ISLAMABAD: In an interesting turn of events, four witnesses against former Chairman SECP Zafarul Haq Hijazi in record tampering case including Tahir Mehmood and Abid Hussain approached Islamabad High Court seeking to implead them as party to the case against Hijazi however; the IHC has dismissed their plea.
Mr Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani while hearing the application filed by Mr. Hijazi to quash the FIR against him in the record tampering case observed after hearing the federation, Zafar Hijazi may present his explanation.
The court said why said officials (who were the prosecution's witnesses against Mr Hijazi) have lodged complaint before the Court while in criminal proceedings it is the state which is a necessary party. The said SECP officials in their applications asserted against the Special Court that granted bail and termed that the Special Judge while granting bail to Zafarul Haq Hijazi has fell in error while passing the judgement. The Honorable Judge of Islamabad High Court dismissed their applications and fixed the case for arguments.
Earlier, the Special Judge (Central) had observed in her order that the said SECP officials were "sailors of the same boat". In her order while granting the bail to former chairman SECP, the Special Judge observed, “At this stage a deeper appreciation of evidences cannot be given, however tentative look at the above evidences shows that the closure note of backdate was made after meetings, full of discussions amongst Ms. Maheen Fatima, Tariq Ahmed, Ali Azeem, Tahir Mahmood and Abid Hussain, as these persons also signed the same likewise accused/applicant. All of them are sailors of the same boat. Other than statements of officers who signed the same alleged closure note in back date, independent corroborative piece of evidence is. needed. It is yet to be ascertained that either such alleged undue influence and pressure was made by accused/applicant or said closure note was made with consensus, which needs consideration and makes it a case of further inquiry”.
These SECP officials including Tahir Mahmood and Abid Hussain had taken the plea that “The learned Special Judge while granting bail to Mr. Hijazi fell in error. The said officials also pleaded in their application that Mr. Hijazi has close affinity and relationship within the present political setup. It is also indeed clear that the beneficiaries of the criminal act committed in the matters of Chaudhary Sugar Mills Limited (CSML) seek to support and protect the mentioned individual and thus the state may not provide proper assistance to this honorable court for the purpose of insuring that the process of this honorable court is not abused”.
Honorable Judge Kiyani questioned the counsel that why these officials did never complained earlier or became whistle blower but now seemed extremely interested in becoming a party to this case now?
On the other hand, Hijazi in his application had stated that the proceedings against Chaudhary Sugar Mills Limited were initiated, conducted and withdrawn by the concerned officials of SECP prior to his appointment as chairman. Moreover, he had pleaded that the FIA had conducted the investigation based on malafide to falsely implicate him and that there was no evidence against him except the statements of the SECP officials who had primarily involved in the illegal act and responsible for the offence. Ms. Erum Niazi, Special Judge had also observed in her order that "other than the statements of officers who signed the same alleged closure note in backdate, independent corroborative piece of evidence is needed".
It is pertinent to mention here that the said SECP officials were prosecution witnesses in the record tampering case but now they have attempted to become active party to the case which is quite rare. However, it is yet to be seen as to what weight such SECP officials will carry in the court of law as witness against Mr. Hijazi especially after the fact that they have attempted to become an active party to the case while the Special Judge had remarked that these SECP officials were sailors of the same boat. The case has now been fixed for arguments on November 8, 2017.