ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed all the review petitions filed by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) as well as Omni Group in the fake accounts case with the observation that transactions worth billions of rupees were made through benami accounts which cannot be ignored.
Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa observed that the review petitions were filed on the basis of mere apprehension and 99.9 percent arguments of the review petitions relate to which they (court) have not said.
The chief Justice said the court had not yet determined anything but has just transmitted the matter to legal entity, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), to proceed in accordance with law and if it found any cognisable offence then file a reference against the persons involved in.
“How can we ignore transactions worth billions of rupees made through benami accounts,” the chief justice questioned, adding that if anybody says they have nothing to do with any fake accounts or holding such accounts, they have nothing to worry, but will have to prove it in a court of law.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Ijazul Ahsen heard review petitions filed by former president Asif Ali Zardari, his son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, sister Faryal Talpur and Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah as well Omni Group Chairman Anwar Majeed etc. in the fake accounts case.
Sardar Latif Khosa, counsel for Asif Zardari, Farooq H Naek, counsel for Faryal Talpur, Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for Murad Ali Shah, Shahid Hamid, counsel for Anwar Majeed and his son Abdul Ghani Majeed, Munir A Bhatti, counsel for Omni Group, and Khalid Javed, counsel for Bilawal, presented their arguments while Salman Talibuddin, Advocate General Sindh, also appeared before the court.
Latif Khosa filed a separate plea on the former president’s behalf for constitution of a larger bench and submitted that the matter was discussed on the occasion of the former chief justice’s full court reference, and the attorney general, Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) as well as the Supreme Court had given their respective opinions on it. The court asked the counsel to concentrate on law points that could be applicable for review. The counsel questioned what would be parameters and criteria of exercising the power of Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Latif Khosa contended that the court had directed the NAB to transfer the case from Karachi to Islamabad despite the fact that all the respondents are in Karachi. Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa said that the counsel has the remedy available under Section 16(a) and (b) of the NAB Ordinance wherein he can file an application, however, he clarified that the court did not restrict the NAB’s investigation to Islamabad saying that the NAB and FIA can carry out its work across the country.
The counsel contended that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) has already started the investigation in the matter and had also presented a challan as well so there was no need of referring the matter to the NAB.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen recalled that the DG FIA had told the court that as they did not have the people having expertise in dealing with white-collar crimes, therefore, the court referred the matter to the NAB. The chief justice noted that the court tasked the JIT to give its findings in the matter after which the court referred the matter to the NAB for further probe.
“Whether it is not within the apex court mandate to issue directives to the investigating agencies to probe the transfer of billions of rupees through fake accounts,” the CJP questioned.
Latif Khosa contended that the FIA is competent to deal with such nature of cases and can point out and find out experts people itself.
“If the FIA is not able to do this then it should be disbanded,” Latif Khosa contended.
He further raised objection over inclusion of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Intelligence Bureau (IB) in the JIT. “Let them do their job and they should not have been included in the JIT,” Latif Khosa contended.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that all state institutions are under obligation and required to assist the court under Article 190 of the Constitution.
“Under Article 190, we can issue such directions,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen added.
Farooq H Naek also raised objection over the transfer of cases from Karachi to Islamabad and submitted that all the respondents are the inhabitants of Karachi while the incident relates to Karachi, then why it was transferred to Islamabad.
Justice Khosa observed that the jurisdiction of NAB spans over the whole country and it was not specifically restricted to Islamabad. He further elaborated that the jurisdiction of a particular police station is restricted only to its area, but the NAB can function within the whole country. Shahid Hamid also raised similar objections. Meanwhile, the court dismissed all the review petitions.