf Hussain Mahar, Judge Accountability Court No II Rawalpindi, and announced on July 30, 2011 had also exposed some strange anomalies. The most conspicuous of these was the acceptance of former secretary finance and the then executive director World Bank as prosecution witness in the SGS case while the same individual was declared by the same court in the other reference as proclaimed offender.
