SHC questions maintainability of Sharjeel’s plea against NAB action

The Sindh High Court on Tuesday questioned the maintainability of a petition filed by former information minister Sharjeel Inam Memon seeking a court injunction against his arrest any time in the future in connection with the National Accountability Bureau’s ongoing inquiries.

The PPP leader, who is living in self-exile in London for over a year now after law enforcement agencies launched a crackdown against politicians and bureaucrats involved in corruption, had moved the SHC for an injunction against any coercive action by NAB. 

His counsel submitted that Memon had been granted anticipatory protective bail that allows him to enter the country through the Karachi airport and surrender by November 7 before the trial court dealing with his corruption reference. 

However, the counsel expressed apprehensions that Memon could be arrested by NAB in other inquiries. To a court query about whether any call-up notices had been issued to the ex-minister, the counsel said that no such notices had been received by the petitioner.  The court observed that Memon’s counsel could not bring on record any material on the basis of which he filed an instant petition requesting the court to restrain NAB from taking coercive action against the ex-minister. 

Subject to maintainability of the petition, the SHC division bench headed by Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto issued notices to NAB and others for November 7.

 

Chief secy’s plea 

The SHC also directed the counsel of the provincial chief secretary to satisfy the court about maintainability of a petition in which he challenged NAB’s decision regarding conversion of an inquiry against him into an investigation.

Sindh CS Siddique Memon was facing an investigation in a case pertaining to regularisation of six acres of land in the corridor area of Scheme 33, Karachi for residential and commercial purpose.

His counsel submitted in the petition that NAB had taken cognisance with regards to allotment and regularisation of the land in question to an individual, Mohammad Ayub. He submitted that allotment of land was cancelled, but later on an application by Ayub, the allotment was regularised in January 2008 by a committee headed by a retired high court judge.

The lawyer submitted that Memon had no involvement in the original allotment, nor was he a member of the committee that autorised the regularisation process, as he was only posted as secretary of the Land Utilisation department. Besides, he submitted, that Memon was not a beneficiary of the said allotment.

He submitted that NAB had also been aware of the regularisation process of the committee as two army officers from the station headquarters and V Corps were also members of the said committee, along with the finance and land utilisation department officials, were members and the process was completed after examination of all relevant records and clarification. 

The court directed the counsel to satisfy the court about the maintainability of the petition, while also calling in comments from NAB’s lawyer, by November 24.